# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 74480 1980

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Fri Dec 9 16:50:28 2016

-- 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.74480 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 219 / Monday, November 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct,judicial review of this action is available onlyby the filing ofa petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days oftoday. Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act, the requirements which are the subject of today's notice may not be-challenged in civil or criminal proceedings to enforce these requirements.

The Adminstrator has reviewed this regulation and determined that itis a specialized regulation not subject to procedural requirements forsignificant regulations under Executive Order 12044. (42U.S.C. 7401-642)

Dated: October 31, 1980. Douglas M.Costle, Administrator.

Note:- Incorporation byreference of the West Virginia State Implementation was approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register on July 1,1980.

Part 52 ofTitle 40, Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

Subpart XX-West Virginia

1.Section 52.2520,paragraph (c)(3), is added as follows:

§52.2520 Identification of plan.

(c) Theplan revisions listed below

were submitted on the dates specified.

(3) Amended Sections 3.01(2) arid 3.03(1) ofRegulation X (toprevent and control air pollution from the emission ofsulfur oxides), submitted on January 25, 1978 and amended September 13, 1978 by the Governor.

2. Section 52.2522, paragraph (e), is "added as follows:

§52.2522 Approval status.

(e)The Administrator approves the amended Sections 3.01(2) and 3.03(1) of WestVirginia AirPollution Control Commission Regulation X submitted January 25, 1978 and amended September 13, 1978, as a plan for attainment oftheprimary SO NAAQS. TheAdministrator does not approve the State's control strategy for attainment and maintenance ofthe secondary SO2 NAAQS submitted on those dates, so far

as it applies to theMitchell and Harrison power stations.

IFR Doe. 80-35060 Filed 11-7-80 8:45arnl BILLING CODE 6560-38-M 40 CFR Part 52
[A-9-FRL 1663-3,]
Imperial County Nonattainment Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice offinal rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1980 (45FR 21297), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the Imperial County Nonattainment Area Plan (NAP) submitted on October 11 and 15, 1979. The April 1, 1980 notice proposed to disapprove the NAP because the lack of New Source Review (NSR) rules constituted a major deficiency with respect to Part D ofthe Clean Air Act, "Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas." On March 17, 1980, the State submitted NSR rules for Imperial Cbunty. As aresult, the NAP contains only minor deficiencies with respect to Part D. Further, the State has initiated the process to submit the material to correct the minor deficiencies. Therefore, EPA takes final action to conditionally approve the Imperial County NAP as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action removes the prohibition on construction ofcertain major new ormodified sources in Imperial County.

This notice also provides a brief
summary ofthe proposed rulemaking notice, describes recent revisions which supplement the NAP, discusses public comments, specifies deadlines by which the Stateis required to submit the material to correct the minor deficiencies, and describes EPA's final action.on the Imperial County NAP. DATES: This action is effective November 10, 1980. ADDRESS: A copy ofthe revision 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 Divisiofi, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn: Douglas Grano (415) 556-2938. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Clean Air Act, 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 and 15, 1979, the Executive.Officer of the California AirResources Board (ARB), the Governor's official designee, submitted revisions to the California SIP consisting ofa control strategy and regulations for Imperial County. These revisions, submitted as the Imperial County NAP,

are intended to provide for the attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS in Imperial County.

On April 1,1980 (45FR 21297), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the Imperial County NAP. That noticeprovided a description ofthe NAP, summarized the applicable Clean AirAct requirements into 14 criteria, compared the NAP to those criteria, and, as described below, proposed to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove portions of the NAP. The April 1,1980 notice should be used as a reference in reviewing today's action.

EPA proposed to approve the following portions of theNAP: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision, reasonable further progress, emissions growth, annualreporting, resources, public and governmental involvement, and public hearing. These portions of the NAP were found to be consistent with the requirements ofPart D ofthe Clean Air Act.

EPA proposed to conditionally approve the legally adopted measures portion ofthe NAP because the lack ofa cutback asphalt rule constituted a minor deficiency with respect to Part D.

EPA proposed to disapprove the permit program portion ofthe NAP because the lack ofan NSR rule constituted amajor deficiency with respect to Part D.

As noted in the April 1,1980notice, approval orconditional approval ofall portions ofthe NAP is sufficient to lift the current prohibition on construction of certain majornew ormodified

sources in Imperial County. As a result of the lack ofan NSR rule, the April 1, 1980 notice proposed to disapprove the overall Imperial County NAP and continue the construction prohibition. Supplemental Revisions

Subsequent to EPA's review, which appears in theApril 1,1980 notice, the State submitted revisions which supplement portions of the NAP.These revisions are discussed below.

New SourceReview

As discussed in the April 1,1980 notice, a legally enforceable NSR rule

was not included in the NAP and this constituted a major deficiency. However, the State did submit a draft NSR rule. EPA reviewed the draft NSR rule (See EPA's Evaluation Report) andNo. 219 / Monday. November 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 74481

concluded that it contained only minor deficiencies with respect to the Part D requirements. Thus,EPA proposed that the permit program portion ofthe NAP could be conditionally approved ifthe State submitted an adopted NSR rule similar and equivalent to the draft NSR rule.

On March 17, 1980. the Governor's official designee submitted the following NSR rules for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (APCD): Rule 207-Standards forPermits to

Construct [Subparagraph CA. ofthis rule, which addresses significant deterioration requirements, is not reviewed here, but will be discussed in a future Federal Register notice.] Rule 208-Standards forPermits to

Operate Rule 209-Implementation Plans

Section 173 ofthe Act contains the requirements for approval of a permit program. EPA has established guidance based on Section 173 in: (1)EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling Uanuary 16, 1979,44 FR 3274) and (2) EPA's proposed amendments to regulations for NSR and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (September 5. 1979,44 FR 51924).

EPA has reviewed the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules with respect to the draft NSR rule and to the guidance based on Section 173 and EPA policy regarding rural ozone areas. The Imperial County APCD's NSR rules differ fromboth the draft NSR rule and the Section 173 guidance. The only major difference is that subparagraph C.5. ofRule 207 exempts certain categories ofsources from the "lowest achievable emission rate" (LAER) requirements. These exemptions are not authorized by the Clean Air Act. An NSR permit program cannot be approved or conditionally approved with these exemptions. The Imperial County APCD's NSR rulescontain additional minor deficiencies with respect to the Section 173 guidance. including a definition of"stationary source" less stringent than is required and the failure to regulate secondary emissions. These and other minor deficiencies are described in EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum which is available at the Region IX office, the ARB. the Imperial County APCD. and the EPA Library in Washington. D.C. Thus, with the exception ofthe LAER exemptions, the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules are similar and equivalent to the draft NSR rule and contain only minor deficiencies with respect to Section 173.

It should be noted that EPA is approving certain offset provisions in the Imperial CountyAPCD's NSR rules which would be disappro%ed in an urban area. (See EvaluationReport Addendum). These provisions arebeing approved because EPA's rural ozone policy does not require emission offsets forrural areas. Further, although the rules allow interpollutant offsets,

sources may not avoid the requirements ofNSR orprevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) by the use of interpollutant offsets,

It should also be noted thatEPA recently published two final rulemaking notices on the September 5. 1979 proposed amendments to regulations for NSR and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling. These notices, published on May 13.1980 t45 FR 313071 and August 7.1980 (45 FR 52676), amend EPA's Interpretative Ruling and setout EPA requirements forNSR under Section 173. The State is required to comply with the August 7, 1980 requirements by May 7, 1981. In reising the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules the State/APCD must address 11) any
new requirements in EPA's amended regulations forNSR under Section 173 of the Clean Air Act (August 7. 1980.45 FR 52676)which the APCD rules do nut now satisfy and [2) those deficiencies cited in EPA's Evaluation ReportAddendum (contained in Document File NAP-CA06 at the EPA Library in Washington, D.C. and the Region IX officel

Public Comments

CommentsSpv Iffi to the Imperial CountyNAP

During the public comment petiod, EPA received se%eral comments. These
comments and EPA's responses follow

Comment.The Imperial CountyAPCD commented that it intends to limit cutback asphalt emissions to a level below Iuo tons/year without adopting a rule for cutback asphalt sources-The Imperial County APCD believes this strategy would satisfy EPA's proposed condition ofappro% al regarding the lack of a cutback asphalt rule. The Imperial County APCD also commented that it should not be required to adopt a cutback asphalt rule for sources which emit less than 100 tons/year since such

a rule would control only 2 percent of the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in the County.

Response:EPA has determined that the Imperial CountyAPCD's strategy of limiting cutback asphalt emissions is not enforceable and thus not acceptable. EPA requires that a legally enforceable cutback asphalt rule be adopted, which reflects reasonably available control technology (RACT), ifcutback asphAlt emissions are more than 100 tons/year for the County.

Comazent:After the above comment and during the public comment period. the Imperial CountyAPCD committed to adopting a cutback asphalt rule which meets EPA's requirements. The Imperial CountyAPCD. however, requested an extension for satisfying thiscondition of approval.

Response:Before aNAP canbe conditionally approved. EPA must receive assurance fromthe State that the deficiencies will beremedied. Senate Bill 647, enacted on September 23,197,9 bythe State Legislature, prevents ARB from amending cutback asphalt rules which an APCD has adopted. Because ofthis legislation, a commitment for adopting a rule to satisfy this condition ofapproval must

come from the Imperial CountyAPCD. EPA feels that the commitment made by the Imperial CountyAPCD provides sufficient assurance for EPA to proceed to conditional approval. Inresponse to the Imperial CountyAPCD's request, EPA has revised the deadline for satisfying the condition ofapproval to January 1, 1981.

Comment:Two comments were received concerning EPAs proposed disapproval ofthe NAP due to the lack ofan NSR rule. The commenters stated that the Imperial County APCD'sNSR rules were submitted toEPA onMarch 17. 1980.

Response:Adiscussion ofEPA's revi w of the NSR rules, which were submitted on March 17,1980, is provided in the SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS section ofthis notice.

Carnment:TheARB commented that they are committed to satisfying the condition of appro, alregarding the Imperial County APCD'sNSR rules. The ARB, however, recommended that the date for satisying the condition of approvalbe amended to be consistent %iththe time frame specified in EPA's final NSR regulatons.

Response:EPAfeels that this commitment provides sufficient

assurance to proceed to conditional approval. Further, in response to ARB's request, EPA has revised the deadline for satisfying the condition ofapproval toMay 7,1981.

Comment:The ARB stated thatEPA did not consider the State's finding that

a Stage IGasoline Vapor Recovery rule is areasonably available control

measure (RACM for Imperial County.

Response:The commitment made by the ARB (ARB Resolution 79-9) to adopt

a Stage I Gasoline VaporRecovery rule for Imperial Countyis incorporated into the SIP in today's notice. 

### Federal Register / Vol. 45.74482 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 45, No. 219 

## I Monday, November 10, 1980 

## I Rules and Regulations

NationalComments
Commentand Response:One
commenter submitted extensive
comments which it requested to be considered pagt ofthe record for each
state plan. Each ofthe points raised by the commenter and EPA's response follow. Although some ofthe issues raised are not relevant to the provisions in the Imperial County NAP, EPAis notifying the public of itsresponse to these comments at this time.

1. The commenter asked that
comments previously submitted on the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling, as revised on January 16,1979 (44FR 3274), be incorporated by reference as part of the comments on bach state NAP. EPA responded to those comments in its final rulemaking on amendments to the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (May i3,1980, 45 FR 3274 and August 7, 1980,45 52676).

2. The commenter objected to general policy guidance issued by EPA on the grounds that EPA's guidance is more stringent than that required by the Act. Such general comment concerning EPA's guidance is not relevant to EPA's decision to approve or disapprove an SIP revision since that decision rests on whether the revision satisfies the requirements ofSection 110(a)(2) of the Act. However, EPAhas considered the
comment and concluded that its. guidance conforms to the statutory requirements.

3. The commenter noted that the
recent Court decision on EPA's regulations forprevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) ofair quality affects EPA's NSR requirements forPart D NAPs as well. The decision isAlabama PowerCompanyv. Costle,13 ERC 1225 (D.C. Cir.,June 18, 1979). In the commenter's view, the Court's rulings on the definition of "source," "modification" and "potential to emit" should apply to Part D NAPs as well as PSD programs. In addition, the
commenter believes that the Court's decision precludes EPA from requiring Part D review ofsources located in designated clean areas.

The preamble to the Emissions Offset Interpretative Ruling, as revised on January 16, 1979, explains that the interpretations in the Ruling ofthe terms *"source,"

.. major modification" and "potential to emit," and the areas in which NSR applies, govern state NAPs under PartD (44FR 3275 Col. 3 through 3276 Col. 1, January 16,1979). In proposed rules published on September 5, 1979 (44 FR 51924) and final rules published on May 13, 1980 (45 FR 3274) and August 7, 1980 (45FR 52676), EPA explained its views on how the AlabamaPowerdecision effects NSR requirements for statePart D NAPs.

4. The commenter quesfioned EPA's alternative emission reduction options policy (the "Bubble Policy"). As the
commenter noted, EPA has set forth its proposed "Bubble Policy" in a separate proposal (44 FR 3720,January 18, 1979). EPA responded to the comments on the "Bubble" approach in the final "Bubble Policy" statement published on December 11, 1979 (44 FR 71780).

5.The commenter questioned EPA's requirement for a demonstration that the application ofall RACM would not resultin attainment any faster than the application ofless than RACM.In EPA's review, the statutory deadline is that date bywhich attainment canbe achieved as expeditiously as practicable. If application ofall RACM results in attainment more expeditiously than application ofless than RACM, the statutory deadline is the earlier date. While there is no requirement to apply

more than RACM than is necessary for attainment, there is a requirement to apply controls which will ensure attainment as soon as possible. Consequently, the state must select the mix ofcontrol measures that will achieve the standards most expeditiously, as well as assure reasonable further progress.

The commenter also suggested that all RACM maynotbe "practicable." By definition, RACM are only those

measures which are reasonable. If a
measure is not practicable, it-would not constitute a RACM.

6. The commenter found the discussion in the General Preamble on RACT for VOC sources covered by the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) to be confusing in that it appeared to equate RACT with the guidance in the CTGs. EPA did notintend to equate RACTwith the CTGs. The CTGs provide recommendations to the states for determining RACT, and serve as a "presumptive nolim" for 

### RACT,but are not intended to define RACT.Although EPA believes its earlier guidance was clear on this point, the Agency'has issued a supplement to the General Preamble clarifying the role ofthe CTGs in NAP development (44 FR 53671, September 17, 1979).

7.The commenter suggested that the revision ofthe ozone standardjustified

an extension of the schedule for the submittal ofPart DNAPs. EPA disagrees and this issue has been addressed in the General Preamble (44 FR20377, April 4, 1979].

8. The commenter questionedEPA's authority to require states to consider transfers oftechnology from one source type to another as part oftheLAER determinations. EPA responded to this comment in the May 13, 1980 (45 FR 3274) and August 7, 1980 (45FR 52676) Federal Register.

9. The commenter suggested that Ifa state falls to submit aPart DNAP, or the' submitted NAP Is disapproved, EPA
must promulgate a NAP under Section 110(c), which may include restrictions

on construction as provided in Section 110(a](2)(1i). In the commenter's view, the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions cannot be imposed without such a Federal promulgation. EPA has promulgated regulations which impose restrictions on construction in any nonattainment area for which a state fails to submit an approvable Part D NAP (44 FR 35853, July 2, 1979). Section 110(a)(2)(I) ofthe Act doesnot require a complete Federally promulgated SIP before the restrictiong may go into effect. ' Comment:Another commenter, a national environmental group, stated that the requirements foran adequate permit fee system (Section 110(a)(2](K) ofthe Act), and proper composition of state boards (Sections 110(a)(2)(F)(vi) and 128 ofthe Act) must be satisfied to

assure thatpermit programs for nonattainment areas are Implemented successfully. Therefore, while expressing support for the concept of conditional approval, the commenters argued thatEPA must secure a state commitment to satisfy the permit fee and state board requirements before conditionally approving a NAP under Part D.Inthose states that faid to correct their omission within a required time, the commenters urged that restrictions

on construction under Section 110(a)(2)(1) ofthe Actmust apply.'

Response:To be fully approved under Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Act, a state plan
must satisfy the requirements for state boards and permit fees for all areas, including nonattainment areas. Several states have adopted provisions satisfying these requirements, and EPA is working with other states to assist them in developing the required • programs. However, EPA does not believe these programs are needed to satisfy the requirements ofPart D. Congress placed neither the permit fee

nor the state boardprovisions inPart D. While legislative history states that these provisions should apply in nonattainment areas, there is no legislative history indicating that they should be treated as PartD requirements. Therefore, EPA does not believe that failure to satisfy these requirements is grounds for conditional approval under Part D or for applictition ofthe construction restriction under Section 110(a)(2)(I) of theAct. No. 219 / Monday, November 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 74482 Federal Register / Vol. 45,Federal Register 

## I Vol. 45. No. 219 

## I Monday, November 10. 1900 

## I Rules and Regulations 74483

EPA Actions

EPA's final actions on the Imperial County NAP are described below and

are based on the proposed rulemaking notice, supplemental revisions submitted by the State. and public
comments received by EPA. ApprovedPortions oftheNAP

As proposed in the April 1.1980 notice, EPAis taking final actionunder PartD to approve the following portions ofthe NAP- emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision, reasonable further progress, emissions growth, annual reporting, resources, public and governmental involvement, and public hearing. No supplemental revisions or public comments were received addressing theseportions ofthe NAP.

Also asproposed. EPAis taking final action under Section 110 and PartD to approve all the VOC rules listed in the April 1.1980 notice. No supplemental revisions or public comments were received addressing theserules. Conditionally ApprovedPortions ofthe NAP

Although the State did not officially submit NSR rules with the NAP in October 1979, the State did submit their draft NSR rule and requested EPA to review thisrule. As described in the April 1.1980 notice, EPA reviewed the draft NSR rule, determined that it contained only minor deficiencies with respect to Section 173, statedthat the NAP could be conditionally approved upon submittal ofan NSR rule similar and equivalent to the draft NSR rule, and provided an opportunity forpublic
comment on these actions.

As stated in the Supplemental Revisions section, EPAhas found that the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules submitted on March 17.1980 are similar and equivalent to the State's draft NSR rule and contain only minor deficiencies with respect to Section 173, with the exception oftheLAER exemptions in subparagraph C.5. of Rule 207.Further, EPA found that a NAP containing these exemptions cannot be approved or conditionally approved. Therefore. EPA disapproves this subparagraph. As a result, the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules are conditionally approvable with respect to Section 173. Further, the conditionally approvable rules are similar and equivalent to the draft NSR rule which was subject to public
comment. Therefore. EPAtakes fnal action to conditionally approve the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules (permit program portion of the NAP) with the exception of subparagraph C5, ofRule 207 which is disapproied,

As discussed in theApril 1,1980 notice and as discussed -i

### 'he Public. Comments section oft, rtice, the legally adopted measiro

- portin ofthe NAP contains a minor di ht,.ncy due to the lackof a cutback asphdt rule. Therefore. EPA takes final action to conditionally approve the legally adopted measures portion of the NAP

The conditions ofapproval and the associated deadline6 are speuified below:

1.By May 7,1981, theNSR rules must be revised and submitted as an SIP revision. The rules must satisfy Section 173 and 40 CFR 51.18, "Review ofnew
sources and modifications" In revising the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules, the State/APCD must address (1)any

new requirements in EPA's amended regulations for NSR under Section 173 of the Clean Air Act (August 7,1980,45 FR 52676) which the APCD rules do notnow satisfy and (2) those deficiencies citedin EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum (contained in Document File NAP-CA06 at the EPA Library in Washington. D.C. and the Region IX office).

2. By October 1,1980, a cutback asphalt rule whichreflects RACT must be submitted as an SIP revision.
Final Action on theNAP
Since the major deficiency noted in the April 1,190 notice has been corrected and only minor deficiencies remain. EPA is taking final action by this notice to conditionally approve the overall Imperial CountyNAP with respect to Part D.As a result, the current prohibition on construction ofcertain majornew ormodified sources in Imperial Countyis no longer in effect.

Inthose areas forwhich the State of California has submitted approvable or conditionally approvable NAPs in accordance with therequirements of Part D ofthe Clean AirAct, EPA has a responsibility to take final action as

soon as possible in order to lift the construction prohibition. Since the State has submitted a conditionally approvable NAP forImperial County, EPA finds that good cause exists for making this action immediately effective.

Under Section 307(b](1) ofthe Clean Air Act. judicial review of today's action is available onlybythe filing of a petitionfor review in theUnited States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit within 80 days of today.Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act. therequirements which are the subject oftoday's notice may notbe challenged later in civil or criminalproceedings brought Ly EPA to enforce these requirements.

C nditltcrl AppralProceare
A discussicn ofconditional approval and its practical effect appears in two supplements to the General Preamble (44 FR 38583, July 2. 1979and 44 FR 67192. No% ember 23,1979). Conditional approval requires the State to submit additional material by the deadlines specified in today's notice.There willbe

no extensions granted to the conditional approval deadlines being promulgated today. EPAwill follow theprocedures described belowwhen determining if the Statehas satisfied the conditions.

1.Ifthe State submits therequired additional documentation according to schedule, EPA will publish a notice in the FederalRegister announcing receipt ofthe material. The notice ofreceipt will also announce that the conditional approval is continuedpending EPA's final action on the submittal.

2. EPA will evaluate the State's submittal to determine ifthe conditions

are fullymet. After EPA's review is completed, a Federal Register, notice will bepublished proposing or taking final actionto either (1] find the conditions havebeen met and approve the NAP or (2)find the conditions have
notbeen met. withdraw the conditional approval, and disapprove theNAP. If the NAP is disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on construction would be reimposed.

3.Ifthe State fails to submit the required materials tomeet a condition. EPA willpublish a Federal Register notice shortly after the expiration ofthe deadline. The notice will announce that the conditional approval is %withdrawn, the NAP is disapproved, andthe Section 110(aj(2){I} restrictions onconstruction

are in effect.

Certain deadlines forsatisfying conditions have been changed from those proposed and arebeing promulgated todaywithout 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 andthe State has agreed to the deadlines. Inaddition the publichas had an opportunity to comment generally on the concept of conditional approval and on what deadlines should apply for these conditions (44 FR 38583, July 2,1979 and 45FR21297, April 1,1980).

40CFRPart J2

Rescissions
EPAis takingfinal action to rescind certain Federally promulgated 

### No. 219 / Monday, November 10, 1980 1 Rules and Regulations 74483 Federal Register / Vol. 45.74484 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 2194i Monday, November 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

regulations from 40 CFR Part 52 as proposed. No supplemerital revisions or public comments addressed EPA's proposed rescissions.

VOCRACTRequirements

The April 4,1979 General Preamble (44FR 20376) requires states to submit VOC RACT regulations for certain •

sources located in ozone nonattainment

areas.The first set ofRACT regulations

were required for sources covered by the Group I CTG documents published before January 1978.Regulations for

sources covered by the Group I CTG documents were to have been submitted by January 1, 1979. A second set of RACT regulations are required for

sources covered by the Group II CTG documents, published between January 1978 and January 1979.Regulations for

sources covered by the Group IICTG documents were to have been submitted by July 1, 1980 (44FR 50371, August 28, 1979). Continued satisfaction ofthe Part D requirements forthe ozone portion of the Imperial CountyNAP is contingent

on the submittal of the Group H1 RACT regulations. Further, these requirements have been setforth in 40 CFR 52.223.

AttainmentDates

The 1979 edition of40 CFR Part 52 lists,in the Subpart for California, the applicable deadlines for attaining the NAAQS [attainment dates] required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act.For each nonattainment-area where a NAP provides for attainment by the deadlines required by Section 172(a) ofthe Act, the new deadlines are substituted on California's attainment date chart in40 CFR Part 52. The earlier attainment dates will be referenced in a footnote to the chart. Sources subject toplan requirements and deadlines established under Section 110(a](2](A) prior to the 1977Amendments remain obligated to comply with those requirements, as well

as the new Section 172 requirements. Congress established new attainment dates under Section 172(a) toprovide additional time for previously regulated

sources to comply with new,more stringent requirements, and to permit previously uncontrolled sources to comply with the newly applicable emission limitations. These new deadlines were notincluded to give

sources that failed to comply with pre1977plan requirements by the earlier deadlines more time to comply with those requirements. As noted by Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing the 1977Amendments:

Section 110(a](2) ofthe Actmade clear that each source had tomeet its emission limits "as expeditiously as practicable," butnot later than three years after approval ofa .plan.This provision was not changed by the

- 1977 Amendments. Itwould be a perversion ofclearCongressional intent to construe Part D to authorize relaxation or delay ofemission limits for particular sources. The added time for attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality-Standards was provided, if necessary, because ofthe need to tighten emission limits orbring previously uncontrolled sources under control. Delays or relaxation ofemission limits were not generally authorized orintended underPart D (123 Cong. Rec. H 11958, daily ed. November 1,1977).

To implement Congress' intention that

sources remain subject topre-existing plan requirements, sources cannot be granted variances extending compliance dates beyond the attainment dates established prior to the 1977 Amendments. EPA cannot approve such compliance date extensions, even though a NAP with a later attainment date has been approved. However a compliance date extension beyond a pre-existing attainment date may be granted ififwillnot contribute to a violation of an ambient standard or a PSD increment (44FR 20373-74, April 4, 1979).

In addition, sources subject to preexisting plan requirements maybe relieved ofcomplying with such requirements ifa NAP imposes new,

more stringent control requirements that

are incompatible with controls required
tomeet the pre-existing regulations. Decisions on the incompatibility of requirements will be made on a case-bycasebasis.

Note.-EPAhas determined that this action is "specialized," and therefore not subject to the proceduralrequirements ofExecutive Order 12044. (Sec. 110,129.171-178, and 301(a) ofthe CleanAirAct, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7410, 7429,7501-7508. and 7601(a])

Dated. November 4,1980. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator.

-

Note.-Incorporation byreference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of theFederal Register on July 1,1 980.

Subpart FofPart 52 of Chapter 1,Title 40, of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart F-California

1. Section'52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(52)(ii), (c)(55), and (c](56), a follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of.plan.

{s* * * * (52)* (ii) Imperial.County APCD. (A)Rules 415.1 and 424. (55) The following material for Imperial County was submitted on October 11, 1979 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Summary ofPlan Compliance with Clean Air Act Requirements.

(ii) Imperial County plan to attain National AmbientAir Quality Standards for oxidants, October 31, 1978.

(iii) SIPRevision-Imperial County ARB StaffReport, No. 79-4-2.

(iv)ARB resolution 79-9, February 21, 1979.

(v) Copies ofBoard hearing testimony.

(56) Revised regulations for the following APCDs submitted on March 17,1980, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Imperial County APCD. (A) Rules 207 [except Subparagraph C.4.], 208, and 209.

2. Section 52.222, paragraph (b)is revised to read as follows: §52.222 Extensions.

(b) The Administrator hereby extends
to December 31,1982 certain attainment dates for the national standards for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (0 , total suspended particulates (TSP), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and/or sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the following nonattainmont

areas:

(1) Imperial County for 03.

3. Section 52.223 is revised to read as follows: §52.223 Approval status.

(a) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves California's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

(b) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves the plan with respect toPart D, Title I of the Clean AirAct, as amended in 1977, forthe nonattainment areas listed in this paragraph. In addition, continued satisfaction of therequirements ofPart D for the ozone portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) depends oil the adoption and submittal of reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements by July 1, 1980 for

sources covered by Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued between January 1978 and January 1979 and adoption and submittal by each subsequent January ofadditional RACT requirements for sources covered by CTGs issued by the previous January.

(1) Imperial County for 03.

4. SubpartF ofPart 52 is amended by adding § 52.232, reading as follows:Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 219 / Monday, November 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 74485

§ 52.232 Part Dconditional approval..
-(a) The following portions ofthe California SIPcontain deficiencieswith respect toPart D ofthe Clean Air Act whichmust be corrected withii the time .limit indicated. (1) The Imperial Countyportion of the iCalifornia SIP.is approved as satisfying Part D requirements for Oaprovided the following conditions are met.

- ,. (i)By May 7, 1981, the NSR rules must berevised and submitted as an SIP-

- revision. Therules must satisfy Section 173 and 40 CFR'51.18, "Review ofnew

sources and modifications."

In revising the Imperial County APCD's NSR rules, the State/APCD * must address (1) any new requirements inEPA's amended regulations forNSR under Section 173 ofthe Clean Air Act (August 7,1980,45 FR 52676) which the APCD rules do not now satisfy and (2)

- those deficiencies cited in EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum '(contained in DocumentFile NAP-CA06 atthe EPALibrary inWashington; D.C. and the Region IX office). (ii)By January 1,1981. a cutback

- asphalt rule which reflects reasonably available control technology (RACT)
must Besubmitted as an SIPrevision.

5. Section 52.233 is amended by adding paragraph (a), as follows:
§52.233 Review ofnew sources and modifications.

(a) Thefollowing regulations are disapprovedbecause they are not consistent with Clean Air Act requirements.

(1) Imperial County APCD. [i) Subparagraph C.5. ofRule 207, Standards forPermitto Construct, submitted March 17, 1980.

6. Section 52.233, subparagraphs (h)
and (i)are herebyrevoked and reserved.

7. In §52.238, the column headings are revised, the entries for Southeast Desert Intrastate arerevised, a second "Note" is added, and footnote (h) Is added to footnotes (a)-(g), as follows:

§52.238 Attainment dates for national standards.

Ponkants

Air quaty controlregion and nonattatnmenlarea TSP SO$

___________________ reo co o
Rimay Secondary primnary S-cndary

Southeast DesertIntrastate:

a Imperial county portion....

...... (e) (e) (e) (c) (0) (0) (h) b.Remftnder ofAOCR

- (a) (a) (C) (c) (0) MJY$1. ._! I1. 1977 1977

Note.--Dates or reemences vich are itatteced are prescribed by the Adrnistratar bc== the p'.-n ". not prt.vo a specific date or the date provided was not acceptable.

N6te.-Sources subject to pten requirements and attainment dates estabts d od r Sectl 1101W12XA) pieorto the 1977 Cean AirAct Amendments remain ob gated to comply with those requirements by th earter dc3d-n. The cartr attazhrw
datesare set outat 40 CFR Part 52.28 (1979).

(h)December 31, 1982.

IFR Doc- " S"500 Filed 11-7-8M 8:45 am)
BIUJiNG CODE 65B0-38-M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 5770

[A-9224] Arizoha; Public Land Order No. 5756; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau ofLand ManagemenL Interior. ACTION: Public land order

SUMMARY: This document will correct an

error in the land description ofPublic Land Order No. 5756 ofSeptember 22. 1980.

EFFECTIVE DATE:November 10. 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Evelyn Tauber, 202-343-6486.

By virtue ofthe authority contained in Section 204 ofthe Federal Land Policy and Management Act of1976, 90 Stat. 2751:43 U.S.C. 1714, itis ordered as follows:

The description ofland inPublic Land Order No. 5756 ofSeptember22,1980, as published in 45 FR63850-63851 ofthe issue of September 26.1980, is hereby corrected by changing lot9 to read SY2S1ANE NE 4 in Sec. 19. T. 8S.. R. 18 W.The total acreage remains unchanged. Guy R. Martin.
Assistant Secretary oftheInterfor. November 4.1980.

FRa

D o- l-Mf---d 11-7-eo e43aml

BILLING COOE 4310-"

DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Child Support Enforcement

45CFR Part305

Assignment ofBenefits; Collection of Medical Support and Payments; Correction

AGENCY: Office ofChild Support

Enforcement (OCSE). HHS.

ACTION: Correction offinal regulations.

SUMMARY: This notice corrects an error in thefinal regulations published in the Federal Register onFebruary 11,1980 (45FR 8982)-on medical support enforcement. The finalregulations contain an incorrect regulatory citation in45 CFR 306.100].
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12.1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Michael P.Fitzgerald (301)443-5350.

'SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register forMonday,February 11.1980 make the following correction in FRDec.80-4030 appearing atpage 8982: On page 8987, in the third column, in §306.10(j). in the 2ndline, replace the citation "42CFR 443.154" withthe citation "42 CFR 433.154".

Dated:November4.1980.

'Robert F.Sermier,
AclingDeputy Assistant Secretaryfor Manogement Analyslsand System.

BILLING CODE 4110-7-U