# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 43 Fed. Reg. 1341 1978

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Oct 28 17:33:22 2013

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.RULES AND REGULATIONS

f) A description ofthe effect ofthe facility in terms of type and quantity ofpollutants; contaminants, wastes, or heat, removed, altered, stored, dis-. posed of, o~r prevented by the facility.

(g) If the facility performs a function other than removal, alteration, storage, prevention, or disposal ofpollutants, contaminants, wastes, or heat,

a description 6f all functions performedby the facility, including a rea- sonable identification of the costs of the facility allocable to removal, alteration, storage, prevention, or disposal ofpollutants, contaminants, wastes, or heat and a description of the reason- ing and accounting method or methods usedto arrive atthe allocation.

* * * * *
(n) The percentage (if any, and if the taxpayer claims that the percentage is 5 percent or less) bywhich the facility (1) increases the output or ca- pacity, (2) extends the useful life, or (3) reduces the totaloperating costs of the operating unit of the plant or other .propertymost directly associated with the pollution control facility. and a description ofthereasoning and accountingmethod or mhethodsused to arrive atthis percentage.

(o)Such other information as the' Administrator deems necessary for certification.

(5) By revising subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph (a); subparagraphs-(1), (2), and (3) of paragraph (B); paragraph (d); and paragraph (e) of§20.8 to read asfollows:

§20.8 Requirements ofcertification



### (a) * • • (2) That the facility (i) Removes, alters, disposes of, stores, or prevents the creation of pollutants, contaminants, wastes, or heat, which, but for thefacility, wouldbe released into the environment;

(ii) Does not by a factor or more than 5 percent: (A) Increase the output or capacity, (B) extend the useful life, or (C) reduce the total op- erating-costs of the operating unit (bf the plant or other property) most directly associated with the pollution control facility; and

(iii) Does not significantly alter the
nature of the manufacturing or productionprocess orfacility.

(3) The applicant is in compliance with all regulations of Federal agencies applicable to use of the,facility, including conditions specified in any NPDES permit.issued to the applicant undersection 402 ofthe Act.

(b) * * *- (1)All applicable water quaiity standards, including water quality criteria and plans of implementation and en- forcement established pursuant to sec- tion -303 of the Act or State laws or regulations; (2) Decisions issued pursuant to sec- tion310 oftheAct;

(3) Water pollution control pro-' grams required pursuantto any oneor

more of the following sections of the Act: Section 306. section 307. section 311, section 318, or section 405; or in order to be consistent with a plan under section 208.

-

(d) A facility that removes elements

or compounds from fuels that would be released as pollutants when such fuels are burned is eligible for certification ifthefhclltyis-

(1) Used in connection with a plant

or other property in operation before January 1, 1976 (whether located and used at a particular plant or as a cen- tralized facility fof" one or more plants), and

(3) Is otherwise eligible for certification.

(e) Where a facility is used in con- nection with more than one plant or other property, one or more ofwhich

were not in operation before January 1, 1976. or where a facility wil perform a function other than theremov- al, alteration, storage, disposal, or prevention of pollutants, contaminants. wastes, orheat, the Regional Administrator will so indicate on the notice of certification and will approve or disapprove the applicant's suggested method of allocating costs. If the Regional Administrator disapproves the applicant's suggested method, he shall identify theproportion ofcosts allocable to each such plant, or to the re- moval, alteration, storage, disposal, or prevention of pollutants, contaminants,wastes, orheat. (90 Stat 1905 (See. 2112 of Pub. L. 94-455. Oct. 4, 1976). 80 Stat.379; (26 U.S.C. 169, 5 U.S.C. 301).)

NoT,.-The EPAhas determined thatthis document does not contain a mrjor regula- tion requiring preparation of an Economic Impact Statement under Executive Order 11821, as amended by Executive Order 11949. and OMB Circular

### A-107.

Dated: December 28, 1977.

DOUGLAS M. CosmLr_ Administrator. [FR Doc.78-324 Filed 1-6-78; 8:45 am]



### [6560-01]

EFRL823-5]

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Air PollutionControl, Stale Regulations, Slate ofNevada
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION': Finalrulemaking.

SUMMARY: It is the purpose of this action to approve, with exceptions, amendments to the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR) submitted to 

### 1341

EPAbythe Governoron February 20, June 14, and November 12, 1974; and October31. 1975asrevisions totheAir Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada. The amendments pertain to motor vehicle inspection and testing, powerplants,public availability of emission data, and other miscellaneous items. Action was pro- posed in the FEERAL REGISTER Ol 

### August15. 1975 and May20, 1977. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'

Allyn M. Davis, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,Attn.: Morris L Goldberg, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, Calif. 94105, telephone 415-445-7473.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BACKGROUND


### On November 12, 1974the Governor of Nevada submitted amendments to the NAQR as revisions to the State Implementation plan(SIP).OnAugust 15. 1975 (40 FR 3440S) EPAproposed approval of four regulations of this submittal. Final action hasbeentaken

on all other items except as noted in thisrulemaking.

Also on February 20 and June 14, 1974; and October 31. 1975the Governor ofNevada submitted amendments to the NAQR as revisions to the SIP. On May 20, 1977 (42 FR 25878) EPA proposedapproval, with exceptions, of the items submitted intheserevisions.

Both oftheproposed rulemakingnotices providedfor a 30-daypublic comment period. Copies oftheregulations proposed forapproval anddisapproval, the EPA evaluation reports and the proposed rulemaking notices were made available during the public comment periods atCarson City,Nev. and at the EPA offices in San Francisco, Calif. and Washington, D.C. In addition. the information for theMay 20, 1977 notice wasalso made available in Reno and LasVegas, Nev. DIscussIou oFAcTiox

Pursuant toSection 110 ofthe Clean Air Act,as amended, and 40 CFR Part 51. the Administrator is required to approve ordisapprove revisions to the SIP.

Differencesfrom the proposed actions.Final rulemaking differs from that proposed on August 15, 1975 and May 20, 1977 because of public comment. Two comments werereceived on the State regulations, each attributing toa changefromthe actionsproposed. The comments addressed particulate emission limitations applicable to Basic.Inc.andthe State's odorregula- tion. As a result of the comments no final action is being taken on the threeregulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 5-MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1978RULES AND REGULATIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

### 1.Particulate Matter EmissionLimitationsApplicabletoBasic,Inc.In re- sponse to the August 15, 1975 pro- posed approval ofNAQR, Articles 7.2.5 and 7.2.6, the commentor recommended that the proposed approval of the subject regulations be rescinded. The proposed approval was based on air quality diffusion modeling berformed by.the State which intended to show that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter would be attained and maintained as a result of compliance with the new emission limitations. The commentor providied data showing that violations of the applicable NAAQS have continued even after control equipment was installed for the purpose-of meeting the new emission limitations. The commentor also pointed out that the emission limitations are not sufficiently stringent to require the installation of reasonably available control technology (RACT).

2. OdorRegulations.In response to theMay 20, 1977 proposed approval of the revision to NAQR, Article 10.1,

one commentor recommended that no action be taken on the revision and that the previous approval be rescinded. The regulations do not relate to the control of pollutants for which NAAQS have been promulgated, no demonstration of the effect of this regulation is possible, and the regula- tibn isunenforceable.

As a result of the public comments

no actionisbeing taken on NAQR, Articles 7.2.5 and '7.2.6 applicable to Basic, Inc. and NAQR, Article 10.1 re- garding odors. EPA will address Articles 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 in aseparate FEDER

### Al; REGISTER notice. EPA is also re- tracting itd proposed approval of revisions to Article 10.1 and will propose to rescind the previous approval in a separate FEDERAL REGISTER notice.

Approvals,disapprovals,non-actions andrescissions,asproposed.Final ru- lemaking on State regulations is identical to that proposed on August 15, 1975 and May 20, 1977 withthe excep- tion of those items discussed above. Approval is being promulgated for all items except those discussed in response to public comments and those proposed for disapproval or nonaction.



### 1. Disapproval Actions-(a) State Regulations.Disapproval is being pro- mulgated for NAQR, Article 2.11.4.2

on public hearings on the renewal of variances.

(b) ControlStrategyPortionsofthe SIP.Disapproval is being promulgated for the control strategy for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons/photo- chemical oxidants in the Nevada portion of the Clark-Mohave Interstate Air Quality Control Region (Las Vegas area).

2.-Non-Actions-(a) Plan Revisions. No action is being taken through this notice on any portion ofthe February 20 and June 14, 1974 revisions because they have been superseded by the October 31, 1975 revision.

(b) State Regulations. No action is being taken on the following regula- tions from the November 12, 1974 and October 31, 1975 revisions.

i. NAQR, Articles 1.14 and 13 on complex sources,

ii. NAQR, Articles 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 on particulate emissions applicable to Basic,Inc.,

iii. NAQR, Article 8.1.3 on sulfur emissions from existing copper smelters,

iv. NAQR, Article 10.1 on odors, dnd

v. NAQR, Article 14 6n supplementary control systems.

3. Rescission Aations.Action isbeing taken to rescind previous disapproval actions promulgated by EPA. In each instance the State has revised the disapproved element of the SIP. EPA is approving the applicable regulations. The following areaffected:

(a) State Regulations.The May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10878) and September 26, 1974 (39 FR 34537) disapproval of NAQR, Article 2.7.1 on the public availability of emission data is being rescinded because the October 31, 1975 revision to this regulation isbeing ap- proved. EPA is therefore rescinding the disapproval of NAQR, Article 2.7.1 at 40 CFR 52.1473(a), as it affects portions of the State other than Washoe County, and at40 CFR 52.1473(c).

(b) State Regulations.The May 14, 1974 (38 FR 12708) disapproval of the emergency episode portion-of the SIP relating to open burning is being re- scindedbecause the November 12, 1974 revision to NAQR, Articles 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 on open burning are being ap- proved., EPA is therefore rescinding the disapproval at 40 CFR 52.1477(a) relating to open burning during emer- gencyepisodes.

Miscellaneous clarifying changes to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Identification of plan sec- tion (40 CFR 52.1470) applicable to Nevada is being revised through this notice for the following reasons. Revisions are being made to 40 CPR 52.1470 at (c)(6) through (c)(9) fofclarification purposes. These changes correct the name of theState's regula-. tions and the nomenclature ofregula- tions in same, and insert 'numerical identifications for the various regula- tions already included in the various subparagraphs. Also, a revision at (c)(8) and an addition at (c)(11) are being made as dictated by this final rulemaking.
(Sees. 110, 301(a), CleanAirAct as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857e-5, 1857g(a)), respectively.)

Dated: December 28, 1977.

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE, Administrator. SubpartDD ofPart 52 ofChapter 1, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations isamended as.follows: Subpart DD-Nevada

1. In §52.1470, paragraph (c) is amended by the revision of subpara. graphs (6), (7), (8), and (9) and by the addition of subparagraph (11) as follows:

§52.1470 Identification ofplan.

(C)

* * * 

### (C) (6) Amendments to the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), to regu- late the construction of complex

sources (Article 13), submitted on April 1, 1974,by the Governor.

(7) Amendments to.the NAQR to regulate sulfur emissions from nonfer-

rous smelters (Article 8.1); to regulate and monitor visible, emissions from stationary sources (Article 4); and to allow supplementary control systems (Article 14), submitted on June 14, 1974, by theGovernor.

(8) Amendments to the NAQR to regulate open burning (Article 5.2.3 and 5.2.4), and to regulate the con-' struction of complex sources (Article 13), submitted on November 12, 1974, by the Governor.

(9) Administrative procedures, for the review of complex sources submit. ted on December 11, 1974, by the Governor's representative.

(11) Amendments to the NAQR, as amended through September 18, 1975, submitted on October 31, 1975, by the Governor, asfollows:

Article 1-Definitions: 1.6-1.13, 1.15- 1.33, 1.35-1.69;

Article 2-General Provisions: 2.4.1- 2.4.4, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5A, 2.6.1-2.6.4, 2.7.1, 2.8.1, 2.8.4, 2.8.5.1, 2.9.1-2.9.3, 2.9.5- 2.9.7, 2.10.1.2, 2.10.2-2.10.4, 2.11.4.2;

Article 3-Registration Certificates and Operating Permits: 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.1.8a. & d-l, 3.1.9, 3.2.2-3.2.6, 3.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.4.1, 3.4.6-3.4.14;

Article 4-Visible Emissions From Stationary Sources: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.5, 4.4- 4.4.2;

Article 5-Open Burning: 5.2.3, 5.2.4; Article 6-Incinerator Burning: 6.3- 6.6.2;

Article 7-Particulate Matter: 7.1.3, 7.2.1-7.2.3, 7.3.1-7.3.3;

Article 8-Sulfur Emissions: 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.2.2.1, 8.3-8.4;

Article 9-Organic Solvent, Other Volatile Compounds: 9.1, 9.2-9.2.1.1, 9,2.2, 9.2.3;

Article 10-Odors: 10,2.1.1, 10.2.1.2; Article 11-Mobile Equipment: 11.3- 11.7.1, 11.7.4-11.7.5, 11.10, 11.10.1, 11.11-11.14.17.

2. In §52.1473, the first sentence of paragraph (a) isrevised and paragraph .(c)isrevoked asfollows:

§52.1473 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met in Washoe County, since the plan does not proFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. S-MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1978 

### 1342vide procedures for making emission data, as correlated with allowable emissions, available to the public. ***

(b)** * (c) [Revoked]
3. Section 52.1477 andparagraph (a) ofthat section are revoked asfollows:

§52.1477 [Revoked]

(a) [Revoked]

4. Section 52.1484 and paragraph (a) ofthat section are added asfollows:
§52.1484 Controlstrategy. Carbon monox- ide. (a) The requirements of §51.14 of thischapter -ardnotmetsince theplan does not provide for the attainment and maintenance ofthe national standards for carbon monoxide in the -Nevada (Las Vegas area), portion of the Clark-MohaVe Interstate Region (Q

81.80 ofthis chapter). 5. Section 52.1486 and paragraph (a) ofthatsection areadded asfollows:
§52.1486 Control strategy: -Hydrocarbons' andphotochemical oxidants. (a) The requirements of §51.14 of thischapter arenotmet since the plan does not -provide for the attainment and maintenance of the national stan- .dardfor photochemical oxidants in the Nevada (Las Vegas area), portion of the Clark-Mohave Interstate Region (Q81.80 ofthis chapter).

6. Section 52.1487 and paragraph (a) ofthatsection are added asfollows:

§52.1487 Public hearings.

(a) The requirements of §51.4(a)(2) of this chapter are not met since NAQR, Article 2.11.4.2 allows var- iances (compliance schedules), to be renewed without a public hearing, thus allowing further postponement 'of the final compliance date for sources-whose emissions contribute to violations of the national standards. Therefore, NAQR, Article 2.11.4.2 is disapproved.

,[FRDoc.78-326 Filed1-6-78; 8:45am]



### [6560-01] SUBCHAPTERN-EFFLUENT UMITATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS [FRL 839-4]

PART458-CARBON BLACKMANUFACTURING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source

Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: On.May 18, 1976, theEnvironmental Protection Agency pro

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

mulgated, in interim finalform, effluent limitations guidelines for the Carbon Black Manufacturing Point Source-Category, 40 CFRPart 458. In addition, on that date it proposed other effluent limitations guidelines,

new source performance standards, and pretreatment standards for new
sources.

With the exception ofeffluent Uraltations guidelines for the furnace blackprocess subcategory (subpartA), the interim final regulations and pro. posed regulations are today promul- gated in the identical form as they

were proposedor promulgated onMay 18, 1976. The effluent limitations guidelines based upon the use of the best practicable control technology currently available for the furnace process subcategory (subpartA), have beenwithdrawn.

The effluent limitations guidelines andnewsourceperformance standards issued today, when applicable, will be incorporated in National Pollutant DischargeElimination Systempermits issued by Federal EPA or by States withapproved programs. DATE: January 9, 1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Harold B. Coughlin, Effluent Guidelines Division, (WH-552), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460, 202-426-2560.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Protection Agency today promulgates regulations pursuant to sections301, 304, 306. and307of the Fed~?al Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Pub. L. 92-500, for four subcategories ofthe 40 CFRPart 458, Carbon Black Manufacturing Point Source Category. These subcate-& gorles are the carbon black furnace process (subpart A), the carbon black thermal process (subpart B), the carbon black channel process (subpart C), and the carbon black lamp black process (subpart D). With respect to subparts B-D (thermal process, channel process, and lamp process), the regulations are being promulgated in forms unchanged fromtheregulations proposed orpublished in interim final form for these subparts on May 18. 1976 (41 FR 20496 et seq. and 41 FR 20502 et seq.). The Agency received only onecomment withrespect to subpart B and no comments with respect to subparts CorD.

Thefocusofcriticism oftheeffluent limitations guidelines, announced in interim final form on May 18, was with respect to the carbon black furnace process (subpart A). The major change announced today is with respect to those regulations. The effluent limitations guidelines based upon theapplication ofbestpracticable con - 

### 1343

troltechnology currently available for the carbon black furnace process, subpart A. is being withdrawn. Furthermore, the effluent limitations guide- linesbased upon the use ofbest available technology economically achievable for the carbon black furnace pro-
cessisbeing promulgated in finalform

asno discharge ofprocess waste water,

as defined below.The new source per- formance standards and pretreatment standards for new sources are un- changed from the forms proposed on May 18.

SUMUARY AND BASIS OFREGULATIONS Following theMay 18 promulgations of interim final effluent limitations guidelines based on the use of best practicable technology currently available (BPT), petitions for review were filed inthe United States Court ofAp- peals for the Fifth Circuit (No. 76- 3051), by Ashland Oil, Inc., Cabot Corp., Cities Service Co., Continental Carbon Co., and Phillips Petroleum. Co. After the filing ofthis action on July 28, 1976, the petitioners submitted asubstantial amount ofnew information to the Agency, and both par- ties to the action conducted several meetings to discuss factual contentions with respect to-the BPT regula- tions. The Agency- also reviewed all outstanding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permits to determine the present extent ofdischarges fromthefacilities which fall within subpart A of part 458. This review indicated that there

was only one manufacturing facility with a point source discharge which did not possess an NPDES permit. It

was determined that for all other point sources covered by subpart A, the NPDES permits would expire at the earliest in 1978, and that the BPT regulations would, in effect, apply to onlyone facility.

After carefully reviewing recent monitoring information submitted by the companies and by EPARegion VI (Dallas. Tex.),the Agency determined that little environmental degradation would occur if the BPT regulations

were withdrawn and the effluent limitatons guidelines based on the use of best available technology economically achievable (1983 level technology),

were promulgated, as proposed, to re- quire zero discharge by the date set forth in section 301(b)(2)CA) of the act. Today's announcement executes

an agreement which resolves the litigation in the Fifth Circuit and which, in effect, means thatwhen dischargers apply for renewal of NPDES permits they will be placed on a schedule which will result in zero discharge of process waste waters by the date set forth in section 301(b)(2)(A) of the act. Of course, dischargers which are presently achieving zero discharge or which discharge small amounts ofproFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 5-MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1978