Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 213 / Friday, October 31, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Air quality control region Parb

Prnm

Parkersburg (West VWgii--Manetta (Ohio) Iteir- state:

a Prnmary/secondary nonatta nent aers h b. Remainder of AQCR . b

Sandusky Intrastate (AOCR 180):

a Prnmary/secondary nonrttairwent areas h

b. Remarder o AOCR . b

SleutenvlleWterton-Wheehlg Interstate (AQCR

181):

a Prnmary/secotary nonaltainme areas __ h

b. Remainder of AOCR . . ... b

W "roingon-a colhe-Logan Intrastate (AOCR

182):

a. Primlsecondarf nonattainmet areas h b. Remainder o( AOCR __ _ b

Zanesvle-Caimbndge Intrastate (AOCR 183): a. Pnima/secondary nonattaintent areas h b, Remainder o( AOCR . .... b

culate r

try Sec

§ 52.1887 Control Strategy: Carbon

Monoxide.

nettef Sulfur oxides N,1W.;gean C(a)*

,ondary P,,€ Secondaj (3) The carbon monoxide attainment

and reasonable further progress

demonstrations for the following urban

h I I b b b areas: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus

b b b b b b and Youngstot.

h I I b b d (b) * * * b b b b b b (4) For the Youngstown transportation

control plan, the State submits the

b b b b b b commitments of the Regional Policy

Board to meet specific annual emission

h b b b b 9 reduction goals.

b b b b b b IFRIING CO, 5n -3I-U -

i, I I i , BIUNG CODE 6560-38-M

b b b b b b b

NoTE.--Sources subject to the plan reclenents and attanment dales estabashWd under setion I t0(a)(2)(A) pwrr to the

1977 Ceap Ar Act Amendments remain obligated to comply with these rectrrients by te earber deadnet The ear attain,

merit dates re set out at 40 CFR 52.1875 pubished July 1. 1979.

For actual nonattanment designations refer to 40 CFR Part 81

Dates or footnotes which are italiczed are prescribed by the Adminitralor because the plan did not Provide a SPM!.,c date

or the date provided was not acceptable

a. Ar qualty levels presently below prmary standards or is unclassiiable

b. Axr qualty levels presently below secondary standards or is uncilislilible

c. For Stark. Sutret and Portage Countes attainment is to be achieved by December 31. 192 Fat thefemarig cowne~s

the attainment date wil be specified in the future.

d. December 31. 1982.

e For Sumit County attainment is to be achieved by December 3L 1952 For Cuyahoga Countye attainment date wJ

be specified in the luire.

L August 27. 1979 except lor the comnies listed in (1) wiach ae sublec to an atearnnt date of June 17 19W, the

Ashland 04 Company in Stark County which is sublect to an attainment date ot September 14. 1992 the conpanes in &Surat

County listed in (2) which are subject to an attainment dale of January 4. 19S3, and the PPG Inikstnes. Ine (bo,kis orl) in

Summit County, Ohio which is subect to an attainment date of August 25. 19S3

(1) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.; PPG Industnes. Inc., WhSeli-P ste Corp, Pibsrbgh-Ca&rAld Corporatiom

The Tinmken Company The Sun 0l Co- Seler.Gebe Corp; The 8 F_ Goodich Comnpany, Plips Petroloum Co Shell Oi Co

Federal Paper Board Co-; The Firestone Tie & Rubber Co.. Republic Steel Corp .Chaf Bag Co, Whit-WeSkhouW Cotp.

U.S. Steel Corp.; Intertake. Inc-; Austin Power Co. Diamond Crystal Salt Co. The Goodyear Tie & Rubber Co, The Gruf O4 Co,

The Standard 04 Co.: Champion International Corp. Koppers Co, Inc. General Motors Corp. E I du Pont de Neriotxs ard

Co.; Coulton Chemical Corp-; Alied Chemical Corp. Specialty Chemicals Ds* The Hooer Co Ahkimwur Co of A.'nerca.

Otao Greentouse Assoc, Amico Steel Corp.; Buckeye Power. Inc. C4icinnah Gas id Electnc. Cleveland Electric sirann

Co- Coluribus and Southem Oho Electric; Dayton Power and Light Co. Duque"n t.ght Co . Otto Edsoi Co, Oho Electric

Co.; Pennsylvania Power Co-: Toledo Edison Co. Ohio Edison Co. RCA Rubber Co

(2) In Sumnit County Diamond Crystal Salt Frestone Tee & Rubber Co. Genwal Tee & Rutbe B F Goodrich Co Go.

dyear Aerospace Corp-; Good<yem Tire & Rubber Co; Chrysler Corp. PPG kiduslne,, Inc, Soerfing Twe & Rdbiber, Tote%

Dismon o General Motors Corp, Midwest Rubber Rectaerng. KJ ting Supply Co

g. Attainment date wil be specified in the future.

h. Apri 15.1977.

L December31. 1987.

5. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding new paragraphs (a)[4), (b)(3) and

(b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 52.1885 Control Strategy:. Ozone.

(a) - * * a

(4] The ozone nonattainment area

plan for the rural nonattainment areas.

(b) * * *

(3) The attainment demonstrations for

the urban areas of Canton, Cleveland,

Columbus and Youngstown provided the

deficiencies cited are corrected.

(4] The Reasonable Further Progress

Demonstration for the urban areas of

Canton, Steubenville and Youngstown

provided the deficiencies cited are

corrected.

6. Section 52.1886 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1886 °Ozone Attainment and

Reasonable Further Progress

Demonstrations.

[e) Part D-Conditional ApprovalThe attainment demonstration for the

Youngstown urban area is approved

provided that the following conditions

are satisfied:

(1) The State submit either technical

support for the 100% VOC emission

reduction estimate from the cutback

asphalt category; or a re-evaluation of

the baseline emissions to account for the

possible VOC emissions resulting from

this category.

(2) The State submit a revised RFP

demonstration line to account for any

changes made in the attainment

demonstrations.

7. Section 52.1887 is amended by

adding new paragraphs (a)[3) and (b)[4)

to read as follows:

40 CFR Part 52

IA-9 FRL 1632-31

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision: North

Coast Air Basin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) takesfinal action to

approve and, where appropriate,

disapprove or take no action on

revisions to the North Coast Air Basin

portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the Governor's designee. The intended

effect of this action is to update rules

and regulations and to correct certain

deficiencies in the SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1980.

ADDRESS: A copy of the revisions is

located at: The Office of the Federal

Register, 1100 L Street, NW., Room 8401,

Washington. D.C. 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and

Hazardous Materials Division.

Environmental Protection Agency, 215

Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA

94105. Attn: Douglas Grano (415) 556-

2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

March 20.1980 (45 FR 18035) EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for revisions to the North

Coast Air Basin rules and regulations

submitted on May 7 and 23,1979 by the

California Air Resources Board (ARBI

for inclusion in the California SIP.

The changes contained in those

submittals that are being acted upon by

this notice include the following:

72147
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 213 / Friday, October 31, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

(A) New rules to regulate equipment

breakdown, emergency variances and

particulates;

(B) Amended rules for controlling

open outdoor fires, including agricultura

burning and visible emissions; and

(C) Changes in the annual renewal

and hearing board fee s6hedules.

A list of the affected rules was

published as part of the March 20, 1980

notice of proposed rulemaking. As

described in that notice, all the rules

were evaluated, found to be in

conformance with the requireinents of

40 CFR Part 51, and proposed to be

approved, with the exception of Rule

40(c)(2)fwhich iVas proposed'to be'

disapproved and Rule 410(b) for which

no action was proposed. The notice of

proposed rulemakiing provided for a 60

day public comment period. One

comment letter was received from the

Mendocino County APCD.

Comment: The District noted that thei

have recently recodified certain

agricultural burning rules which EPA

had proposed to disapprove and that thi

revised rules are consistent wifh the

State ARB Agricultural Burning

Guidelines. Further the District stated

that they assumed EPA had approvdd

these Agricultural Burning Guidelines.

Response: Because the District's

recodified rules have not yet been

submitted to EPA to replace the rules

EPA had proposed to disapprove, EPA i,

taking final action to disapprove these "old" rules. Upon official submittal of"

the recodified rules, EPA will consider

them for incorporation into the SIP. The

State Agricultural Burning Guidelines were officially submitted to the EPA on

August 5, 1980. EPA has not yet

- approved or disapproved these

Guidelines.

Thus, it is the purpose of this notice t(

approve the revisions contained in the

May 7 and 23,1979 submittals, and to

incorporate them into the California SIP

with the exception of Rules 410(b) and

410(c)(2) discussed below.

Rules 410(c)(2), Visible Emissions,

submitted May 7, 1979, allows'

exceptions to the provisions Rule 410(a)

and therefore could result in increased

emissions. This rule is being

disapproved for Del NorLe, Humboldt,

Mendocino, Northern Sonoma and

Trinity Counties because an adequate

control strategy analysis has not been

submitted to show that these exception,

would not interfere with attainment or

maintenance of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards.

Rule 410(b), submitted May 7,1979, is

applicable only in Mendocino County.

However, Rule 410(b) also appears in

the submittals. for Del Norte, Humboldt,

Northern Sonoma and Trinity Counties.

Since it pertains only to Mendocino

County no action ie being taken on this

rule with respect to Del Norte, -

Humboldt, Northern Sonoma and Trinity

Counties.

As described in the March 20, 1980

proposed rulemaking notice, Rule 240,

Compliance Verification, and Appendix

D to Regulation I are being approved.

Since these rules contain requirements

equivalent to those in 40 CFR Part 52,

EPA is also rescinding 40 CFR

52.224(a)(2)(xviii), (xix), (xxii), (xxy) and

(xxx) and 40 CFR 52.234(e)(5)(ii) and

(e)(9) for the respective Counties.

The Air Resources Board has certified,

that the public hearing requirements of

-40 CFR 51.4-have beefi satisfied.

EPA has determined that this action is "specialized" and therefore, not subject

to the procedural requirements of

Executive Order 12044.

(Sections 110 and 301(a)_ of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 7410 and 7601(a)))

Dated: October 27,1980.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

Note.-Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter 1, Title

40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(50) and (51) (iii)-

(vi) as follows:

§ 52.22Q Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(50) Revised regulations for the

following APCD's submitted on May 7,

1979, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Del Norte County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rules 240, 410(a)

and (c), and 615."

(ii) Humboldt County APCD.

(A) Nevt or amended rules 240, 410 (a)

and (p), 615.

'(iii) Mendocino County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 240, 410,

and 615.

(iv) Trinity County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 240,410 (a)

and (c), and 615.

(v)-Northern Sonoma County APCD.

C A) New or amended Rules- 240, 300,

310, 320, 410 (a) and (c), 420, 540, 615. * * * * *

(51) Revised regulations for the

following APCD's submitted on May 23,

1979, by the Governor's designee.

(iii) Del .Norte County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 130, 300,

310, 320, 420, 540 and Regulation 1/

Appendix D.

(iv) Humboldt County APCD,

(A) New or amended rules 130, 300,

310, 320, 420, 540 and Regulation 1/

Appendix D.

(v) Mendocino County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 130, 300,

310, 320, 420, 540 and Regulation 1/

Appendix D.

,(vi) Trinity County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 130, 300,

310, 320, 420, 540 and Regulation 1/

Appendix D. * * * * *

2. Section 52.224 is amended by

adding paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(C), (D), (ENO

(F), and (G) and by rescinding and

reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(xviii), (Xix),

(xxii), (xxv), and-(xxx) as follows:

§ 52.224 General Requirements.

(a) * * * (1) * **

(vi) * * *

(C) Del Norte County APCD

(D) Humboldt County APCD

(E) Mendocino County APCD

(F) Northern Sonoma County APCD

(G) Trinity County APCD * * * * *

(2) [ervd

(xviii) [Reserved] (xix) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(xxii) [Reserved]

(xxv) [Reserved]

(xxReservedJ

3. Section 52.284 is amended by

adding (a)(6)(ii) and revoking and

reserving paragraphs (e)(5) (ii) and (e)(9)

as follows:

§52.234 Source Surveillance.

(a) * * *

(6) * *

(ii) Northern Sonoma County APCD * * * .* *

(e)* * * (5). * *

(ii) [Reserved]

(9) [Reserved]

4. Section 52.273 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(3)(iJ(B),

(b)(3)(ii)(B),,(b)(3)(iii)(B), (b)(3)(iv)(B),

ahd (b)(7)(i)(B) as follows:

§ 52.273 ,Open burning.

(b) * * *

S72IL48
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 213 / Friday, October 31, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

(3) * * * fi) * * *

(B) Rule 410(c)(2), Visible Emissions,

submitted on May 7, 1979.

(ii) * * *

(B) Rule 410(c)(2), Visible Emissions,

submitted on May 7,1979.

(iii) * * *

(B) Rule 410(c)(2), Visible Emissions,

submitted on May 7, 1979. * * * * *

(iv}***

(B) Rule 410(c)(2), Visible Emissions,

submitted on May 7,1979.

(7)"**

(i) * * *

(B) Rule 410(c)(2), Visible Emissions,

submitted on May 7,1979. -

IFR Doc. 80-334 Filed 10-30-8 &845 am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-2 5-l

40 CFR Part 52

[A7 FRL 1643-81

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

.Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The St. Louis County Air

Pollution Control Appeal Board granted

a variance for the Union Electric

Company Meramec power plant to

allow sufficient time for the company to

design, construct and operate new

control equipment for emissions of total

suspended particulate (TSP) matter. EPA

proposed to approve the variance as

part of the applicable State

Implementation Plan (SIP) in a Federal

Register notice on July 11, 1980. One

commentor responded to that proposal.

In this notice, EPA is taking final action

to approve this SIP revision.

-EFFECTIVE DATE: This rulemaking is

effective October 31,1980.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state

submission, the comment received and

the EPA prepared technical evaluation

document are available at the following

locations:

Air Support Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, 324 East 11th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

Public Information Reference Unit,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW., Washington, D.C.

20460;

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources. 2010 Missouri Boulevard,

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102;

St. Louis County Department of Health

and Medical Care, Division of

Environmental Health Care Services,

Air Pollution Control Branch, 801

South Brentwood Boulevard, Clayton,

Missouri 63105.

Copies of the state submission and

this rulemaking are also available at the

following location:

Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L

Street NW., Room 8401, Washington,

D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Wayne G. Leidwanger at 816-374-3791

wrTS 758-3791).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Union Electric Company Meramec plant

is subject to an SO2 emission limit ofe.3

pounds per million BTU of heat input in

addition to the mass emission rate

contained in Rule 10 CSR 10-5.030 and

the visible emission limit of Rule 10 CSR

10-6.090. At the time the variance was

requested (July 1,1978), the allowable

total suspended particulate matter rate

was 0.18 lb. per million BTU and the

allowable visible emission limit was 40

percent opacity. The Meramec plant is

located in St. Louis County near the

Mississippi River approximately 19

kilometers south-southwest of the City

of St. Louis.

In order to meet the required sulfur

dioxide emission limit of 2.3 lbs. per

million BTU of heat input, the Union

Electric Company switched to low sulfur

western coal. The existing particulate

matter control devices used at the

Meramec plant have proven to be

inadequate to meet the TSP rules.

The Missouri Air Conservation

Commission (MACC) amended Rule 10

CSR 10-5.090 to require sources to meet

a 20 percent opacity limit at point sources and Rule 10 CSR 10-5.030 which

is applicable to indirect heating sources.

These rules are applicable only in the St.

Louis Air Quality Control Region.

Application of amended Rule 10 CSR

10-5.030 to the Unidh Electric Company

Meramec power plant requires an

emission limit of 0.12 lb. per million BTU

of heat input. EPA approved these rules

at 45 FR 24140 on April 9,1980.

The St. Louis County Air Pollution

Control Appeal Board granted a variance for the Meramec plant on

November 22,1978 after a public hearing

on October 20,1978. The variance

allows the plant to operate at a mass

emission rate of 0.30 lb. per million BTU

of heat input and a visible emission limit

of 50 percent opacity during the period

of the variance. Final compliance for

Units I and 2 is May 15, 1981, and

November 30, 1981, for Units 3 and 4.

EPA proposed to approve the variance

as part of the applicable SIP on July 11,

1980 (45 FR 46826). A further discussion

of the variance is given in that notice.

EPA received one set of comments in

response to the proposed rulemaking.

The commentor generally concurred

with EPA's conclusions and strongly

urged prompt approval of the Meramec

variance. The commentor disagreed

with one aspect of EPA's analysis. The

proposed rulemaking stated that the

variance did not agree with the 60-day

period for submission to EPA required

by 40 CFR 51.6(d). The St. Louis County

Air Pollution Control Appeal Board

adopted the variance on November 22,

1978, and submitted it to the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) on February 16,1979. MDNR

submitted it to EPA on April 25,1979.

EPA stated in the proposed rulemaking

that it does not believe the delay affects

the approvability of the variance

submittal.

The commentor agrees that the

approvability of the variance is not an

issue. However, the commentor believes

that the 60-day submittal requirement

was met because MDNR concurrence is

required and the period for submittal

should be computed from the date of

MDNR concurrence. The commentor is

correct that the variance requires state

concurrence before it can become part

of the SIP. However, the local agency

adopted the variance under authority

granted by the MACC at which time the

variance became effective and 40 CFR

51.6(d) states that a revision of this type "shall be submitted to the Administrator

no later than 0 days after its adoption."

If the 60-day submittal requirement were

to be computed from the date of the

State's concurrence, a local agency

could postpone indefinitely the

submittal of such actions without

violating the rule. EPA disagrees with

the commentor but still believes that the

approvability of the variance is not

affected.

One part of the analysis given in the

notice of July 11 requires further

explanation. The portion of the county in which the Meramec plant is located is

designated attainment for TSP at 40 CFR

Part 81. Because the area is attainment.

the possibility of consumption of

increment under the Federal regulations

for prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) of air quality is a

matter for consideration. In the notice of

proposed rulemaking, EPA stated that

the PSD regulations exempt certain

activities from an air quality impact

analysis if such activities result in a

temporary increase in emissions and

72149