Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 162 /Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart B-Management of Wild FreeRoaming Horses and Burros"

5. The Authority citation for Subpart B.

reads as follows:

Authority: 85 Stat. 649, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1331-1340); sec. 1, 30 Stat. 35, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 551); sec. 32,.50 Stat, 522; as amended (7U.S.C. 1011]; 92 Stat. 1803 (43

U.S.C. 1901 note).

6. Section 222.29(e) is revised as

follows: , -

§ 222.29 Relocation and disposal of

animals. ,

(e) The applicants -must make written

application for title and/or adoption-and

must be of legal ageim the State in

which they reside.,Humane conditions,

treatment and care must have been.

provided for no less than one year

preceding the filing of the application for

title. Unless waived'in writing, the

application for title shall include a

written statement by a licensed

veterinarian attesting that the animal is

In good condition.

Subpart C-Grazing Fees

The authority citation for Subpart C

reads as follows: ,

Authority:.Sec. 1, 30 Stat. 35 as amended-

(16 U.S.C. 551; sec.-501, 65 Stat. 290, 31 U.S.C.

483a; 92 Stat. 1803, 43 U.S.C. 1901, note).

8. Section 222.50'(c) and (h) are

revised.

§ 222.50 General procedures.

(c) A grazing fee shall be charged for

each animal month of grazing or

livestock use. An animal month, except

for sheep or goats, is a month's use and

occupancy of range by one animal. A'

full animal month's feeas charged for a

month of grazing by adult ammals; if the

grazing animal is.weaned or 6 months 6f

age or older at the time of entering

National Forest System lands; or will.

become 12 months of-age during-the

permitted period- of use. For fee

purposes 5 sheep or goats, weaned or

adult, are equivalent to one cow, bull,

steer, heifer, horse, or mule.

(h) Unauthorized grazing-use rate will

be determined by establishing a base

value without giving consideration for'

those contributions normally made lb,

the permittee underterms of thegrazing

permit. The basewill be adjusted

annually by the same indexes used to

adjust the regular fee. This rate-will also

apply to excesS number of-livestock

grazing by permittees; to livestock -,- -

grazed outside the-permitted grazing

season; or to livestock grazed under an

unvalidated permit.

John B. Crowell, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources

Environment.

August 3,1981. 1FR Dec. 81-24393 Filed 8-20-,& 845 am]

BILLWNG CODE 3410-11-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY-,

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL 1861-6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin, Calif., Nonattainment

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice bf Final Rulemaking.

SUMMARY. On September 15, 1980 (45 FR

60931], the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) published a notice of

proposed rulemaking concerning the San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin nonattamment

area Ilan (NAP). The September 15,1980

notice addressed the Kern County

nonattainment area for ozone, carbon

monoxide 'CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)'

and the San Joaquni Valley Air Basin

nonattamment area for particulate

mtfter (PM). The September 15, 1980

notice proposed to conditionally

approve the NAP for both of these areas

because it contained only minor '

deficiencies with respect to Part D of the

Clean Air Act, "Plan Requirements for

Nonattainment Areas." The State has

-initiated the process to submit the

material to correct these mnor

deficiencies. Therefore, EPA is

conditionally approving the San Joaqin

Valley Air Basin NAP for the Kern

County. nonattainment area and portions

of-the NAP for the San Joaqum Vplley

Air Basin nonattainment area for PM.

This actionremoves the prohibition on

construction of major new or modified

sources m Kern County.

This notice also provides a brief

summary-of the proposed rulemakmg'

notice,, describes recent revisions which

supplement the NAP, discusses public

comments received, specifies deadlines

by which the State is required -to submit

-the materials to correct the minor

deficiencies, and describes EPA's final

actions on the NAP.,

DATE: This action is effective August 21,

1981.

ADDRESS: A copy of todays~revisionto

the California State Implementation,

Plan (SIP) is located at: The Office of the

Federal Register, 1100 "L" Street NW,,

Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louise P Giersch, Director, Air and

Hazardous Materials Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Attn: Douglas

Grano, (415) 556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Clean AirAct, as amended In

1977,requires states to revise their SiPs

for all areas that have not attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). On October 11, 1979, the

Executive Officer of the California Air

Resources Board'(ARB}, the Governor's

official designee, submitted revisions to

the California SIP for the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin consisting of a control

strategy and regulations for ozone, CO,

SO, and. PM. These revisions, which

-comprise the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin NAP, are intended to provide for

the attainment of the ozone, CO, SO2,

and the PM NAAQS in the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin.

On September 6, 1980 (45 FR 58897),

EPA published a proposed rulemaking

notice for Fresno, Kings, Madera,

.Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and

Tulare Counties, which are part of the

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. That

notice proposed, among other things, to

conditionally approve the NSR rules for

each of these seven counties.

On September 15, 1980 (45 FR 60931),

EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for the Kern County

nonattinment area for ozone, CO, and

SO and the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin nonattainment area for PM, That

notice should be used as a reference in

reviewing today's notice. The September

15,1980"notice provided a description of

the NAP for these two areas,

summarized the-applicable Clean Air

Act requirements into 14 criteria,

compared that portion of the NAP for

these two areas to those criteria, and

proposed to approve and conditloAally

approve portions of the NAP for these

two areas. EPA's proposed actions in

the September 15, 1980 notice are

described below.

EPA proposed to approve the

following portions of the NAP for the

Kern County nonattaminent area for

ozone, CO, and SO and the San Joaquin

Valldy Air Basin nonattainment area for

PM because they were found to be

consistent with Part D of the Clean Air

Act.

42450

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42450 1981
Federal Register / Vol. 46, NO. 162 / Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Kern County NonattainmentAreo

Ozone: Emissions growth, annual

reporting, public and government

involvement, and public hearing

requirements.

Carbon Monoxide: Emissions

inventory, modeling, reasonable further

progress (RFP], annual reporting, public

dnd government involvement, and"

public hearing requirements.

Sulfur Dioxide: Emissions inventory,

legally adopted measures, resources,

annual reporting,. public and government

involvement, and public hearing

requirements.

San Joaquin ValleyAIrBasin

Nonattamment Area_

Particulate Matter: Emission

reduction estimates, emissions growth,

public and goverinent involvement,

and public hearing.

EPA also proposed to conditionally

approve the following portions of the

NAP for the Kern County nonattamment

area for ozone, CO and SO. and the San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin nonattamment

area for PM because they were found to

contain minor deficiencies with iespect

to Part D. These portions of the NAP

were proposed to be approved with the

condition that each deficiency be

corrected by a specified deadline.

Kern County Nonattainment Area

Ozone: Emission inventory, modeling,

emission reduction etiimates,

attainment, RFP,'legally adopted

measures, resources, and permit

program. -

Carbon Monoxide: Enssion reduction

estimates, attainment, legally adopted

measures, resources, and permit

program.

Sulfur Dioxide: Modeling, emission

reduction estimates, attainment, RFP,

emissions growth, and permit program.

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Nonattamment Area

Particulate Matter: Emission

inventory, modeling, attainment, RFP,

legally adopted measures, annual

reporting, permit program, and

resources.

As noted m the September 15,1980

notice, approval or conditional approval

of all portions of the NAP is sufficient to

lift the-current prohibition on

construction of majpr new or modified

sources. Therefore, EPA proposed to

conditionally approve theKern County

portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin-NAP and remove the construction

ban in te September 15, 1980 notice.

Public Comments

During the public comment period,

EPA received several comments. The

comments are specific to Kern County's

NSR rules and to certain proposed

conditions of approval. In addition, EPA

has received national comments wuch

may apply generally to tlus action. Each

of the points raised by the commenters

and EPA's responses follow.

I. Comments Specific to NSR

The California Air Resources Board

(ARB] submitted comments on EPA's

assessment of the New Sodrce Review

(NSR) rules addressed in several

rulemakmg notices on Nonattamment

Plans (NAP's). ARB asked EPA to

consider the comments when taking

final rulemaking action on those NAP's,

mclhding tlus one. In its comments ARB

referred in some cases to EPA's new

NSR regulations issued on August 7,

1980. Local rules are required to meet

these new requirements by May 7,1981.

Tins makes the comments somewhat

confusing, because EPA's evaluation of

the NSR rules was done based on the

existing criteria from 1979, rather than

the ones wich are taking effect for new

rules. In responding, EPA has noted

where its new criteria differ from those

the local rules were evaluated against

and has pointed out other new

requirements relevant to the issues

addressed here.

Commen ARB commented that EPA

has looked too closely at specific

provisions of rules and should have

looked at the rules' overall stringency,

instead. It claims that considered in

whole the rules are at least as stringent

as EPA requires.

Response: EPA does consider that

more stringent criteria than EPA calls

for in one area can compensate to some

extent for weaker provisions in other

areas. Andihere are some aspects of

these localrules which are excellent in

regulating siationary sources. However,

EPA has only limited discretion under

the Clean Air Act and its own

regulations. Part'D of the Clean Air Act

sets forth a preconstruction review

procedure for nonattamment areas that

is relatively detailed and mandatory in

significant aspects. As a result, the

governing Part D NSR rules clearly limit

the approvability of State NSR programs

that offer overall program equivalency

and equal or greater capture of

emissions, but which differ from 40 CFR

Part 51 on individual components of the

rule. Notably, the nonattamment

provisions require that SIPs contain

individual defiitions that are as

stringent as those in the federal

regulations, 40 CFR 51.18)(1). Once

these definitions are included, important

issues such as applicability are fixed.

The preamble emphasizes tlus approach.

requiring that State plans be identical to

or individually more stringent than the

corresponding 40 CFR 51.18 regulations

(45 FR 52726). While the Act limits State

flexibility in terms of permit

applicability, some flexibility exists as

to who must offset and to what extent.

That is, States can opt to exempt certain

sources from the offset requirements

provided the plan can accommodate the

new emissions within its demonstration

of RFP and attainment. The limits of

EPA's discretion are reflected in the

responses to other comments.

Comment: In its Evaluation Report,

EPA pointed to the definition of "stationary source" as a deficiency. EPA

requires that the rules restrict use of

emission reductions from within a plant

to avoid NSR requirements. Where a

major unit is modified and will increase

emissions significantly, reductions from

other units may notbe used to avoid

exceeding the significance levels which

trigger NSR. As ARB acknowledges,

these rules do not satisfy EPA's criteria.

However, ARB argues that other

provisions in the rules compensate for

this less stringent provision. ARB points

out that the rules regulate some new

sources which fall below EPA's new

minimum criteria and some

modifications to existing sources which

are below EPA's minmum cut-off.

Response: EPA does not accept ARE's

argument. EPA's regulations state that

"Deviations from the following wording

will be approved only if the state

specifically demonstrates that the

submitted definition is more stringent or

at least as stringent" (40 CFR 51.18 (jill);

August 7,1980). ARB has not shown that

its definition is as stringent or more

stringent. ARB has instead dis-ussed

cut-offs for applicabilityand not directly

addressed the concern that the

definition used in the local rules would

allow many modifications to avoid NSR

requirements entirely. It should be noted

that on March 12,1981, EPA proposed to

make the definition of "stationary

source" less stringent.

Comment. In its Evaluation, EPA

indicated that a series of exemptions

from LAER was not allowable and that

exempting the same types of sources

from offsets was allowable only in some

cases. ARB commented as follows

(Comments 2 through 6 only apply to

exemptions from offsets):

1. Exemptions from LAER were not

intended and should be revised

accordingly.

2. The innovative control technology

exemption is intended to encourage

42451

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42451 1981
Federal Register / Vol. '46, -No. .162 /Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

development of new'technology which

will enhance.fair pollution control. The

Clean Air Act provides similar

exemptions in other cases. For specific

sources which have been permitted

under this provision strict limits have

been imposed to protect air quality.

3. The exemption of particulate

sources from offsets when built in areas

with low population and little industrial

development is a,reasonable way to

alleviate the effects of NSR

requirements which would otherwise be

brought into effect by windblown dust

occurrences anywhere in the air basin.

4. The exemption of sources from

offset requirements when they install air

pollution control equipment is

reasonable, simce ijntallation ofit is

required by other regulations.

5. "ARB strongly supports the

exemption from offset requirements ,for

the specified sources . "ARB states

that the Nonattainment Plan contains an

allowance for future growth of sources

not providing offsets and that the

allowance will cover the excess

emissions from the offset exemptions.

The exemptions referred to were not

justified individually as were those

mentioned under 2, 3 and 4 above.

Response: 1. As stated in the

September 15 notice; EPA found certain

,deficiencies ii the Kern County NSR

rules and invited comment on EPA's

proposal that these were minor

deficiencies and should be conditionally

approved. EPA has reevaluated the NSR

rules with respect to Part D and EPA

policy. EPA agrees with the ARB that

the exemptions from LAER provided in

Rule 210.1 (3)(E) should be removed.

Further, EPA has determined that these

exemptions are not authorized by the

Clean Air Act and that an NSR permit

program cannot be approved or

conditionally approved underPartfD

with these exemptions (similar

determinations are found at 45 FR 74481

and 80280, November 10 and December

4, 1980). Therefore, EPA is disapproving

those portions'of Rule 210.1 (3)(E) which

allow new sourced-to be exempt-from

LAER.

2. The intended effects of the'

innovative control technology

exemption are laudable, but the limits

placed on sources using it are not

sufficient to protect air quality. The

permit conditions required in the cases

described by the ARB are-discretionary

and are not required by the-rule and-are

therefore not enforceable underlhe

Clean Air Act. If the rules refered o in,

this notice were-modified to explicitly

include safeguards similar to those -

referred to in ARB's comment with

regard to specific cases, then this -

provision would be approvable. -

3. EPA agrees that the exemption from

offsets is reasonable for certain

particulate sources, since LAER and

statewide compliance-requirements will

have to be met and. NAAQS's will be

protected.:EPA could approve itif a

demonstration is made -that it will not

interfere with reasonable further

progress toward attainment of the

NAAQS.

4. EPA does not understand how

application of control equipment could

lead to an emissions increase large

enodgh to'tngger offset requirements.

An exemption clause appears

unnecessary based on-the ]ustification

and explanation given. 5. EPA agrees that the other

exemptions from offset-requirements

couldbe approved with'some changes.

Where -the NAP provides for a growth

increment for those sources that would

be exempted from offset requirements,

and if the NSR rule prevented use of the

exemptions for any pollutant when the

growth increment had been-exhausted,

EPA could approve the exemptions.

Comment: EPA cited as a deficiency

m the rules the exemption of

modifications and reconstructions which

will cause net emission increases of less

than 200 lbs/day. ARB argues that these

thresholds are at least as effective in

protecting air quality as those EPA

requires and'should be approved. The

main justification ARB uses is that the

thresholds EPA requires are generally

not much-more stringent and that the

lower thresholds for new sources in the

local rules catch more sources and

modifications than EPA's would overall.

Response: The local rules do not fully

satisfy either EPA's old or new criteria. - But EPA's August 7, 1980, regulations

did relax the significance levels for

modificationstsubstantially from those

previously proposed. So the rules do

now have thresholds more stringent

than EPA's new regulations in some

cases.and generally equivalent in others.

However since the local rules use a

threshold of 200 pounds per day for

particulates they are clearly not

consistent with-EPA's significance level

of 25 tons per year (approx. 140 pounds

per day). ,, ARB has also failed to recognize that

EPA has made the basis for calculating

emission changes more stringent and

that these rules do not satisfy the new

EPA requirement. EPA will now require

that any increases above, actual existing

emissions be considered in using the

thresholds, -while these rules consider

only increases above legally permitted , levels. Sothat even where- the numeric

criteria are the same the.different basis.

of calculation means they-are not

necessarily, as stringent.

In addition, ARB has not addressed

the failure to regulate reconstructions In

accord with EPA criteria. These criteria

stipulate that when sources are

reconstructed (i.e., where the cost of

new construction Is 50% or more of the

cost of an entirely new emission unit)

LAER is to be applied to the entire

rebuilt source and the applicant Is to be

required to demonstrate compliance of

all statewide sources and provide

offsets in all cases. The failure of these

rules to do so remains a deficiency. Note

that on March 12, 1981, EPA proposed to

eliminate this requirement.

Comment: EP4 cited Section 4,E. as a

deficiency in the Kern County rules.

That section allows existing oil

production sources to ignore any

increases in emissions they made

between 1976 and September, 1979, ix

determining whether they have to obtain

NSR permits and how much offsetting

emission reductions are required if they

do have to get permits. ARB states that

there are other, non-NSR, rules Which

are as effective as EPA's regulations in

requiring emission reductions to attain

NAAQS's for ozone, particulates and

sulfur dioxide. ARB gives as an example

an NO, control rule.

Response: ARB has not shown that

the other local rules require LAER and

statewide compliance for all the same

sources that would be covered using

EPA's criteria for counting emission

increases. This remains a deficiency to

be corrected unless ARB does

demonstrate that other rules will requirethe sources to which Its provision would

apply to meet requirements equivalent

to NSR.

ARB has argued that there are other

rules in effect which require emission

reductions-equivalent to what EPA

stipulates. But it has not provided

evidence of those rules for the pollutants

which EPAconsiders nonattainment:

CO, SO2, 03 and TSP. EPA would only

allow a provision such as this for

enssions reductions if ARB

demonstrates that the other ruleg will

generate emission reductions consistent

with EPA's criteria and sufficient to

represent RFP Such reductions itust'be

enforceable by EPA.

Comment: In the Evaluation Report

EPA cited as a deficiency a-provision of

the Kern County rules which would

exempt sources from LAER and offset.

requirements if violations of NAAQS

were of the annual standard and the

annual standard for apollutant had

been metin any one of the preceding

three years. ARB indicated that this was

an oversight and that it would seek to

remedy the situation,

42452

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42452 1981
Federal Register / Vol. 4, No. 162 / Friday. August 21, 1981 / Rules, and Regulations

Response EPA appreciates ARB's

commitment to help remedy this

problem and thereby satisfy this

condition of NAP approval."

Comment. n the Evaluation Report

1EPAstated that the provisions of these

rules which would exempt CO sources

fromLAER and offsets unless they

would directly cause violations of

NAAQS's do not satisfy EPA approval

criteria. ARB objected. It stated tlat

mobile sources are the mai-cause of

CO violations and that other control

requirements make it unlikely that

stationary sources would contribute to

worsening existing violations of the

standards. Therefore, ARB said that it

does not see a need for requirig CO

offsets. ARB did not indicate any

opinion on the exemption from LAER.

Response:.EPA is not able to accept

this provision where it would exempt

sources from LAER. But, this type of

approach could be acceptable for

offsets, since LAER and Statewide

compliance are still required. However,

the State would have to show that

sufficient reductions would be generated

to represent RFP. The rules would also

have to: 1) restrict the exemptions to

cases -when the applicant could

demonstrate no NAAQS violations for a

significant period of time in the area; 2)

require sources to show that theywould

not cause or contribute to violations of

NAAQS; and3J specify how the

permitting agency will determine

whether a source is expected to cause or

contribute to a violation of a NAAQS.

EPA approved models would be

required for any modeling.

ARB submitted one very complicated

comment to EPA arguing that the basic

offset requirements in these rules satisfy

EPA's criteria.This commentlias been

,splitinto two different comments, as

seenbelow.

Commen. .EPA's Evaluation Report

noted as a deficiency the offset

requirements in the-ules. They allow

the same 12:1 ratio of emission offsets

to increases to be used over very large

areas. Tis fails tosatisfy EPA's criteria

for ensuring thatoffsets will improve air

quality in the areas affected by the new

or modifiedsource and contribute to

attaining the NAAQS's. EPA indicated

.1hatitxequires offsets to be from as

close-to the source increasing its

-emission as-possible. Its criteria

stipulate that for offsets of CO, TSPand

SO. emission sources, modeling should

be done to determine an offset ratio

sufficient to ensure a net air quality

benefit, unless the source providing

offsets is in the immediate-vicinity of the

new source or modification. ARB

objected to EPA's evaluation and stated

that itbelieves thesexules are "as

stringent as EPA criteria." Specifically,

in defending its broad claim of

equivalency, ARB argued with a number

of the statements in EPA's Evaluation

Report on the rules and with EPA's

interpretation of the EPA criteria. ARB

stated:

1. These rules doiiot routinely allow

offsets at a fixed ratio over very large

areas, as EPA stated, partly because if

more than 15 miles awayfrom the

source of increased emissions they must

be "upwind".

2. That EPA onlyrequires an offset

ratio greater than l"1. which would be

less than the 1.:1 in these rules.

Therefore these rules are more stringent

than EPA's criteria.

3. That these rules are consistent with

EPA's stipulation that offsets for CO.

S0 2 and TSP are to be based on

modeling to determine a ratio sufficient

to provide a net air quality benefit,

unless the offsets are within "the

nmediate vicinity" of the source

increasing emissions. Specifically, ARB

argues that "in the-immediate vicinity"

can reasonably be interpreted to mean "upwind in the same or adjoining

counties or within 15 miles".

Response: EPA disagrees with ARB. It

does not nd ARB's arguments sufficient

to justify approving the offset portion of

these rules for stable pollutants. ARB

has not shown that the rules satisfy

EPA's criteria nor that they will iprove

air quality.

In response to ARB's specific points:

1.The distances which can be reached

within "adjoining counties" m the San

Joaquin Valley range up to 150 miles or

more and can cover 15,000 or more

square miles. In addition, the definition

of "upwind" on wuch ARB relies is

extremely vague and perhaps o

meaningless and can be disregarded on

a discretionary basis by the District.

EPA therefore believes that the area

within which the 12:1 ratio can be used

is very large, contrary to ARB's claim.

2. EPA's criteria stipulate that for CO.

TSP and SO. a net air quality benefit be

shown by modeling. This specifies a

method to determine an offset ratio that

will improve air quality with no upper

limit. In some cases it is likely that this

would beless than the 1.:1 usedm

these rules but m other cases it would

be much greater. ARB has erredin

believing that EPA only requires an

offset ratio greaterihanl:1 and these

rules.have not been shown to satisfy

EPA's criteria.

3. EPA does not accept ARB's

argument that. the very large areas in "adjoining counties" (see #1) can be

considered to be in the "immediate

vicinity" of a source increasing its

emissions. Nor does within 15 miles

mean "in the immediate vicinity" (an

area of about 700 square miles.]

Though these rules fail to satisfy

EPA's specific offset criteria in several

major respects, there are ways that ARB

could justify to EPA approval of such

offset provisions. For any given

pollutant. ARB could demonstrate that

the offsets which the rules would require

will improve air quality throughout the

area where they apply, given the permit

applications likely to be received, and

that they would be consistent with RFP.

If tis can be demonstrated to EPA's

satisfaction, then the rules could be

approved for any pollutant for which

such a demonstration is made.

Commenf' In previous comment and

response EPA discussed he failure of

these rules to satisfy EPA's offset

criteria for stable pollutants. Some of

the specific issues raised by ARB in that

comment and one other issue raised by

ARB relate to offsets for sources of HC,

which leads to ozone formation. -The

local rules apply the same requirements

to HC emissions as to emissions of

stable, non-reactive pollutants. Offsets

of 1.2 times the amount-of increased

emissions are required if they are within

15 miles or within the same or adjoining

counties as that of the source which is

increasing its emissions. EPA critena

stipulate that for HC (and NO) sources

the ratio of offsets should increase as

the distance separating the two sources

does so. ARB argued with EPA's criteria

as stated in the Evaluation Report andclaimed that the offset portion of these

rules should be approved. Specific

issues raised by ARB were:

1. The claim (as in the previous

Comment) that these rules do not allow

offsets at a fixed ratio over very large

areas.

2. The argument that EPA only

requires that the offset ratio be greater

than :1:1 and that the local rules are

more stringent in that theyrequire

offsets at 1Z1.

3. The claun that for HC sources

EPA's criteria allow offsets to be

anywhere in the broad vicinity of the

source and thatthese rules are

consistent with the criteria.

Response'EPA does not agree with

any of ARB's three specific claims

regarding offsets for HC sources. The

rules clearly do not meet EPA's specific

criteria. However, justas explained at

the endof the previous Response, ARB

does have the option to try to

demonstrate to EPAthat the rules will

require offsets sufficient to reduce ozone

concentrations throughout the

nonattainment area and provide for

reasonable progress toward attainment

-42453

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42453 1981
42454 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 162 /Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

of NAAQS's. In response to ARB's

specific arguments:

1. As explained under #1 in the

previous Response, EPA does consider

that the area in which offsets at a 1.2:1

ratio are allowed is very large (up to 150

or more miles away and over areas of as

much as 15,000 square miles or more).

2. EPA's criteria call for an offset ratio

not just greater than 1:1, as ARB claims,

but a ratio that increases as the distance

between the two sources increases. A

ratio of 1.2:1 is-not adequate at a

distance of 150 miles.

3. ARB used an incomplete quote from

EPA's criteria stated in the Federal

Register to argue that EPA allows

offsets for HC sources from anywhere

within the same AQCR. The rest of the

relevant section states that though

offsets for ozone may be obtained from

the broad vicinity 'of the proposed

source, they should be as close to the

new source as possible-and if at greater

distances, "the reviewing authority

should increase the ratio of offsets and

require a showing that nearby offsets

were investigated and. not

available" (40 CFR 51.18(j(3)(ii)(fJ and

Appendix S, Section IV D, as amended

to September 11, 1980). These rules are

not consistent with that stipulation.

Comment- ARB objects to EPA's

statement that it will not approve

provisions of the rules which allow

reductions of one pollutant to be offset

against increases of another pollutant.

ARB has argued that the rules only

allow such credit where both the

pollutants are precursors of the same

criteria pollutant and that EPA should

allow that. ARB argues further than

since these local rules require offsets of

precursors in cases where EPA does not

and are therefore more stringent in that

respect it is "reasonable that...

interprecursor offsets should be

allowed."

Response: The local rules allow

interprecursor offsets for two different

cases: precursors to ozone and

precursors to particulates. EPA has

reexamined the rules and found that

contrary to previous impressions they

do not allow precursors to TSP to be

offset against direct TSP emissions. The

provisions allowing different precursors

to TSP to be offset against each other

are therefore approved.

The situation with ozone is somewhat

different. The local rules allow HC

emissions to be offset with NO,,

emission reductions, which EPA

normally does not allow. However, EPA

believes that the overall effect of the

rule will be to offset HC emissions as

much as EPA requires while additionally

getting NO. reductions. This is because

the rule requires offsets for both

pollutants, not just HC as in EPA's

regulations. Therefore this concept is

approvable.

For the actual rules to be approved,

however, they would have to define a

specific method for determining ratios of

offsets to increases which will provide

for reasonable progress toward

attainment of the-ozone NAAQS.

Comment: In the Evaluation Report

EPA indicated that the provision of the

rules which exempts CO, TSP, SO. (and

NO.) sources from offset requirements if

they will not cause or contribute to

NAAQS violations is not approvable m

areas where NAAQS's for those

pollutants are violated. ARB objected,

stating that it believes such a provision

is reasonable, since these rules require

offsets if there are violations of

NAAQS's anywhere in the same air

basra, not just the county where the

rules apply.

Response: EPA agrees that this type of

approach could be acceptable, since the

rules still require application of LAER

and statewide compliance requirements.

However, the State would have to show

that sufficient reductions would be

generated to represent RFP and to make

other changes. The rules would have to

specify that this exemption could be

used only if the applicant can

demonstrate that there have been no

violations of the relevant NAAQS for a

significant period of time. In addition, an

explanation of how it will be judged

whether sources are expected to cause

or contribute to violations of NAAQS's

would be required. EPA approved

models must be used for any modeling.

Comment: EPA's Evaluation Report

noted as a deficiency a provision of the

rules that allows sources to claim credit

for emission reductions which the rules

would not normally allow and which

EPA does not allow. ARB responded by

stating that it does not believe the

provision provides a loophole because a

net air quality benefit must be ,

demonstrated fgr this waiver to be used

and by arguing that this provides

valuable flexibility.

Response: EPA believes that this

provision does create a significant

loophole in the offset requirements,

though discussions with ARB prior to

the proposed rulemaking indicated that

it was by oversight rather than

intention. The requirement to

demonstrate a net air quality benefit is

not an adequate safeguard because the

- rule would allow reductions which are

already required by local permits or

local, state or federal laws and

regulations to be used in making the

demonstration. This would allow a

source which is violating air quality

requirements to get credit for reducing

emissions which are illegal to begin

with. It appears that this provision

would also allow offset credit for

shutdowns of sources in the distant past

and perhaps for reductions which would

not occur until after the applying source

has already increased its emissions.

ARB has not shown that the flexibility

allowed by this section of the rules is

sufficient justification for such a large

loophole and it therefore remains a

condition of NAP approval that this

provision be eliminated.

I Comments Specific to EPA's

Proposed Conditions of Approval

1. Ozone, CO, SO, and PM:

Comment. The ARB commented that

the September 15, 1880 notice requires

considerable corrective work on the

1979 NAP but allows insufficient time

for this work to be completed. The ARB

further commented that EPA's proposed

conditions of approval require that a reanalysis of the control strategy be done

in a piecemeal fashion and in an

unreasonable time frame.

Response: EPA is revising the dates

for the proposed conditions of approval

to these recommended by the ARB and

Kern County APCD for each condition of

approval. However, EPA is extending

certain dates so that there will be fewer

deadlines.

Comment: The ARB commented that

the condition of approval requesting

information identifying (1] the personnel

and financial resources needed to

implement the control measures and (2)

the commitments which identify the

resources necessary to implement the

NAP should be deleted. The ARB

requested that tlus condition of approval

be deleted because it is not legally

possible for California agencies to make

multi-year budget commitments, The

ARB further commented that EPA's

concerns regarding this issue can be

addressed in the Annual Reports.

Response: EPA agrees that it is not

legally possible for California to provide

multi-year budget commitments.

Therefore, the commitments which

identify resources necessary to

implement the NAP for the Kern County

nonattanment area and the San Joaquin

Valley Nonattainment Area in the future

must be submitted by the State to EPA

when the local budgets are adopted. The

condition of approval Is changed to

require that the NAP include a

commitment to provide this information

annually.

2. Ozone and CO:

Comment: The ARB commented that

'EPA has often placed unreasonable

priority on its Control Techniques

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42454 1981
Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, "1981 / Rules and Regulations

Guideline (CTG) categones while

ignoring other state adopted reasonably

available control measures (RACM).

The ARB further commented that EPA

did not propose any action on Rule

411.1, "Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Steam Drive Wells" and

Rule 425, "Control of NO. Emissions

From Steam Drive Wells" whichare

extremely important RACMs for the

Kern County nonattainment area.

Response. As discussed m EPA's

General Preamble (44 FR 20372, April 4,

1979) and in the September 15, 1980

notice (45FR0931), the 1979 NAP.must,

at a minimum, include rules which

reflect Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) for the CTG-source

categores. However, the State must-also

adopt other measures as needed to

prvide for attainment EPA will

incorporate these measures into the SIP

when-submitted by the State. Rules

411.1 and 425 were not included mn the

September 15,1980 notice because the

ARB.submitted these rules six months

after the submittal of the NAP and EPA

was unable to complete and fully

coordinate the review for publication on

September 15,'1980. These rules,.

submitted on April 2 andiS, 1980, and

revised on December15, 1980 will be

addressed mn the Federal Register in the

near future.

Comment The ARB and the Kern

lCouiltyAir'Pollution Control District

(APCD] commented that they agreed

with EPA's finding that the design value

is 0.20 ppm for the Kern County

nonattainment area. The ARB also

commented that they did a reanalysis

using'the 0.20 ppmivalue and found that

due to a change in theozone aloft

-transport value, the -estimated emission

reduction neededto demonstrate

attainment changed from 60.7 percent in

the NAP ton8 percent. The ARB further

commented that the condition of

approval should be deleted because the

estimated emission reduction contained

m the NAP is more stringent

Respozzse:EPA agrees with the ARB

and this condition of approval-s being

deleted in today's notice.

Comment: The-ARB recommended

that EPA's proposed-condition of

approval concerning the development of

control measures to replace JI/M for CO

should be changed to require a work

program for the development of control

measures needed to demonstrate

attainment of the CO NAAQS. The'ARB

further commented that the control

strategies for attaining the ozone, SOA,

and PM NAAQS are based upon the

.control of emissions from oil industry

operations which are-the dominant

source of emissions in Kern County. The

ARB also commented that, at this time,

I/M should not be considered a

reasonably available control measure

for these three pollutants because it may

not significantly affect future air quality

if adopted. The Kern County APCD

commented that the attainment

,demonstration forozone did not inlcude

emission reductions from I/M and

therefore substitute control measures

should not be required.

Response: Since the CO plan

demonstrates that attainment is possible

by 1982 with reasonably available

control measures, including I/M,

sufficient legally adopted control

measures must be submitted m the plan

to implement the control strategy and to

attain the national standards. Thus, for

CO, legal authority to implement I/M or

other measures to replace I/M must be

provided and EPA cannot approve the

submittal of a workprogram to develop,

at a later date, the needed control

measures. EPA agrees with the ARB that

substitute control measures need not be

developed for ozone. Therefore, this

condition-of approval no longer applies

to ozone. EPA also agrees with the ARB

that IIM is not a reasonably available

control measure for PM and SOz.

CommenfrThe ARB and the Kern

County APCD recommended that EPA

.delete the conditionof approval

concerning Rule 410.3, "Organic Solvent

Degreasuig Operations,' because it is

ctrently applicable to only those

sources not covered by Rule 410, "VOC

Emissions From Degreasmg Operations

Wich Use Organic Solvents Exempted

From Rule 410," "which is more stringent

than Rule 410.3.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

ARB and the Kern County APCD

because neither has provided the

necessarydocumentation to support

theirposition. Further, EPA believes that

Rule 410.3 is not RACT with this

exemption. Therefore, this condition of

approval ismot deleted.

Comment'The ARB commented that

the condition of approval concerning

Rule4l0.4, "Surface Coating of

Manufactured Metal Parts and

Products" should be deleted because

there isonly one source covered bythis

Rule and it is m compliance. The Kern

County APCD commented that the rule

is enforceable because noncomplying

sources wouldhave to.apply to the

Hearng'Board of the Air Pollution

Control District to have a compliance

schedule adopted on a case-by-case

basis.The Kern County APCD further

commented that procedures for

petitioning fora compliance schedule

can be found in Regulatiop V of the

APCD's regulations.

Response:EPA agrees with the ARB

m thatcompliance schedules should not

be required for this rule.Therefore, this

condition of approval is being deleted m

today's notice.

Comment. EPA proposed to,

conditionally approve the NAP based

upon the submittal of commitments and

schedules for implementing I/M and two

transportation control measures that

were found to be reasonably available.

These twomeasures include transit

improvements and bikeways plan. The

Kern County APCD commented that

commitments should only be submitted

for transit improvement because I/M is

subject to action by the State Legislature

and there are no emissionreduction

credits claimed for bikeways plan.

Response: EPA agrees with the Kern

CountyAPCD.

3. Sulfur Dioxide:

Itshould benoted thattheARB

submitted to EPA on Februdry 19,1981,

a revision to the Kern County CO2 plan

control strategy. That revisionis not

addressed in today's final rulemaking

notice, but will be considered ma future

notice of proposed rulemaking.

Comment WOGA commented that

enssion reductions required by current

EPA and Kern County permits are

sufficient to assure attainment of the

CO2 NAAQS without reference to Rule

424 and therefore Rule 424 shouldnot be

included m the NAP for CO2.

Response: The NAP's demonstration

of attainmentis being conditionally

approved due to certain deficiencies

which are being corrected by the ARB

and the Kern County APCD. Thus, it is

not yet possible to rely on this

demonstration to determine xvbether

Rule 424 provides for maintenance only

or also attainment of the SOQ NAAQS.

Further, at this time Rule 424is not

included in the NAP for SO2. However,

the Rule -ii being approved and

incorporated into the SIP for the PM

control strategy m today's notice.

Therefore, since Rule 424 is part of the

Califoria SIP, the emission reduction

from Rule 424-can be used to

demonstrate attainment for SO.

Comment WOGA disagreed vith

EPA's finding that the NAP does not

demonstrate attainment of the SO2

NAAQS inhe Kern County

nonattainment area by December 31,

1982 because it does not consider

modeled violations. WOGA commented

that EPAshould not rely on theoretical

modeling studies when actual monitored

data show that the ambient SO levels

are decreasing i Kern County.

WOGA also pointed oat that the

report prepared for EPA by SRI

International. 'Modeling ofStationary

Air Pollution Sources in the Central and

-42455

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42455 1981
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 162 /Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Western Kern County Oil Fields"

(January 1979], predicts no violations of

the Federal short term or annual average

NAAQS for existing or future.sources in

the Midway-Sunset area. They further

commented that this report does predict

a slight exceedance (81 /g/m 3 vs an

annual average standard of 80 pg/mS) in

one small area in the center of the Kern

River Oil Field and that this area is not

accessible to the public and therefore

this should not be considered a

predicted violation. Also, WOGA

commented that the SRI report did not

take into account the Getty shutdown of

62 steam generators on December 27,

1978 in accordance with permit

conditions which also require.

permanent SO. offsets which will

significantly reduce the model SO2

concentrations.

Response: EPA believes that modeling

studies are useful for SO, for

determining whether an area is attaining

the NAAQS because monitored data

usually is not available for places of

expected maximum concentration.

Modeling is needed to determine the

effectiveness of a control strategy and is

essential in demonstrations of

attainment. The NAP did not contain

sufficient monitoring data for SO2 to

show that decreases in ambient

concentrations were due to other than

meteorological variations occurring from

day-to-day and year-to-year. The

monitoring data provided by WOGA

appears sufficient for the Oildale area to

support a successful demonstration of

,attainment, however, the ambient datafor western Kern County appears to be

insufficient in the same regard. The

assertion by WOGA that the small area

in the center of the Kern Oil Field,

where violations are predicted by SRI

International, is not accessible-to the

public, has not been adequately

supported. No such assertion has been

made for the Midway-Sunset predicted

violation area.

Although the SRI International study

did not predict violations in the

Midway-Sunset area, WOGA and EPA

are aware that another modeling study,

by SAL, did predict both annual and

short term violations in the area.

Further, the SRI International study did

not take into account the December 1978

Getty steam generator shutdown, as

indicated by WOGA, because the study

was completed prior to the December

1978 violations and Getty shutdown.

Therefore, EPA concluded that the NAP

inadequately demonstratedthat the

violations identified in the various

modeling studies have been or will be

eliminated. This is just one of several

deficiencies cited in EPA's proposed

rulemaking notice, which together result

in EPA's determination that the,

attainment demonstratioitis deficient.

4. Particulate Matter.

Comment: The ARB commented that

the condition of approval concerning the

PM emission inventory should be

deleted because they committed to work

with the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

APCDs to develop an appropriate

inventory.

Response: EPA disagrees. An

adequate inventory must be provided as

part of the 1979 SIP EPA is, however,

revising the condition of approval

deadline so that it is consistent with the

ARB's schedule for submittal of a SIP

revision by December 31, 1981 that will

demonstrate attainment of the PM

NAAQS.

Comment. The ARB recommended

that the condition of approval

concerning the submittal of a schedule

and work program to study

nontraditional control measures be

deleted because they committed to

study and adopt all measures found to

be reasonably available and effective in

reducing emissions from sources of

precursors of secondary particulates

and because schedules for studying

these measures were submitted to EPA.

The ARB further commented that the

condition of approval for RFP and

legally adopted measures should be

deleted for the same reasons.

Response: Certainly, EPA agrees that

.the ARB should study additional

measures for control of precursor

emissions from both traditonal as well

as nontraditional sources. The ARB

should adopt such measures as

improved technology becomes

reasonably available. At present, EPA

only requires that the State plan contain

legally adopted, reasonable measures

for traditional sources, to the extent

necessary for attainment of all national

standards. The implementation of

legally adopted measures for

nontraditional sources can be extended

until December 31, 1982, but such

measures must be submitted in the near

future for EPA approval.

EPA has determined that a

commitment and schedule leading to the

adoption and submittal of all measures

found to be reasonably available and

effective in reducing emissions from

sources of precursors of secondary

particulates only partially satisfies the

conditions of approval which the ARE

recommended be deleted. The TSP

conditions of approval, recommended

for deletion by the ARB (i.e., attainment

provision, reasonable further progress,

and legally adopted measures), all

regard sufficient additional reasonable

emission reduction measures, The

precursor control commitment is not

sufficient since the ARB failed to

provide a detailed Inventory of

nontraditional source emissions.

Without a complete inventory of

emission sourced, the amount of

emission reduction needed to affect a

predetermined air quality improvement

cannot be determined accurately. Thus,

precursor emission control has not boon

shown to have sufficient potential for

the attainment of the national TSP

standards. EPA is therefore requiring

that all nontraditional sources be

included in the commitment so that a

sufficient emission base is available

from which reductions (determined to be

most reasonable) can be implemdnted

for attainment of the national TSP

standards. EPA requires that all RACT

and RACM's necessary for attainment

be implemented. Therefore, the three

conditions of approval recommended for

deletion by the ARB are being retained.

Comment: The ARB commented that

they intended to provide annual reports

to EPA each year. The ARB further

commented that they published joint

gidance with EPA for the California

APCDs which indicated what should be

provided in the annual reports.

Response: EPA feels that this is

adequate and is therefore deleting the

condition of approval concerning annual

reporting.

III.' Hational Comments

One commenter submitt~d extensive

comments and requested that they be

considered part of the record for each

state plan. Another commenter, a

national environmental group, discussed

EPA action on permit fee systems and

the composition of state boards.

Although some of the issues raised are

not relevant to provisions in the San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin NAP, the

November 10, 1980 Federal Register (45

FR 74480) should be referenced for a

discussion of these comments and EPA's

responses.

EPA Actions

It is important for reviewers of this

notice to understand the overall nature

of NAPs and EPA's review and approval

role. Central to such an understanding Is

recognition that action may be taken on

a portion of a NAP for a specific

pollutant or rule. Therefore, a portion of

a NAP may be adequate for one

pollutant but inadequate for others.

Further, a rule may be adequate under

Section 110, but inadequate under Part D

of the Act. It is EPA's policy to take final

action on all portions of a NAP for each

pollutant.

42456

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42456 1981
Federal Register,/ Vol. 48, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Therefore, a final rulemaking notice

contains a series of actions for each

pollutant and for each portion of the

NAP rather than a single action. One of

the following three actions may be taken

for each portion of a NAP:

1. Disapproval where the State does

not agree to correct minor deficiencies

or Where deficiencies are of such

magnitude as to significantly'interfere

with the basic objective, or

2. Approval where the portion of the

NAP under consideration meets all

requirements; or

3. Approval with conditions where

deficiencies exist, but where the effect

of the deficiency is not judged to be

major andwhere the State has agreed to

take those steps necessary to correct the

deficiency. In this case, it is EPA's intent

that the-State proceed expeditiously to

correct the noted deficiency by certain

dates.

EPA's final actions on the NAP for the

Kern County nonattamment area for

ozone, CO, and SO and the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin nonattamment area for

PM are described below and are based

on the proposed rulemaking notice and

public comments received by EPA.

Kern County APCD Rules

EPA is taking action under Section 110

of the Clean Air Act to approve all of

the rules listed in the September 15,1980

notice, with the exception of Rule 412.1,

"Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel

Tanks." No action is being taken on

Rule 412.1 at this time, because it was

superceded by a latter submittal by the

State. EPA will propose action on the

revised Rule 412.1 in a separate Federal

Register action.

EPA is taking action under Part D of

the Act to approve Rules 410.4,412,

414.2, and 414.3 since they fully satisfy

the requirement for RACT.

As stated in the PUBLIC COMMENTS

section, EPA has determined that the

LAER exemptions provided for in

subparagraph (3)(E) of Ruld 210.1,

"Standard for Authority To Construct"

cannot be approved or conditionally

approved under Part D. Therefore, EPA

disapproves those portions of

subparagraph (3)(E) which allow new

sources to be exempt from LAER.

Similar to the September 15 proposal

notice, today's notice takes action on

the Kern County NSR rules (permit

program portions of the NAP), but does

noftake action on the NSR rules for the

other seven counties in the San Joaquin

Valley. Those rules will-be addressed in

a future.notice.

Approved Portions of the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin NAP

As proposed in the September 15,1980

notice and as discussed in the PUBLIC

COMMENTS section of tlus notice, EPA

has determined that the following

portions of the NAP are consistent with

Part D of the Clean Air Act. Therefore,

EPA is taking final action to approve

these portions.

Kern County Nonattainment Area

Ozone: Modeling, emissions growth,

annual reporting, public and government

involvement, and public hearing

requirements.

Carbon Monoxide: Emissions

inventory, modeling, reasonable further

progress (RFP), emissions growth,

annual reporting, public and government

involvement, and public hearing

requirements.

Sulfur Dioxide: Emission inventory,

legally adopted measures, resources,

annual reporting, public and government

involvement, and public hearing

requirements.

San Joaquin ValleyAir Basin

Nonattamment Area

--Particulate Matter. Emission

reduction estimates, emissions growth,

annual reporting, public and local

government involvement, and public

hearing.

Conditionally ApprovedPortions of the

San foaquin ValleyAir Basin NAP

The State and the Kern County APCD

have assured EPA that they will submit

the material to correct the minor

deficiencies noted in the September.15,

1980 notice. EPA therefore takes final

action to conditionally approve the

following portions of the NAP:

Kern Count Nonattainment Area

Ozone: Emissions inventory, emission

reduction estimates, attainment RFP,

legally adopted measures, resources,

and permit program.

Carbon Monoxide: Emission reduction

estimates, attainment, legally adopted

measures, resources, and permit

program.

SulfurDioxide: Modeling, emission

reduction estimates, attainment, RFP,

emissions growth, and permit program.

San Joaqum Valley Air Basin

Nonattainment Area

Particulate Matter: Emission

inventory, modeling, attainment, RFP,

legally adopted measures, and

resources.

To satisfy the conditions of approval,

the State must submit the following

material by the following dates:

Kern CountyNonattainment Area

Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, Particulate

*Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide.

1. By (90 days from the date of this

notice), the NSR rules must be revised

and submitted as a SIP revision. The

rules must satisfy Sectioix 173 and 40

CFR 51.18,."Review of new sources and

modifications." In revising the Kern

County APCD's NSR rules, the State/

APCD must address all the requirements

in EPA's amended regulations for NSR

(45 FR 31307, May 13,1980 and 45 FR

52676, August 7,1980) which the APCD

rules do not currently satisfy, including

those deficiencies cited in EPA's

Evaluation Report which still apply

despite'new EPA NSR requirements (contained in Document File NAP-CA--9

at the EPA Library in Washington, D.C.

and the Region IX Office). As EPA noted

on August 7,1980 in promulgating the

revised NSR requirement [See 45 FR

52687], If the revised NSR rules have not

been submitted and approved by

November 7,1981, a construction

moratorium wiU take effect in those

areas of the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin for which the revised rules have

not been approved.

2. By October 1,1981, a commitment

to submit annual implementing agency

fiscal and personnel commitments to

implement the NAP for the Kern County

nonattainment area.

Ozone: 1. By October 1,1981, emission

estimates and adequate documentation

of base year and projected emissions

from tertiary oil production operations

for VOC emission sources.

2.By October 1,1981, a revised

emission reduction estimate for each

year for control tactic SS1, "Steam Drive

Controls" which is based upon the

refined enussion inventory estimates.

3. By October 1,1981, a revised

control strategy demonstrating

attainment of the ozone NAAQS by

December 31,1982.

4. By October 1,1981, a revised

demonstration of RFP.

5. By October 1,1981, the State must

provide an adequate demonstration that

the following regulations represent

RACT, amend the regulations so that

they are consistent with the CTGs, or

demonstrate that the regulations will

result in VOC emission reductions

which are within five percent of the

reductions which would be achieved

through the implementation of the CTG

recommendations:

Rule 414 "Effluent Oil Water

Separators"

Rule 410.5 "Cutback Asphalt Paviig

Materials"

42457

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42457 1981
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No, 162 /Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Rule 411 "Storage of Petroleum

Distillates or Light Crude Oil"

Rule 410.3 "Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Degreasmg

Operations Which Use Orgamc

Solvents Exempted from Rule 410"

6. By October-1, 1981, written

evidence of local adoption of legally

enforceable commitments,

implementation schedules, and

monitoring procedures for transit

improvement consistent with reasonable

further progress for the transportation

control measures.

Carbon Monoxide: 1. By October 1,

1981, further documentation of the:

emission reduction estimate for each

year for emissions from petroleum

refineries.

2. By October 1, 1981, a revised

control strategy demonstrating

attainment of'the CO NAAQS by

December 31,1982.

3. By October 1) 1981, written

evidence of local adoption of legally

enforceable commitments,,

implementation schedules, and

monitoring procedures for transit -'

improvement consistent with reasonable

further-progress for the transportation

control measures.

4. By October 1, 1981, legally.adopted

control measures that replaceI/M.

Sulfur Dioxide: 1. By October 1, 1981,

the results of an air quality analysis

giving the quantification of the total.

emission reductions needed to attain the

SO. NAAQS. "

2. By October I, 1981, revised

emission reduction estimates for each

year for Rule 424, "Control of Sulfur

Compounds from Oil Field Steam

Generators" which take into account the

cogeneration exemption. '

3. By October 1, 1981, a revised

control strategy demonstrating

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for Kern

County.

4. By October 1, 1981, a revised

demonstration of RFP.

5. By October 1, 1981, evidence that

the emissions growth increment is

consistent with the revised

demonstration ofrattainment, or a

revised growth increment.

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Nonattainment Area

Particulate Matter: 1. By December 31,

1981, a refined emission inventory which

includes estimates of emissions from

traditional and nontraditional

(secondary aerosols and windblown

dusti sources for the Sanjoaquin Valley

Air Basin.

2. By December 31, 1981, -

documentation for the PM designvalue

used-todetermine the allabwable PM

emission level, and a modeling analysis

using the new emissions inventory daita

which shows the emission reductions

necessary to provide for attainment of

the PM NAAQS by December 31,1982.

3&By October 1, 1981, a commitment

and-schedule to study and adopt non- - traditional PM control measures, and a

commitment to implement those control'

measures necessary to provide for

attainment.

4. By October 1, 1981, a commitment

to submit- annual implementing agency

fiscal and personnel commitments to

implement the NAP for the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin.

Final Action on the NAP

EPA is taking final action under Part

D of the Clean Air Act to conditionally

approve the San Joaquin Valley NAP for

the Kern County nonattamment area. As

a result, the-prohibition on construction

of major new or modified sources in

Kern Countr isno longer in effect..

EPA is also takmg final action under

Part D to conditionally approve all

portions of-the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin NAP for PM, except the permit

program portion. EPA will take final

action on the NSR rules-for the other

counties in the San JoaqumValley Air

Basin in a separate Federal Register

notice.

EPA has.aresponsibility to tdke-final

action as soon as possible in those areas

for which the State of California has

submitted approvable or conditionally

approvable NAPs in accordance with

the requirements of Part D in order to lift

the construction prohibition. Since the

State has submitted a conditionally

approvable NAP for the Kern County

nonattamment area for ozone, CO, and

SO2 , EPA finds that good cause emsts'

for making this action immediately

effective.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, judicial review of today's action

is available only by the filing of a

petition for review in the United States

Court of Appeals for.the appropriate,

circuit within 60 days of today. Under

Section'307(b)(2 of the Clean AirAct,

the requirements which are the subject

of today's notice may be challenged

later in civil or crimnal proceedings

brought by EPA to enforce these

requirements.

Conditional ApprovalProcedure

A discussion of conditional approval

and its practical effect appears in two

supplements to ,the General Preamble

[44 FR 38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR

67192 (November 23, 1979)]. Conditional

approval requires the State to submit

additional-material by the deadlines

specified m today's-notice. There will be

no extensions granted to, the conditional

approval deadlines being promulgated

today. EPA will follow the procedures

described below when determining if

the State has satisfied the conditions.

.1. If the State submits the required

additional documentation according to

schedule, EPA will publish a notice in

the Federal Register announcing receipt

of the material. The notice of receipt will

also announce that the conditional

approval is continued pending EPA's

final action on the submittal.

2. EPA will evaluate the State's

submittal to determine if the conditions

are fully met. After EPA's review is

complete'd, a Federal Register notice

will be published proposing or taking

final action to either (1) find the

conditions have been met and approve

the NAP or (2) find the conditions have

not been met, withdraw the conditional

approval, and disapprove the NAP. If

the NAP is disapproved, the Section

110(a](2)(I) restrictions on construction

would be reimposed.

'3. If the State fails to submit the

required materials to meet a conditlon

EPAwill publish a Federal Register

notice shortly after the expiration of the

deadline.

The notice will announce that the

conditional approval Is withdrawn, 'the

NAP is disapproved and the Section

* 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on construction

are n effect.

Certain deadlines for satisfying

conditions have been changed from

those proposed and are being ' I

promulgated today-without further

notice and comment. EPA finds that for

good cause additional notice and

comment on these deadlines are

unnecessary (See 5 U.S.C. Section

553(b)(B), Administrative Procedure

Act). The State is the party responsible

for meeting the deadlines and the State

has agreed to the deadlines. In addition,

the public has had an opportunity to

comment generally on the concept of

conditional approval and on what

deadlines shouldapply for these

conditions (44 FR 38583, July 2, 1979 and

45 FR 21297, April 1, 1980).

40 CFR Part 52 Rescissions

EPA is taking final action as propoed

to rescind certain Federally promulgated

regulations from 40 CFR Part 52. No

supplemental revisions or public

comments were received regarding

EPA's proposed rescissions.

NSR Requirements

It should be-noted that EPA has

published two final rulemaking notices

on- he September 5, 1979 proposed

amendments to,.EPA's NSR regulations

and the Emission Offset interpretative

42458

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42458 1981
.Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Ruling. These notices, published on May

13, 1980 (45 FR 31307) and August 7, 1980

(45 FR 52676), amend EPA's

Interpretative Ruling and set out new

EPA requirements for NSR under

Section 173.

The State is required to comply with

the August 7,1980 requirements by (90,

days from the date of this notice). In

revising the Kern County APCD's NSR

rules, the State/APCD must address all

the requirements m EPA's amended

regulations for NSR (May13, 1980, 45 FR

31307, and August 7,1980, 45 FR 52676)

which the APCD rules do not currently

satisfy, including those deficiencies

cited in EPA's Evaluation Report

Addendum which still apply despite

EPA's new NSR requirements; As EPA

noted on August 7, 1980 in promulgating

the revised NSR requirement [See 45 FR

52687], if the revised NSR rules have not

been submitted and approved by

November 7,1981, a construction

moratorium will take effect in those

areas of the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin for which the revised rules-have

notbeen approved.

VOCRACT-Requirements

The April 4,1979 General Preamble

(44 FR 20376) describes the requirements

for agencies to submit VOC RACT

regulations for certain sources located in

ozone nonattainment areas. The first set

of RACT regulations were required for

sources covered by the Group I CTG

documents published before January

1978. Regulations for sources covered by

the Group I documents were to have

been submitted by January 1,1979. A

second set of RACT regulations are

required-for sources covered by the

Group IICTG documents, published

between January 1978 and January 1979.

Regulations for sources covered by the

Group II documents were to have been

submitted January 1, 1981 (45 FR 78121,

November 5,1980). Regulations must be

submitted in order for the Part D

requirements of the ozone portions of

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin NAP to

continue to be fully approvable. Further,

these requirements have been set forth

in 40 CFR 52.223. Action on the Group IU

RACT regulations will be in aseparate

Federal Register notice.

Attanment Dates

The 1979 edition of 40 CFR Part 52

lists, in the Subpart for Califorma, ,the

applicable deadlines for attaining the

NAAQS [attainment dates] required by

Section 110(a)(2](A) of the Clean Air

Act. For each nonattamment area where

a NAP provides for attainment by the

deadlines required by Section 172(a) of

the Act, the new deadlines are

substituted on California's attainment

date chart m 40 CFR Part 52. Thd earlier

attainment dates will be referenced in a

footnote to the chart. Sources subject to

plan requirements and deadlines

established under Section 110(a)(2)(A)

prior to the 1977 Amendments remain

obligated to comply with those

requirements, as well as the new

Section 172 requirements. Congress

established new attainment dates under

Section 172(a) to provide additional time

for previously regulated sources to

comply with new, more stringent

requirements, and to permit previously

uncontrolled sources to comply with the

newly applicable enssion limitations.

These new deadlines were not included

to give sources that failed to comply

with pre-1977 plan requirements by the

earlier deadlines more time to comply

with those requirements. As noted by

Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing

the 1977 Amendments:

Section 110[a)(2) of the Act made clear that

each source had to meet its emission limits "as expeditiously as practicable," but not

later than three years after approval of a

plan. This provision was not changed by the

1977 Amendments. It would be a perversion of clear Congressional intent t6 construe Part

D to authorize relaxation or delay of emission

limits for particular sources. The added time

for attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards was provided, if

necessary, because of the need to tighten emission limits or bring previously uncontrolled sources under controL Delays or

relaxation of emission limits were not

generally authorized or Intended under Part D

(123 Cong. Rec. H 11958, daily ed. November

1,1977).

To implement Congress' intention that

sources remain subject to pre-existing plan requirements, sources cannot be

granted variances extending compliance

dates beyond the attainment dates

established prior to the 1977

Amendments. EPA cannot approve such

compliance date extensions, even

though a NAP with a later attainment

date has been approved. However, a

compliance date extension beyond a

pre-existing attainment date may be

granted if it will not contribute to a

violation of an ambient standard or a

PSD increment [44 FR 20373-74, (April 4,

1979)].

In addition, sources subject to preexisting plan requirements maybe

relieved of complying with such

requirements if a NAP imposes new,

more stringent control requirements that

are incompatible with controls required

to meet the pre-existing regulations.

Decisions on the incompatibility of

requirements will be mfide on a case-bycase basis.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b) I hereby certify that the attached

rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This action only approves state

actions. It imposes no new requirements.

Under Executive Order 12291. EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

"major" and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. The miscellaneous SIP

approvals announced today are not

major because they only approve state

actions. The disapprovals are also not

major because they preserve the status

quo. Certain sources will remain subject

to NSR requirements rather than'become

exempt.

Tis regulation was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review as requred by Executive Order

12291.

Note.-Incorporation by reference of the

SIP for the State of Califorma was approved

by the Director of the Federal Register'on July

1.1980. 1-

(Secs. 110.129.171-178, and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7410.

7429, 4501-7508, and 7601fa)]}

Datedi August 7,1981.

Anna K. Gorsuch.

Admnnistrator.

Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter I Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1. In § 52.220(c), subparagraphs

(47)(iii)(B), (51)(i)iB), (52](i)B], (71), (75),

and (76] are added at follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(47) * * *

(ii)* * *

(B) Rule 412.

[51 * * *

(i" * *

(B) Rules 410.1 and 424.

(52) *

Wi * *

(B) Rules 410A, 410.5. and 414.2.

(71) The San foaquin ValleyAirlBasin

Control Strategy (Chapter 16 of the

Comprehensive Revisions to the State of

California Implementation Plan for the

Attainment and Maintenance of

Ambient Air Quality Standards]

submitted on October 11, 1979, by the

Governor's designee. Those portions of

the San Joaqun Valley Ar Basin

Control Strategy identified by Tables

16-1a, lb and Ic (Summary of Plan

Compliance with Clean Air Act

Requirements) and which pertain to

Kern County or Total Suspended

I I

42459

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42459 1981
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 162 /Friday, August 21, 1981- / Rules and Regulations

Particulates, comprise the.submittal

plan. The remaining portions are for

information purposes only. * , *I * *r

(75) Revised regulations for the Kern

County APCD, submitted on January 8,

1980, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Rules 210.2,410.3, 411,414,414.1,

and 414.3.

(76) Revised regulations for the

following APCD's, submitted on April

15, 1980, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Kern County APCD.

(A) Amended Rule 210.1

2. Section 52.222 is amended by

adding paragraph (b](4) as follows:

§ 52.222 Extensions.

(b) * * *

(4) Kern Countynonattamment arei.

for ozone, CO, SO2, and PM.

3. Section 52.223 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(5) aslollows:

§ 52.223 Approval status. * * * * *

(5) San Joaqum Valley Air Basin.

(i) Kern County nonattamment area

for ozone, CO, SO, and PM,

4. SectionZ2.232 is amended by

adding paragraphs (a) (5) and (6) as

follows: I

§ 52.232 Part D conditional approval.

(a)* * *

(5) The Kern County APCD.

(i) For ozone, CO, PM and SO2. (A) By November 19, 1981, the NSR

rules must be revised and submitted as

an SIP revision. The rules must satisfy

Section 173 of the Clean Air Act and 40'

CFR 51.18, "Review of new sources and

modification." In revising Kern County's

NSR rules, the State/APCD must

address 'all the requirements imEPA's.

amended regulations for NSR (45FR

31307, May 13, 1980 and 45 FR 52676;

August 7, 1980) which the APCD rules do

not currently satisfy including those

deficiencies cited in EPA's Evaluation.

Report Addendum which still apply

despite EPA's new NSR requirements

(contamed.nDocument File NAP-CA07 at the EPA Library in Washington,

D.C. and the Regional Office). (ii) For ozone, CO, PM, and SO2. (A) By October 1, 1981, a commitment

to submit anual implementing agency

fiscal antipersonnel commitments to

implement the NAP for the Kern County

nonattainmerit area.

(iii) For ozone:

(A) By October 1, 1981, emission

estimates and adequate documentation - of base year and projected emissions

from tertiary oil-production operations

for VOC emission sources.

(BJ By October 1,1981, a revised

enssion reduction.estimate for each

year for'control tactic SSI, "Steam Drive

Controls" which is based upon the

refined emission inventory estimates.

(C) By October 1,1981, a revised

control strategy demonstrating

attainment of the ozone NAAQS by

December 31,1982.

(D) By October 1, 1981, a revised

demonstration of RFP.

(E) By October 1,1981, the State must

provide an adequate demonstration that

the following regulations represent

RACT, amend the regulations so that

they are consistent with the CTGs, or

demonstrate that the regulations will

result in VOC emission reductions

which are within five percent of the

reductions which would be achieved

through the implementation of the CTG

-recommendations:

Rule 414 "Effluent Oil Water

Separators"

Rule 410.5 "Cutback Asphalt Paving

Materials"

Rule 411 "Storage of Petroleum

Distillates or Light Crude Oil"

Rule 410.3 "Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions From

Degreasing Operations Which Use

Orgamc Solvents Exempted From

Rule 410"

(F) By October 1, 1981, written

evidence of local adoption of legally

enforceable commitments,

implementation schedules, and

monitoring procedures for transit

improvement consistent-with reasonable

further progress for the transportation

control measures.

{iv) For CO:

(A) By October 1, 1981, further

documentation of the emission reduction

estimates-for.each year for emissions

from petroleum refineries.

(B) By October 1, 1981, a revised

control strategy demonstrating

attainment of the CO NAAQS by

December 31,1982.

(C] By October 1,198i, written

evidence of local adoption of legilly

enforceable commitments,

implementation schedules, and

monitoring procedures for transit

impiovement consistent with reasonable

further progress for the transportation

control measures.

(D) By October 1, 1981, legally

adopted control measures that replace l /M.

(v ) Pr SO,.

(A) ByOctober 1, 1981, the results. of

an air quality analysis giving the

quantification of the total emission

reductions needed to attain the S02

NAAQS.-

(B) By October 1,'1981, revised

emission reduction estimates for each

year for Rule 424, "Control of Sulfur

Compounds from Oil Field Steam

Generators" which take into account the

cogeneration exemption.

(C) By October 1, 1981, a revised

control strategy demonstrating

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for Kern

County.

(D) By October 1, 1981, a revised

demonstration of RFP

(E) By October 1,1981, evidence that

the enussions growth increment Is

consistent with the revised

demonstration of attainment, or a

revised growth increment.

(6) The San Joaqumn Valley Air Basin

Nonattamment'Area.

[i) By December 31, 1981, a refined

emission inventory which include

estimates of emissions from traditional

and nontraditional (secondary aerosols

and windblown dust) sources for the

San Joaqumn Valley Air Basin,

(i) By December 31, 1981,

documentation for the PM design value

used to determine the allowable PM

emission level, and a modeling analyals

using the new emissions Inventory data

which shows the emission reductions

necessary to pr~ovide for attainment of

the PM NAAQS by December 31,1082.

(iii) By'October 1,1981, a commitment

and schedule to study and adopt nontraditional PM control measures, and a

commitment to implement those control

measures necessary to provide for

attainment.

(iv) By October 1,1981, a commitment

to submit annual Implementing agency

fiscal and personnel commitments to

implement the NAP for the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin. * * * * *

5. Section 52.233 is revised by adding

paragraph (a)(4) as follows and

removing and reserving paragraphs

(d)(7) and (g)(1)(vii):

§ 52.233 Review of new sources and

modifications.

(a) * *

(4) Kern County APCD.

(i) Those portions of paragraph (3)(E)

of Rule 210.1, submitted on April 15,

1980, which allow new sources and

modifications to be exempt from LAER. * * * * *

6. In § 52.238, the entries for the San

Joaquin Valley Intrastate are revised as

follows:

§ 52.238 Attainment dates for ratlonal

standards.

*[ * * * *,e

(4) [Reserved]' ",

* * * ,- *

II 42460

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42460 1981
I Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16Z / Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Porutat

Air Ouatty Control Region and TSP

Nonattarn'ntArea ,co

Pd Seconclary pzhwa 5coondW

San Joaqurn Vaiey intrastate--except July 1975 - July 1975 - (o) - 0) (0) L-ay 31.197. May51.,19iZ.

Kern Coty. Kern County nonattnrent ara.. ( ) (c) _ (h) - (h) (d) (h) ()-

7 Section 52.253 is amended by

adding paragrapl (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 52.253 -Metal surface coating thinner and

reducer.

(b)*

(3) In the following portions of the San

Joaquin Valley Intrastate Region, this

section is rescinded for certain sources

subject to the conditions specified:

(i) This section is rescinded for metal

parts-and products coaters which are

subject to andin full compliance with

Kern County Rule 410.4, submitted on

October 15,1979.

8. In § 52.254 paragraphs (a)(1) and

(aj(1)(ii) are revised as follows:

§ 52.254 Organic solvent usage. [a) * * *

(1) In thd following portions of the San

Joaquin Valley Region, only the hourly

emission limitations contained in

paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this

section are in effect; the following

paragraphs needed for interpretation

are also in effect: paragraphs (e) through

(1) and (o) through (q) of this section. In

addition, this section is entirely

rescinded for specific operations for

some of the counties noted below:

(ii),Kem County APCD. This section is

rescinded entirely for metal parts and

product coaters which are subject to and

m full compliance with Rule 410.4. • * * * *

9. Section 52.255 is amended byremoving and reserving paragraph

(b) (1)(i) and by adding paragraph

(b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 52.255 Gasoline transfer vapor control • * * * *

(1]* * *

- (ii) [Reserved] • * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Kern County APCD. • * * * *

§§ 52.226 and 52.231 [Reserved]

10. Sections 52.226(a) and 52.231(a) are

removed and reserved.

[FR Doc 61-23= Elcd 8-2D-L S5 =1

BILLING CODE 656M0$-3M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part95

Editorial Amendment of the

Commission's Technical Regulations

In the Citizens Radio Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; editorial amendment.

SUMMARY: This document corrects an

editorial omission m Part 95, Subpart E,

Techmcal Regulations for the Personal

Radio Services.

DATE: Effective August 24., 1981.

ADDRESS: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington. D.(P. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Stephanie M. Spernak, Private Radio

Bureau, Washington, D.C.120554, 202-

632-4964.

Adopted. August 1, 1981.

Released August 10, 1981.

1. The Commission is correcting an

editorial error in Rule § 95.617 of its

Technical Regulations, Part 95, Subpart

E, governing emission limitations for

Citizens Band (CB), Radio Control (R/C),

and General Mobile (GMRS) Radio

Service transmitters.

2. Technical Regulation § 95.617(c)(3)

is amended to include an express

reference to R/C transmitters. The

inadvertent omission of a reference to

R/C transmitters m Rule § 95.617(c) (3)

occurred during the revision of rules m

Part 95 into Subparts A, C, D and E, as

part of the proceedings in Docket 20120

(42 FR 8326; February 9, 1977). The

harmoric emission limitation set forth in

Rule § 95.617(c)(3) formerly was

contained in Rule § 95.49(d)(3), which

applied to all transmitters authorized for

operation in the personal radio services

under Part 95.

3. The authority for this amendment is

contained in Section 4W, 5(d)(1).and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, and § O.231(d.of the

Commission's Rules. Because the

amendment is editonalm nature the

prior notice and effective date

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply.

(Secs. 4, 5. 303,307,48 Siat. as amended.

1066,1082.1083; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307.)

Federal Communications Commission.

Richard D. Uchtwardt,

ExecuLive Director.

1. Part 95, SubpartE of Title47 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

Section 95.617 is amended by revising

subparagraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

§ 95.617 Emission limitations. * *k * * *

(3) On any frequency removed from

the center of the authorized bandwidth

by more than 250 percent of the

authorized bandwidth. at least 43 + 10

logo (mean power in watts) decibels, for

CB transmitters type accepted before

September 10, 1976 and all Radio

Control (R/C) and General Mobile Radio

Service transmitters.

[FR Doe. 81-24310 cd 8-20-1:845 am]

BILWNG CODE 6712-01-l,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part I

[OST Docket No. 1; Amdt. 1-163]

Federal Railroad Administrator,

Delegation of Authority

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY. This amendment clarifies the

delegation of authority to the Federal

Railroad Administrator (Administrator)

to exercise the powers of the Secretary

with respect to supplemental

42461

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42461 1981