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

SubpartB-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 (16U.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 -mustmake written application for title and/or adoption-and
must be oflegal 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 ofthe 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 ofgrazing or livestock use. An animal month, except for sheep or goats, is a month's use and occupancy ofrange by one animal. A' full animal month's feeas charged for a month ofgrazing by adult ammals; if the grazing animal is.weaned or 6 months 6f
age or older at the time ofentering National Forest System lands; or will. become 12 months of-age during-the permitted period-ofuse. 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 ofthegrazing 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 tolivestock 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 bfFinalRulemaking.

SUMMARY. On September 15, 1980 

### (45FR 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 SanJoaquni Valley Air Basin
nonattamment area forparticulate mtfter (PM). The September 15, 1980 notice proposed to conditionally approve the NAP for both ofthese 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 AirBasin 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 theprohibition on construction ofmajornew or modified

sources mKern 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 isrequired-to submit -thematerials 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 oftodays~revisionto the California State Implementation, Plan (SIP) is located at: The Office ofthe 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 ofa control strategy and regulations for ozone, CO, SO, and.PM.These revisions, which -comprisethe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin NAP, are intended to provide for the attainment ofthe ozone, CO, SO2, and the PMNAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

On September 6, 1980 

### (45FR 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 ofthese seven counties.

On September 15, 1980 (45 FR 60931),
EPA published a notice ofproposed rulemaking for the Kern County nonattinment area for ozone, CO, and SO and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin nonattainment area forPM, 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 CleanAir Actrequirements into 14 criteria, compared that portion ofthe NAP for these two areas to those criteria, and proposed to approve and conditloAally approve portions of the NAP for these
two areas. EPA'sproposed actions in the September 15, 1980 notice are described below.

EPAproposed to approve the following portions of the NAP for the Kern County nonattaminent area for
ozone, CO, and SO and the San Joaquin Valldy AirBasin nonattainment area for PMbecause they were found to be consistent with Part D of the Clean Air Act. 

### 42450

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

KernCounty 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.

SulfurDioxide: Emissions inventory, legally adopted measures, resources, annual reporting,.public and government involvement, and public hearing requirements.

SanJoaquin ValleyAIrBasin Nonattamment Area_

Particulate Matter: Emission reduction estimates, emissions growth, public and goverinent involvement, andpublic hearing.

EPA also proposed to conditionally approve the following portions ofthe NAP for the Kern County nonattamment

area for ozone, CO and SO. and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin nonattamment

area forPM because they were found to contain minor deficiencies with iespect
toPartD. These portions ofthe NAP

were proposed tobe approved with the condition that each deficiency be corrected by a specified deadline.

Kern CountyNonattainment Area
Ozone:Emissioninventory, modeling, emissionreduction etiimates, attainment, RFP,'legally adopted
measures, resources, and permit program. -

Carbon Monoxide: Enssion reduction estimates, attainment,legally adopted
measures, resources, and permit program.

SulfurDioxide:Modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment, RFP, emissions growth, and permit program.
SanJoaquin ValleyAirBasin 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 ofall portions ofthe NAP is sufficient to lift the-current prohibition on construction ofmajpr new or modified

sources. Therefore, EPA proposed to conditionally approve theKern County portion ofthe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin-NAP and remove the construction ban in te September 15, 1980 notice. Public Comments During the public comment period, EPAreceived several comments. The
comments are specific to Kern County's NSR rules and to certain proposed conditions ofapproval. In addition, EPA has received national comments wuch may apply generally to tlus action.Each ofthe pointsraised by the commenters and EPA's responses follow.

I. Comments SpecifictoNSR

The California AirResources Board (ARB] submitted comments on EPA's
assessment ofthe 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 toEPA's new NSR regulations issued on August 7, 1980.Local rules arerequired tomeet these new requirements by May 7,1981. Tinsmakes 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 itsnew criteria differ from those the local rules were evaluated against andhas pointed out other new requirements relevant to the issues addressed here.

Commen ARB commented that EPA has looked too closely at specific provisions ofrules 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 thanEPA calls forin 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 ofthe Clean AirAct
sets forth a preconstruction review procedure for nonattamment areas that is relatively detailed and mandatory in significant aspects. As aresult, the governing Part DNSR rules clearly limit the approvability ofState NSR programs that offer overall program equivalency and equal or greater capture of emissions, but which differfrom 40 CFR Part 51 on individual components ofthe 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 areincluded, important issues such as applicability are fixed. The preamble emphasizes tlus approach. requiring that State plans be identical to

orindividually more stringentthan the corresponding 40 CFR 51.18 regulations (45FR 52726). While the Act limits State flexibility in terms ofpermit 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 theplan can accommodate the

new emissions within its demonstration ofRFP and attainment. The limits of EPA's discretion arereflected inthe 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 unitis modified and willincrease emissions significantly, reductions from other units may notbe used to avoid exceeding the significance levels which trigger NSR. As ARB acknowledges, theserules 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 rulesregulate some new

sources which fallbelow 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 statethat "Deviations from the following wording will be approved onlyifthe state specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent or at least as stringent" (40 CFR51.18 (jill); August 7,1980). ARB has not shown that its definition is as stringent ormore stringent. ARB has instead dis-ussed cut-offs forapplicabilityand not directly addressed the concern thatthe definition usedin the local rules would allow many modifications to avoidNSR 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 ofexemptions 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 fromLAER were not intended and should berevised accordingly.

2. The innovative control technology exemption is intended to encourage 

### 42451

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

development ofnew'technology which will enhance.fair pollution control. The Clean Air Actprovides similar exemptions in other cases. For specific

sources which have been permitted under this provision strict limitshave been imposed toprotect air quality.

3.The exemption ofparticulate

sources from offsets when built in areas with low population and little industrial development is a,reasonable way to alleviate the effects ofNSR requirements which would otherwise be brought into effect bywindblown dust

occurrences anywhere in the air basin.

4. The exemption ofsources 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 ofsources not providing offsets and that the allowance will cover the excess emissions from the offsetexemptions. The exemptions referred to were not justified individually as were those mentioned under 2, 3and 4above.

Response:1. As stated inthe September 15 notice; EPAfound 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 toPart 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 anNSR 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'ofRule 210.1 (3)(E) which allow new sourced-to be exempt-from LAER.

2. The intended effects ofthe' innovative control technology exemption are laudable, but thelimits 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 itifa demonstration is made -thatit willnot interfere withreasonable further
progress toward attainment ofthe NAAQS.

4. EPA does not understand how application ofcontrol 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 -theNAP provides for a growth increment for those sources that would be exempted from offsetrequirements, and ifthe NSR ruleprevented use ofthe 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 ofless than 200 lbs/day. ARB argues that these thresholds are atleast as effective in protecting air quality as those EPA requires and'should be approved. The mainjustification ARB uses is that the thresholds EPA requires are generally
notmuch-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 ornew criteria.

- But EPA's August 7, 1980,regulations

didrelax 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 of200 pounds per dayfor particulates they are clearly not consistent with-EPA's significance level of25 tons peryear (approx. 140 pounds
per day). ,,

ARB has also failed torecognize that EPAhas made the basis for calculating emission changes more stringent and that these rules do not satisfy the new EPArequirement. EPA will now require that any increases above,actualexisting emissions be consideredin using the thresholds, -whilethese rules consider only increases above legally permitted

, levels. Sothat even where-the numeric criteria are the same the.different basis. ofcalculation 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 ofthe
cost ofan 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 andprovide 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 Countyrules. 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 toget 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

anNO, control rule.

Response:ARB has not shown that the otherlocal rules require LAER and statewidecompliancefor all the same

sources that would be covered using EPA's criteria for counting emission increases. Thisremains a deficiency to be corrected unless ARB does demonstrate that otherrules will requirethe sources towhich 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, SO 2 , 03 and TSP. EPA would only allow a provision such as this for enssions reductions ifARB demonstrates that the otherruleg 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 fromLAER and offset. requirements ifviolations ofNAAQS

were ofthe annual standard and the annual standard for apollutant had been metin any one ofthe 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 1981Federal Register 

### / Vol. 4, No. 162 

### / Friday. August 21, 1981 / Rules, and Regulations

Response EPA appreciates ARB's commitmentto help remedy this problem and thereby satisfy this condition ofNAPapproval."

Comment. nthe Evaluation Report 1EPAstated that the provisions ofthese rules which would exempt CO sources fromLAER and offsets unless they would directly cause violations of NAAQS's donot satisfy EPA approval criteria.ARBobjected. It stated tlat mobile sources are the mai-cause of CO violations and thatother control requirements make it unlikely that stationary sources would contribute to worsening existingviolations ofthe standards. Therefore,ARB said thatit does not see a needfor requirig CO offsets. ARB didnotindicate any opinion on the exemption fromLAER.

Response:.EPAisnotableto accept this provision whereit would exempt

sources fromLAER. But,thistype of approach could be acceptable for offsets, since LAER andStatewide compliance are still required. However, the State wouldhave to show that sufficient reductions would be generated to represent RFP. The rules would also have to: 1) restrict the exemptions to

cases -whenthe applicantcould demonstrate no NAAQS violations for a significantperiod oftime in the area; 2) require sources to show that theywould not cause or contributeto violations of NAAQS; and3Jspecify how the permitting agency will determine whether a source is expected to cause or contribute to a violationofaNAAQS. EPAapproved models wouldbe required forany modeling.

ARB submitted onevery complicated comment to EPA arguing thatthe basic offset requirements intheserulessatisfy EPA's criteria.This commentlias been ,splitintotwodifferent comments, as seenbelow.

Commen. .EPA's Evaluation Report noted as a deficiency the offset requirements in the-ules. They allow thesame12:1ratio ofemission offsets to increases to be used over very large

areas. Tisfails tosatisfy EPA's criteria for ensuring thatoffsets will improve air quality inthe areas affected by the new
ormodifiedsource and contribute to attaining theNAAQS's. EPAindicated .1hatitxequiresoffsets to be fromas close-to the source increasing its -emissionas-possible. Its criteria stipulate thatfor offsets of CO, TSPand SO. emission sources,modeling should be done to determine an offsetratio sufficient to ensure a net air quality benefit, unless the source providing offsets is in the immediate-vicinity ofthe

new source ormodification. ARB objected toEPA's evaluation and stated that itbelieves thesexules are "as stringentas EPA criteria." Specifically, in defending itsbroad claim of equivalency, ARB argued with anumber ofthe statements inEPA'sEvaluation Report on the rules and with EPA's interpretation ofthe EPA criteria. ARB stated:

1. Theserules doiiotroutinely allow offsets at a fixed ratio oververy large
areas, as EPA stated, partly because if

more than 15miles awayfrom the

source ofincreased emissions they must be "upwind".

2. ThatEPA onlyrequires an offset ratio greater thanl"1. which would be less than the 1.:1 in theserules. Therefore these rules are more stringent thanEPA's criteria.

3. That theserules are consistent with EPA's stipulation thatoffsets for CO. S0 2and TSP are to be based on modeling to determine aratio sufficient to provide a net air quality benefit, unless the offsets are within "the nmediate vicinity" ofthe source increasing emissions. Specifically, ARB argues that "in the-immediate vicinity"

canreasonably be interpreted to mean "upwind inthe same oradjoining counties or within 15 miles".

Response:EPA disagrees withARB. It does not nd ARB's arguments sufficient tojustify approving the offset portion of these rules for stable pollutants. ARB has notshownthat the rules satisfy EPA's criteria nor that they will iprove air quality.

Inresponse toARB'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 ARBrelies is extremely vague and perhaps o meaningless and can be disregarded on
a discretionary basisby the District. EPA therefore believes that the area within which the 12:1ratio can be used is very large, contrary to ARB's claim.

2. EPA's criteria stipulate that for CO. TSP andSO. anet air quality benefit be shown bymodeling. This specifies a method to determine an offset ratio that will improve air quality withno upper limit. In some casesit is likely that this would beless than the 1.:1usedm these rules but m other cases it would be much greater.ARB has erredin believing that EPAonly requires an offset ratio greaterihanl:1 and these rules.have not been shown to satisfy EPA's criteria.

3.EPA does notaccept ARB's argument that.the very large areas in "adjoining counties" (see#1) canbe considered tobe in the "immediate vicinity" of a sourceincreasing its emissions. Nor does within 15miles mean "inthe immediate vicinity" (an

area ofabout 700 squaremiles.]

Though these rules fail to satisfy EPA's specific offset criteria in several majorrespects, there are ways that ARB couldjustify to EPA approval ofsuch offsetprovisions. For any given pollutant. ARB could demonstrate that the offsets which the ruleswould require will improve air quality throughout the

area where they apply,given the permit applications likely tobereceived, and that they would be consistent with RFP. If tis can be demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction, then therules couldbe approved for any pollutant forwhich such a demonstration is made.

Commenf' In previous comment and response EPA discussed hefailure of theserules to satisfy EPA's offset criteria for stable pollutants. Some of the specificissuesraised byARBin that
comment and one other issue raised by ARBrelate to offsetsfor sources ofHC, which leads to ozone formation. -The localrules apply the same requirements to HCemissions as to emissions of stable,non-reactive pollutants. Offsets of1.2 times the amount-ofincreased emissions arerequired ifthey arewithin 15 miles orwithin thesame oradjoining counties as that ofthe source whichis increasing its emissions. EPA critena stipulate that forHC (andNO) sources theratio ofoffsets shouldincrease as the distance separating the two sources does so.ARB argued with EPA'scriteria

as statedinthe Evaluation Report andclaimed that the offsetportion of these rules shouldbe approved. Specific issues raised by ARBwere:

1. The claim (asin theprevious Comment) that these rules do notallow offsets at a fixed ratio over very large

areas.

2. The argument thatEPA only requires that the offset ratio begreater than :1:1 and that the local rulesare
more stringentin that theyrequire offsets at 1Z1.

3. The claunthat for HC sources EPA's criteria allow offsets to be anywherein the broad vicinity ofthe

source and thatthese rules are consistent with the criteria.

Response'EPAdoes not agree with any ofARB's three specific claims 

### regarding offsets

### forHCsources. The rules clearlydonotmeetEPA's specific criteria. However,justas explained at the endof the previous Response, ARB doeshave the option to try to demonstrateto EPAthatthe ruleswill require offsets sufficientto reduce ozone concentrations throughout the nonattainment area andprovide for reasonable progress toward attainment -42453

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42453 198142454 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 162 /Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

ofNAAQS's. In response toARB'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 ofas much as 15,000 square miles or more).

2. EPA's criteria call for an offset ratio notjust 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 of150 miles.

3.ARB used an incomplete quote from EPA's criteria stated in the Federal Register to argue thatEPA allows offsets forHC sources from anywhere within the same AQCR. The rest of the relevant section states that though offsets for ozone maybe obtained from the broad vicinity 'ofthe 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 ofoffsets 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 thatit will not approve provisions ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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, notjust HC as inEPA'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 ofthe 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 isreasonable, since these rules require offsets if there are violations of NAAQS's anywhere in the same air basra, notjust the county where the rules apply.

Response:EPA agrees that this type of approach could be acceptable, since the rules still require application ofLAER and statewide compliance requirements. However, the State would have to show that sufficient reductions would be generated to represent RFP and tomake 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 ofthe relevant NAAQS for a significant period oftime. In addition, an explanation ofhow it will be judged whether sources are expected to cause

or contribute to violations ofNAAQS's would be required. EPA approved models must be used for any modeling. Comment:EPA's Evaluation Report noted as a deficiency a provision ofthe 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 qualitybenefit 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 creditfor 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 toEPA's Proposed Conditionsof 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 ofapproval require that a reanalysis ofthe 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 ofapproval be deleted because itis 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 ofapproval 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 1981Federal Register V ol. 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 thatEPA did not propose any action on Rule 411.1, "Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Steam Drive Wells" and Rule425, "Control ofNO. Emissions From Steam Drive Wells" whichare extremelyimportantRACMs for the Kern County nonattainment area.

Response.As discussed m EPA's General Preamble (44FR 20372, April4, 1979) and in the September 15, 1980 notice (45FR0931), the 1979 NAP.must,
at aminimum, include rules which reflect Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the CTG-source categores. However, the Statemust-also adopt other measures asneeded to prvide forattainment EPA will incorporate thesemeasures into the SIP when-submitted by the State. Rules 411.1 and 425 were notincludedmn the September 15,1980 notice because the ARB.submitted these rules sixmonths after the submittal of theNAP andEPA

was unable to complete andfully coordinate the review forpublication on September 15,'1980. These rules,. submitted on April2 andiS, 1980, and revised on December15, 1980 willbe addressed mnthe Federal Register inthe

near future.

Comment The ARB and the Kern lCouiltyAir'Pollution Control District (APCD] commented that they agreed with EPA's finding thatthe design value is 0.20 ppm for the Kern County nonattainment area. The ARB also commented that they did a reanalysis using'the 0.20ppmivalue and found that due to a change in theozone aloft -transport value, the -estimatedemission 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:EPAagrees with the ARB and this condition ofapproval-s being deleted in today's notice.

Comment:The-ARB recommended that EPA's proposed-condition of approval concerning the development of controlmeasures to replace JI/Mfor CO should be changed to require a work program for the development of control

measures needed to demonstrate attainment ofthe CO NAAQS. The'ARB further commented that the control strategies for attaining the ozone, SOA, and PMNAAQS are based upon the .controlofemissions from oil industry operations which are-the dominant

source ofemissions in Kern County.The ARB also commented that, at this time, I/M shouldnot be considered a reasonably available control measure for these three pollutants because it may not significantly affect future air quality ifadopted. The Kern County APCD commented that the attainment ,demonstration forozone did not inlcude emission reductions from I/Mand therefore substitute control measures should notbe required.

Response:Since the COplan demonstrates that attainment ispossible by 1982 with reasonably available controlmeasures, including I/M, sufficient legally adopted control

measures mustbe 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 toreplace I/M mustbe provided and EPA cannot approve the submittal ofa 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-ofapproval no longer applies to ozone. EPA also agrees withthe ARB thatIIM is not a reasonably available control measure forPM and SOz.

CommenfrTheARBand the Kern County APCD recommended that EPA .delete the conditionof approval concerning Rule 410.3, "Organic Solvent Degreasuig Operations,' because itis ctrently applicable to only those

sources not covered byRule 410, "VOC EmissionsFrom Degreasmg Operations Wich Use Organic SolventsExempted From Rule410," "whichis more stringent thanRule410.3.

Response:EPAdisagrees 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'TheARB commented that the condition ofapproval 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 CountyAPCD commented that the rule is enforceable because noncomplying

sources wouldhave to.apply to the Hearng'Board ofthe Air Pollution ControlDistrict to have a compliance schedule adopted on a case-by-case basis.The KernCounty APCD further commented that procedures for petitioning fora compliance schedule

can be foundin Regulatiop V of the APCD's regulations.

Response:EPAagrees with the ARB

m thatcompliance schedules should not be required forthis rule.Therefore, this condition ofapproval is being deleted m today'snotice.

Comment. EPA proposed to, conditionally approve theNAP based upon the submittal ofcommitments 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 CountyAPCD commented that commitments should only besubmitted for transitimprovement because I/M is subject to actionby the StateLegislature and there are no emissionreduction credits claimed forbikeways plan.

Response:EPAagrees withthe Kern CountyAPCD.

3. SulfurDioxide:
Itshould benoted thattheARB submitted to EPAonFebrudry 19,1981,

a revision to the Kern County CO 2 plan control strategy. That revisionis not addressed in today's final rulemaking notice, butwill be considered ma future notice ofproposed rulemaking.

Comment WOGA commented that enssion reductions required by current EPA andKern County permits are sufficient to assure attainment ofthe CO2 NAAQS withoutreference toRule 424 and therefore Rule 424 shouldnot be included m the NAP forCO2.

Response:The NAP's demonstration ofattainmentis being conditionally approved due to certain deficiencies which are being corrected bythe ARB andthe Kern County APCD.Thus,it is
not yetpossible to rely on this demonstration to determine xvbether Rule 424 provides formaintenance only

oralso attainment of the SOQ NAAQS. Further, at this timeRule 424is not included in theNAP for SO2 .However, the Rule -iibeing approved and incorporated into the SIP for thePM control strategy m today'snotice. Therefore, since Rule 424 is part ofthe Califoria SIP, the emission reduction from Rule 424-can beused to demonstrate attainment for SO.

CommentWOGA disagreed vith EPA's finding thatthe NAP doesnot demonstrate attainment of theSO2 NAAQS inhe Kern County nonattainment area byDecember 31, 1982 because itdoes not consider modeled violations. WOGA commented that EPAshould not rely on theoretical modeling studies when actualmonitored data show that the ambient SO levels

are decreasing i Kern County.

WOGA also pointed oatthat the report prepared forEPAby SRI International. 'Modeling ofStationary Air Pollution Sourcesin the Central and -42455

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42455 1981Federal 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 of80 pg/mS)in

one small area in the center ofthe 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 SO 2 concentrations.

Response:EPA believes thatmodeling 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 ofa control strategy and is essential in demonstrations of attainment. The NAP did not contain sufficient monitoring data for SO 2 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 ofthe 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 predictviolations 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 isjust one of several deficiencies cited inEPA'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 ofthe 1979 SIP EPA is, however, revising the condition ofapproval deadline so that itis consistent with the ARB's schedule for submittal ofa SIP revision by December 31, 1981 that will demonstrate attainment ofthe PM NAAQS.

Comment.The ARB recommended that the condition ofapproval concerning the submittal ofa schedule and workprogram 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 ofapproval forRFP and legally adopted measures should be deleted for the same reasons.

Response:Certainly, EPA agrees that .the ARB should study additional

measures for control ofprecursor emissions fromboth 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 fortraditional sources, to the extent necessary for attainment ofallnational 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 forEPA 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 ofprecursors ofsecondary particulates only partially satisfies the conditions ofapproval which the ARE recommended be deleted. The TSP conditions of approval, recommended fordeletion 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 onpermit fee systems and the composition of state boards. Although some ofthe issues raised are not relevant to provisions in the San Joaquin Valley Air BasinNAP, 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 forreviewers of this notice to understand the overall nature ofNAPs and EPA's review and approval role. Central to such an understanding Is recognition that action may be taken on
aportion ofa NAP for a specific pollutant orrule. 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 ofa NAP for each pollutant. 

### 42456

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

Therefore, a final rulemaking notice contains a series ofactions for each pollutant and for eachportion ofthe NAP rather than a single action. One of the following three actions may be taken for eachportion ofaNAP:

1. Disapproval where the State does
not agree to correct minor deficiencies

orWhere deficiencies are ofsuch magnitude as to significantly'interfere with the basic objective, or

2.Approval where the portion ofthe NAP under consideration meets all requirements; or

3. Approval with conditions where deficiencies exist, butwhere the effect ofthe deficiency is notjudged 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 proposedrulemaking notice and public comments received by EPA.

Kern CountyAPCD Rules

EPA is taking action under Section 110 ofthe CleanAir Act to approve all of therules listed in the September 15,1980 notice, with the exception ofRule 412.1, "Transfer ofGasoline 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. EPAwill propose action on the revised Rule 412.1 in a separate Federal Register action.

EPA is taking action under PartD of the Act to approve Rules 410.4,412, 414.2, and414.3 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) ofRuld 210.1, "Standard forAuthority 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 fromLAER.

Similar to the September 15 proposal notice, today's notice takes action on the Kern County NSR rules (permit program portions ofthe NAP), butdoes 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 SanJoaquin ValleyAir BasinNAP
As proposed in the September 15,1980 notice and as discussed in the PUBLIC COMMENTS section oftlus notice, EPA has determined that the following portions ofthe NAP are consistent with Part D of the Clean AirAct. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to approve these portions.

Kern CountyNonattainment 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.

SulfurDioxide:Emission inventory, legally adopted measures,resources, annual reporting,public andgovernment involvement, and public hearing requirements.

SanJoaquinValleyAirBasin 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 ValleyAirBasinNAP
The State and the Kern CountyAPCD have assured EPA that theywill 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, andpermit program. SanJoaqum ValleyAirBasin Nonattainment Area
Particulate Matter:Emission inventory, modeling, attainment, RFP, legally adopted measures, and

resources.

To satisfy the conditions ofapproval, 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 ofthis notice), the NSRrules must be revised and submitted as a SIP revision. The rules must satisfy Sectioix173 and 40 CFR51.18,."Review ofnew sources and modifications." In revising theKern County APCD's NSRrules, the State/ APCD must address all therequirements in EPA's amended regulations forNSR (45FR 31307, May 13,1980 and 45 FR 52676, August7,1980) whichthe APCD rules do notcurrently satisfy,including those deficiencies cited inEPA's Evaluation Reportwhich still apply despite'new EPANSRrequirements 

### (contained in Document File NAP-CA--9
at the 

### EPA Library in Washington, D.C. andthe Region IX Office). As EPA noted

on August 7,1980 in promulgating the revised NSR requirement [See 45 FR 52687], Ifthe revised NSR ruleshave not been submitted and approved by November 7,1981, a construction moratorium wiU take effect in those

areas ofthe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin for which the revisedrules 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 KernCounty nonattainment area.

Ozone:1.By October 1,1981, emission estimates and adequate documentation ofbase year and projected emissions from tertiary oilproduction operations forVOC 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 ofRFP.

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 inVOC emission reductions which arewithin five percent ofthe reductions whichwouldbe achieved through the implementation ofthe CTG recommendations:
Rule 414 "Effluent OilWater

Separators" Rule 410.5 "Cutback Asphalt Paviig

Materials" 42457

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

Rule 411 "Storage ofPetroleum

Distillates or Light Crude Oil" Rule 410.3 "Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions from Degreasmg Operations Which Use Orgamc Solvents Exempted fromRule 410" 6. By October-1, 1981, written evidence oflocal adoption oflegally 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 ofthe: emissionreduction estimate for each year for emissions from petroleum refineries.

2. By October 1,1981, arevised control strategy demonstrating attainment of'the CO NAAQS by December 31,1982.

3. By October 1)1981, written evidence oflocal adoption oflegally 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.

SulfurDioxide:1. By October 1, 1981, the results ofan 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 forRule 424, "Control ofSulfur Compounds from Oil Field Steam Generators" which take into account the cogeneration exemption. '

3.By October 1, 1981, arevised control strategy demonstrating attainment ofthe SO 2 NAAQS for Kern County.

4. By October 1, 1981, arevised demonstration ofRFP.

5.By October 1, 1981, evidence that the emissions growth increment is consistent with the revised demonstration ofrattainment, or a revised growth increment.

SanJoaquinValleyAirBasin 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-annualimplementing agency fiscal and personnel commitments to implement the NAP for the San Joaquin Valley AirBasin.

Final Action on theNAP
EPA is taking final action under Part D ofthe Clean AirAct to conditionally approve the San Joaquin Valley NAP for the Kern County nonattamment area. As

a result, the-prohibition on construction ofmajor new or modified sources in Kern Countrisno longer in effect..

EPA is also takmg final action under Part D to conditionally approve all portions of-the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin NAPfor 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 ofCalifornia has submitted approvable or conditionally approvable NAPs in accordance with the requirements ofPart 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 SO 2,

### EPA finds that good cause emsts' for making this actionimmediately effective.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean AirAct,judicial review oftoday's action isavailable onlyby the filing ofa petition for review in the United States Court ofAppeals for.the appropriate, circuit within 60 days oftoday.Under Section'307(b)(2 of the Clean AirAct, the requirements which are the subject oftoday's notice may be challenged later in civil or crimnal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Conditional ApprovalProcedure
A discussion ofconditional approval and its practical effect appears in two supplements to ,the General Preamble [44 FR 38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67192 (November23, 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. Ifthe State submits the required additional documentation according to schedule, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing receipt ofthe material. The notice ofreceipt will also announce that the conditional approval is continued pending EPA's final action onthe 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 FederalRegister 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 ofthe 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 formeeting the deadlines and the State has agreed to the deadlines. In addition, thepublic 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).

40CFRPart 52Rescissions
EPA is taking final action aspropoed
to rescind certain Federally promulgated regulations from40 CFR Part 52. No supplemental revisions orpublic
comments were received regarding EPA's proposed rescissions.

NSR Requirements

It should be-noted that EPA has published two finalrulemaking 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 (45FR 52676), amend EPA's Interpretative Ruling and set outnew EPA requirements forNSR under Section 173.

The State is required to comply with the August 7,1980 requirements by (90, days from the date ofthis 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 EvaluationReport Addendum which still apply despite EPA's new NSR requirements; AsEPA noted on August7, 1980 in promulgating the revised NSR requirement [See 45 FR 52687], ifthe revised NSRrules have not been submitted and approved by November 7,1981, a construction moratorium will take effect in those

areas ofthe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin forwhich the revised rules-have notbeen approved. VOCRACT-Requirements

The April4,1979 General Preamble (44FR 20376) describes the requirements for agencies to submit VOCRACT regulations forcertain sources located in

ozone nonattainment areas.The first set ofRACTregulations 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 ofRACT regulations are required-for sources covered by the Group IICTG documents, published between January 1978 andJanuary 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 mustbe submitted in order forthe PartD requirements ofthe ozone portions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin NAP to continue to be fully approvable. Further, these requirements have been set forth in40 CFR 52.223. Action on the Group IU RACT regulations willbe in aseparate Federal Register notice.

AttanmentDates

The 1979 edition of40 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) ofthe 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 chartm 40 CFRPart 52. Thd earlier attainment dates willbe 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 forpreviously regulated sources to comply with new, more stringent requirements, and to permitpreviously 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) ofthe Act made clear that each source had tomeet its emission limits "as expeditiously as practicable," butnot later than three years after approval ofa plan. Thisprovision was not changed bythe 1977 Amendments. It wouldbe aperversion ofclear Congressional intent t6 construe Part Dto authorize relaxation ordelay ofemission limits forparticular sources.The added time for attainment oftheNational Ambient Air Quality Standards wasprovided, if necessary, because of theneed to tighten emission limits or bringpreviously uncontrolled sources under controL Delays or relaxation of emission limitswere not generally authorized orIntended under PartD (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 aNAP with a later attainment date has been approved. However, a compliance date extension beyond a pre-existing attainment date may be granted ifitwill not contribute to a violation ofan ambient standard or a PSD increment [44 FR 20373-74, (April4, 1979)].

In addition, sources subject topreexisting plan requirements maybe relieved ofcomplying with such requirements ifa NAP imposes new,
more stringent control requirements that

areincompatible 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 of5 U.S.C. 605(b) Ihereby certify that the attached rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. This action only approves state actions. Itimposes no new requirements.

Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
mustjudge whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement of aRegulatory Impact Analysis. The miscellaneous SIP approvals announced today arenot major because they onlyapprove state actions. The disapprovals are also not majorbecause they preserve the status quo. Certain sources will remain subject
to NSR requirements rather than'become exempt.

Tis regulation was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget for review asrequred byExecutive Order 12291.

Note.-Incorporation byreference ofthe SIPfor the State ofCaliforma was approved by the Director ofthe FederalRegister'on July 1.1980. 1- (Secs. 110.129.171-178, and 301(a) ofthe CleanAirAct. as amended (42U.S.C. §7410. 7429, 4501-7508, and 7601fa)]}

Datedi August 7,1981. Anna K. Gorsuch. Admnnistrator.

Subpart F ofPart52 ofChapterI Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal 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 ofplan.

* * * * *



### (47) * * * 

### (ii)* * * (B) Rule 412.

[51 * * * 

### (i" * * (B)Rules 410.1 and424.

(52) *

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

(71) The San foaquin ValleyAirlBasin Control Strategy(Chapter 16 ofthe Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan forthe Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards] submitted on October 11, 1979,by the Governor's designee. Thoseportions of the SanJoaqunValleyAr Basin Control Strategyidentified byTables 16-1a, lb and Ic (Summary ofPlan Compliance with Clean Air Act Requirements) and whichpertain to Kern County orTotal Suspended I I 42459

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42459 1981Federal 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) Revisedregulations 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 followingAPCD's, submitted on April 15, 1980, by the Governor's designee.

(i)Kern County APCD. (A) AmendedRule 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, SO 2,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 Dconditional 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 ofthe Clean Air Act and 40' CFR 51.18, "Review ofnew 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 and45 FR 52676; August 7, 1980) which the APCD rules do
not currently satisfy including those deficiencies cited inEPA'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

- ofbase 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" whichis based uponthe refined emissioninventory estimates.

(C) By October 1,1981, a revised control strategy demonstrating attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by December 31,1982. (D) By October 1, 1981, a revised demonstration ofRFP.

(E) By October 1,1981, the State must provide an adequate demonstration that the following regulations represent RACT, amend theregulations so that they are consistent with the CTGs, or demonstrate that the regulations will resultin 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 ofPetroleum

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 oflocal adoption oflegally 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 ofthe emission reduction estimates-for.each year for emissions from petroleum refineries.

(B) By October 1, 1981, a revised control strategy demonstrating attainment ofthe CONAAQS by December 31,1982. (C] By October 1,198i, written evidence oflocal adoption oflegilly 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 thatreplace 

### l/M. (v

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

an air quality analysis giving the quantification ofthe 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 ofSulfur Compounds from Oil Field Steam Generators" which take into account the cogeneration exemption.

(C)By October 1,1981, a revised control strategy demonstrating attainment ofthe SO 2 NAAQS for Kern County.

(D)By October 1,1981, a revised demonstration ofRFP

(E) By October 1,1981, evidence that the enussions growth increment Is consistent with the revised demonstration ofattainment, or a revised growth increment.

(6) The San Joaqumn Valley AirBasin Nonattamment'Area.

[i) By December 31, 1981, a refined emission inventory which include estimates ofemissions from traditional and nontraditional (secondary aerosols and windblown dust) sources for the San Joaqumn Valley AirBasin,

(i) By December 31, 1981, documentation forthe 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 ofparagraph (3)(E) ofRule 210.1, submitted on April 15, 1980, which allow new sources and modifications to be exempt fromLAER.

* * * * *

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 1981I Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16Z / Friday, August 21, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Porutat
AirOuatty 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) toread as follows:
§52.253 -Metalsurface coating thinner and reducer.

(b)* (3)In the following portions ofthe 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) Inthd following portions ofthe San Joaquin Valley Region, only the hourly emission limitations contained in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)of this section arein effect; the following paragraphs needed for interpretation

are also in effect: paragraphs (e)through (1) and (o) through (q) ofthis section. In addition, this section is entirely rescinded for specific operations for

some ofthe counties noted below:

(ii),Kem County APCD. This section is rescinded entirely formetal 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) andby adding paragraph (b)(3)(ii) toread as follows:
§52.255 Gasoline transfer vapor control

• * * * *



### (1]* * *

- (ii) [Reserved]

• * * * *

(3) * * * (ii) Kern CountyAPCD.

• * * * * §§ 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 mPart 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 ofits 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 ofa reference to R/C transmitters m Rule § 95.617(c) (3) occurred during the revision ofrules 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) ofthe Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and §O.231(d.of the Commission's Rules. Because the amendment is editonalm nature the prior notice andeffective date provisions of5 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,
ExecuLiveDirector.

1. Part 95,SubpartE ofTitle47 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended

as follows:

Section 95.617 is amended byrevising subparagraph (c)(3) toread as follows:
§95.617 Emission limitations.

* *k * * *

(3) On any frequency removed from the center ofthe authorized bandwidth by more than 250 percent ofthe authorized bandwidth. at least 43 + 10 logo (meanpower in watts) decibels, for
CB transmitters type accepted before September 10, 1976 and all Radio Control (R/C) and General Mobile Radio Service transmitters.

[FRDoe. 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 ofthe Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY. This amendment clarifies the delegation ofauthority to theFederal Railroad Administrator (Administrator)
to exercise the powers ofthe Secretary with respect to supplemental 42461

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 42461 1981