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

Airquality control region Parb

Prnm

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

state:

a Prnmary/secondarynonatta nent aers h b. Remainderof AQCR

. b Sandusky Intrastate(AOCR 180):
a Prnmary/secondarynonrttairwent areas h b. Remardero AOCR

. b SleutenvlleWterton-Wheehlg Interstate (AQCR

181):

a Prnmary/secotarynonaltainme areas

__ h b. Remainder of AOCR

. . ... b W "roingon-a colhe-Logan Intrastate (AOCR 182):

a. Primlsecondarfnonattainmet areas h b. Remaindero( 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 ofthe 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 It0(a)(2)(A) pwrr to the 1977 CeapAr Act Amendments remainobligated tocomply with these rectrrients by te earber deadnet The ear attain, merit dates re set outat 40 CFR52.1875 pubished July 1. 1979. For actual nonattanmentdesignations refer to 40 CFR Part81 Dates or footnotes which areitaliczed are prescribed by the Adminitralor because the plandid not Providea SPM!.,c date
or the date provided was not acceptable

a.

Ar qualty levels presently below prmary standardsor is unclassiiable b.Axrqualty levels presently below secondary standards or is uncilislilible

c. For Stark. Sutretand Portage Countes attainment is to be achieved by December 31. 192 Fatthefemarig cowne~s the attainmentdatewil be specified in the future. d. December 31. 1982.

e For Sumit County attainmentisto 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 attainmentdate otSeptember 14. 1992 the conpanes in &Surat County listed in (2) which aresubject to an attainmentdale 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 O4Co, 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 &RutbeB 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.

Apri15.1977.
L December31. 1987.

5. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding newparagraphs (a)[4), (b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 52.1885 Control Strategy:.Ozone.



### (a)

- * * a (4] The ozone nonattainment area planfor the rural nonattainment areas.



### (b) * * * (3) The attainment demonstrations for the urban areas ofCanton, 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 °OzoneAttainment 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 ortake no action on revisions to the North Coast AirBasin portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor's designee. Theintended effect ofthis action is to update rules and regulations and to correct certain deficiencies in the SIP. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1980. ADDRESS: A copy ofthe 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 ofproposed rulemaking forrevisions to theNorth Coast Air Basin rules and regulations submitted on May 7 and 23,1979 by the California Air Resources Board (ARBI forinclusion 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 ofthe affected rules was published as part ofthe March 20, 1980 notice ofproposed 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 ofRule 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 fora 60 day public comment period. One comment letter was received from the Mendocino CountyAPCD.

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 yetbeen submitted to EPA to replace the rules EPAhad 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. EPAhas not yet

- approved or disapproved these

Guidelines.

Thus, it is the purpose ofthis 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 ofRules 410(b) and 410(c)(2) discussed below.

Rules 410(c)(2), VisibleEmissions, submitted May 7, 1979, allows' exceptions to the provisions Rule 410(a) and therefore could result inincreased emissions. This rule is being disapproved forDel 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 in40 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)_ofthe Clean AirAct as amended (42U.S.C. §§ 7410 and7601(a)))

Dated: October 27,1980. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator.

Note.-Incorporation byreference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of California was approved by theDirector of the Federal Register onJuly 1,1980.

Subpart F ofPart 52 ofChapter 1,Title 40, ofthe Code ofFederal 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 CountyAPCD. (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 CountyAPCD. (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 forthe 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), VisibleEmissions, submitted on May 7, 1979.



### (ii)* * * 

### (B)Rule410(c)(2), VisibleEmissions, submitted on May 7,1979.



### (iii) * * * 

### (B)Rule 410(c)(2), VisibleEmissions, submitted on May 7, 1979.

* * * * *



### (iv}*** (B) Rule410(c)(2), VisibleEmissions, submitted on May 7,1979.

(7)"** 

### (i) * * * 

### (B)Rule 410(c)(2), VisibleEmissions, submitted on May 7,1979.

-

IFRDoc. 80-334 Filed 10-30-8&845 am] BILUNG CODE 6560-2 5-l

40 CFR Part52

[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 CountyAir Pollution Control Appeal Boardgranted

a variance for the Union Electric CompanyMeramec power plant to allow sufficient time for the company to design, construct and operate new control equipment for emissions oftotal suspended particulate (TSP)matter.EPA proposed to approve the variance as part ofthe applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) in a Federal Register notice on July 11, 1980. One commentor responded to thatproposal. In thisnotice, EPA is taking final action to approve this SIPrevision. -EFFECTIVE DATE: This rulemaking is

effective October 31,1980. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe 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 ofNatural Resources. 2010 Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102; St.Louis County Department ofHealth

andMedical Care, Division of Environmental Health Care Services, Air Pollution Control Branch, 801 South Brentwood Boulevard, Clayton, Missouri 63105. Copies ofthe state submission and thisrulemaking 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 millionBTU ofheat input in addition to the mass emission rate contained in Rule 10 CSR 10-5.030 and the visible emission limit ofRule 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 was40 percent opacity. The Meramec plantis located in St. Louis County near the Mississippi River approximately 19 kilometers south-southwest of the City ofSt.Louis.

In order to meet the required sulfur dioxide emissionlimit of2.3 lbs.per million BTU ofheat 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 TSPrules.

The Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) amended Rule 10 CSR 10-5.090 to require sources to meet

a 20 percent opacity limit atpoint

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 ofamended Rule 10 CSR 10-5.030 to the Unidh Electric Company Meramec power plantrequires an emission limit of0.12lb. per million BTU ofheat input. EPA approved these rules at45 FR 24140 on April 9,1980.

The St.Louis County Air Pollution ControlAppeal Board granted a variance for the Meramec plant on November 22,1978 after a publichearing

on October 20,1978. The variance allows the plant to operate at a mass emission rate of0.30 lb. per millionBTU ofheat input and a visible emission limit of50percent opacity during the period ofthe variance. Final compliance for Units I and 2 isMay 15, 1981, and 

### November 30, 1981, forUnits 3 and 4. EPA proposed toapprove the variance

as partofthe applicable SIPon July 11, 1980 (45 FR46826). A further discussion ofthe variance is given in thatnotice.

EPA received one set ofcomments in response to theproposed rulemaking. The commentor generally concurred with EPA's conclusions and strongly urgedprompt approval oftheMeramec variance. The commentor disagreed with one aspect ofEPA's analysis. The proposed rulemaking statedthat the variance did not agree with the 60-day period forsubmission toEPA required by 40 CFR51.6(d). The St. Louis County AirPollution Control Appeal Board adopted thevariance on November 22, 1978, and submitted it to theMissouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR)on February 16,1979. MDNR submitted itto EPA on April25,1979. EPA statedin the proposed rulemaking thatit does not believe the delay affects the approvability ofthevariance submittal.

The commentor agrees that the approvability ofthe variance isnotan issue.However, the commentorbelieves that the 60-day submittalrequirement

was met because MDNR concurrence is required andtheperiod for submittal shouldbe computedfrom the date of MDNR concurrence. The commentoris correct that the variance requires state
concurrence before it canbecome part ofthe SIP.However, the localagency adopted the variance under authority granted by theMACC at whichtime the variance became effective and40 CFR 51.6(d) states that a revision ofthistype "shall be submitted to theAdministrator

no later than 0 days after its adoption." Ifthe 60-day submittal requirement were to be computed from the date ofthe State's concurrence, a localagency could postpone indefinitely the submittal ofsuch actions without violating therule. EPA disagrees with the commentorbut stillbelieves that the approvability ofthe variance is not affected.

Onepart ofthe analysis given in the notice ofJuly 11 requires further explanation. The portion ofthe county in which theMeramec plantislocated is designated attainment forTSPat40 CFR Part81. Because thearea is attainment. the possibility ofconsumption of increment underthe Federal regulations for prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) ofair qualityis a matter forconsideration. Inthe notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA statedthat the PSD regulations exempt certain activities from an airquality impact analysis ifsuch activities resultin a temporary increase in emissions and 

### 72149