+(,121/,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) of the Clean

Air Act, judicial review of this action is

available only by the filing of a petition

for review in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit

within 60 days of today. Under Section

307(b)(2) of the 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 it is a

specialized regulation not subject to

procedural requirements for significant

regulations under Executive Order

12044.

(42 U.S.C. 7401-642)

Dated: October 31, 1980.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

Note:- Incorporation by reference of the

West Virginia State Implementation was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register on July 1, 1980.

Part 52 of Title 40, Code of Federal

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) The plan revisions listed below

were submitted on the dates specified.

(3) Amended Sections 3.01(2) arid

3.03(1) of Regulation X (to prevent and

control air pollution from the emission

of sulfur 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

West Virginia Air Pollution Control

Commission Regulation X submitted

January 25, 1978 and amended

September 13, 1978, as a plan for

attainment of the primary SO NAAQS.

The Administrator does not approve the

State's control strategy for attainment

and maintenance of the secondary SO2

NAAQS submitted on those dates, so far

as it applies to the Mitchell and

Harrison power stations.

IFR Doe. 80-35060 Filed 11-7-80 8:45 arnl

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 of final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1980 (45 FR

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 of the Clean Air Act,

"Plan Requirements for Nonattainment

Areas." On March 17, 1980, the State

submitted NSR rules for Imperial

Cbunty. As a result, 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 of certain

major new or modified sources in

Imperial County.

This notice also provides a brief

summary of the proposed rulemaking

notice, describes recent revisions which

supplement the NAP, discusses public

comments, specifies deadlines by which

the State is 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 of the revision is.

located at: The Office of the 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

Air Resources Board (ARB), the

Governor's official designee, submitted

revisions to the California SIP consisting

of a control strategy and regulations for

Imperial County. These revisions,

submitted as the Imperial County NAP,

are intended to provide for the

attainment of the ozone NAAQS in

Imperial County.

On April 1, 1980 (45 FR 21297), EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for the Imperial County

NAP. That notice provided a description

of the NAP, summarized the applicable

Clean Air Act 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 the NAP: emission

inventory, modeling, emission reduction

estimates, attainment provision,

reasonable further progress, emissions

growth, annual reporting, resources,

public and governmental involvement,

and public hearing. These portions of

the NAP were found to be consistent

with the requirements of Part D of the

Clean Air Act.

EPA proposed to conditionally

approve the legally adopted measures

portion of the NAP because the lack of a

cutback asphalt rule constituted a minor

deficiency with respect to Part D.

EPA proposed to disapprove the

permit program portion of the NAP

because the lack of an NSR rule

constituted a major deficiency with

respect to Part D.

As noted in the April 1, 1980 notice,

approval or conditional approval of all

portions of the NAP is sufficient to lift

the current prohibition on construction

of certain major new or modified

sources in Imperial County. As a result

of the lack of an 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 the April 1, 1980 notice, the

State submitted revisions which

supplement portions of the NAP. These

revisions are discussed below.

New Source Review

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) and
No. 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 of the NAP

could be conditionally approved if the

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 for Permits to

Construct [Subparagraph CA. of this

rule, which addresses significant

deterioration requirements, is not

reviewed here, but will be discussed

in a future Federal Register notice.]

Rule 208-Standards for Permits to

Operate

Rule 209-Implementation Plans

Section 173 of the 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 from both the draft NSR rule and

the Section 173 guidance. The only

major difference is that subparagraph

C.5. of Rule 207 exempts certain

categories of sources 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 rules contain

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 of the 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 County APCD's NSR rules

which would be disappro% ed in an

urban area. (See Evaluation Report

Addendum). These provisions are being

approved because EPA's rural ozone

policy does not require emission offsets

for rural areas. Further, although the

rules allow interpollutant offsets,

sources may not avoid the requirements

of NSR or prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) by the use of

interpollutant offsets,

It should also be noted that EPA

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 set out

EPA requirements for NSR 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 for NSR 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 Report Addendum

(contained in Document File NAP-CA06 at the EPA Library in Washington,

D.C. and the Region IX officel

Public Comments

Comments Spv Iffi to the Imperial

County NAP

During the public comment petiod,

EPA received se% eral comments. These

comments and EPA's responses follow

Comment. The Imperial County APCD

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 of appro% 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 County APCD'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), if cutback asphAlt

emissions are more than 100 tons/year

for the County.

Comazent: After the above comment

and during the public comment period.

the Imperial County APCD committed to

adopting a cutback asphalt rule which

meets EPA's requirements. The Imperial

County APCD. however, requested an

extension for satisfying this condition of

approval.

Response: Before a NAP can be

conditionally approved. EPA must

receive assurance from the State that

the deficiencies will be remedied.

Senate Bill 647, enacted on September

23,197,9 by the State Legislature,

prevents ARB from amending cutback

asphalt rules which an APCD has

adopted. Because of this legislation, a

commitment for adopting a rule to

satisfy this condition of approval must

come from the Imperial County APCD.

EPA feels that the commitment made by

the Imperial County APCD provides

sufficient assurance for EPA to proceed

to conditional approval. In response to

the Imperial County APCD's request,

EPA has revised the deadline for

satisfying the condition of approval to

January 1, 1981.

Comment: Two comments were

received concerning EPAs proposed

disapproval of the NAP due to the lack

of an NSR rule. The commenters stated

that the Imperial County APCD's NSR

rules were submitted to EPA on March

17. 1980.

Response: A discussion of EPA's

revi w of the NSR rules, which were

submitted on March 17,1980, is provided

in the SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS

section of this notice.

Carnment: The ARB commented that

they are committed to satisfying the

condition of appro, al regarding the

Imperial County APCD's NSR rules. The

ARB, however, recommended that the

date for satisying the condition of

approval be amended to be consistent

%ith the time frame specified in EPA's

final NSR regulatons.

Response: EPA feels 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 of approval

to May 7,1981.

Comment: The ARB stated that EPA

did not consider the State's finding that

a Stage I Gasoline Vapor Recovery rule

is a reasonably available control

measure (RACM for Imperial County.

Response: The commitment made by

the ARB (ARB Resolution 79-9) to adopt

a Stage I Gasoline Vapor Recovery rule

for Imperial County is 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

National Comments

Comment and Response: One

commenter submitted extensive

comments which it requested to be

considered pagt of the record for each

state plan. Each of the points raised by

the commenter and EPA's response

follow. Although some of the issues

raised are not relevant to the provisions

in the Imperial County NAP, EPA is

notifying the public of its response 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 (44 FR 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 of Section 110(a)(2) of the

Act. However, EPA has 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 for prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) of air quality affects

EPA's NSR requirements for Part D

NAPs as well. The decision is Alabama

Power Company v. 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 of sources 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 of the terms

*"source," .. major modification" and

"potential to emit," and the areas in

which NSR applies, govern state NAPs

under Part D (44 FR 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 (45 FR 52676), EPA

explained its views on how the

Alabama Power decision effects NSR

requirements for state Part 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 of all RACM would not

resultin attainment any faster than the

application of less than RACM. In EPA's

review, the statutory deadline is that

date by which attainment can be

achieved as expeditiously as

practicable. If application of all RACM

results in attainment more expeditiously

than application of less 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 of control measures that will

achieve the standards most

expeditiously, as well as assure

reasonable further progress. The commenter also suggested that all

RACM may not be "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 not intend to equate

RACT with 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 of the CTGs

in NAP development (44 FR 53671,

September 17, 1979).

7. The commenter suggested that the

revision of the ozone standard justified

an extension of the schedule for the

submittal of Part D NAPs. EPA disagrees

and this issue has been addressed in the

General Preamble (44 FR 20377, April 4,

1979]. 8. The commenter questionedEPA's

authority to require states to consider

transfers of technology from one source

type to another as part of the LAER

determinations. EPA responded to this

comment in the May 13, 1980 (45 FR

3274) and August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676)

Federal Register.

9. The commenter suggested that If a

state falls to submit a Part D NAP, 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) of the

Act does not require a complete

Federally promulgated SIP before the

restrictiong may go into effect.

' Comment: Another commenter, a

national environmental group, stated

that the requirements for an adequate

permit fee system (Section 110(a)(2](K)

of the Act), and proper composition of

state boards (Sections 110(a)(2)(F)(vi)

and 128 of the Act) must be satisfied to

assure that permit programs for

nonattainment areas are Implemented

successfully. Therefore, while

expressing support for the concept of

conditional approval, the commenters

argued that EPA must secure a state

commitment to satisfy the permit fee

and state board requirements before

conditionally approving a NAP under

Part D. In those states that faid to correct

their omission within a required time,

the commenters urged that restrictions

on construction under Section

110(a)(2)(1) of the Act must apply.'

Response: To be fully approved under

Section 110(a)(2) of the 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 of Part D.

Congress placed neither the permit fee

nor the state board provisions in Part 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 Part D

requirements. Therefore, EPA does not

believe that failure to satisfy these

requirements is grounds for conditional

approval under Part D or for applictition

of the construction restriction under

Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the Act.

74482 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 219 / Monday, November 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
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.

Approved Portions of the NAP

As proposed in the April 1.1980

notice, EPA is taking final action under

Part D to approve the following portions

of the 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 these portions of the NAP.

Also as proposed. EPA is taking final

action under Section 110 and Part D to

approve all the VOC rules listed in the

April 1.1980 notice. No supplemental

revisions or public comments were

received addressing these rules.

Conditionally Approved Portions of the

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 this rule. 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, stated that the

NAP could be conditionally approved

upon submittal of an NSR rule similar

and equivalent to the draft NSR rule,

and provided an opportunity for public

comment on these actions.

As stated in the Supplemental

Revisions section, EPA has 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 of the LAER 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. EPA takes fnal

action to conditionally approve the

Imperial County APCD's NSR rules

(permit program portion of the NAP)

with the exception of subparagraph C 5,

of Rule 207 which is disapproi ed,

As discussed in the April 1, 1980

notice and as discussed -i 'he Public.

Comments section oft, rtice, the

legally adopted measiro - portin of the

NAP contains a minor di h t,.ncy due to

the lack of a cutback asphdt rule.

Therefore. EPA takes final action to

conditionally approve the legally

adopted measures portion of the NAP

The conditions of approval and the

associated deadline6 are speuified

below:

1. By May 7,1981, the NSR rules must

be revised and submitted as an SIP

revision. The rules must satisfy Section

173 and 40 CFR 51.18, "Review of new

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 not now

satisfy and (2) those deficiencies cited in

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 which reflects RACT must

be submitted as an SIP revision.

Final Action on the NAP

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 County NAP with

respect to Part D. As a result, the current

prohibition on construction of certain

major new or modified sources in

Imperial County is no longer in effect.

In those areas for which the State of

California has submitted approvable or

conditionally approvable NAPs in

accordance with the requirements of

Part D of the Clean Air Act, 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 for Imperial County,

EPA finds that good cause exists for

making this action immediately

effective.

Under Section 307(b](1) of the Clean

Air Act. judicial review of today's action

is available only by the filing of a

petition for review in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit within 80 days of today. Under

Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.

the requirements which are the subject

of today's notice may not be challenged

later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought Ly EPA to enforce these

requirements.

C nditltcrl AppralProceare

A discussicn of conditional approval

and its practical effect appears in two

supplements to the General Preamble

(44 FR 38583, July 2. 1979 and 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 will be

no extensions granted to the conditional

approval deadlines being promulgated

today. EPA will follow the procedures

described below when determining if

the State has satisfied the conditions.

1. If the State submits the required

additional documentation according to

schedule, EPA will publish a notice in

the Federal Register announcing receipt

of the material. The notice of receipt will

also announce that the conditional

approval is continued pending EPA's

final action on the submittal.

2. EPA will evaluate the State's

submittal to determine if the conditions

are fully met. After EPA's review is

completed, a Federal Register, notice

will be published proposing or taking

final action to either (1] find the

conditions have been met and approve

the NAP or (2) find the conditions have

not been met. withdraw the conditional

approval, and disapprove the NAP. If

the NAP is disapproved, the Section

110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on construction

would be reimposed.

3. If the State fails to submit the

required materials to meet a condition.

EPA will publish a Federal Register

notice shortly after the expiration of the

deadline. The notice will announce that

the conditional approval is %withdrawn,

the NAP is disapproved, and the Section

110(aj(2){I} restrictions on construction

are in effect.

Certain deadlines for satisfying

conditions have been changed from

those proposed and are being

promulgated today without further

notice and comment. EPA finds that for

good cause additional notice and

comment on these deadlines are

unnecessary (See 5 U.S.C. Section

553(b){B}, Administrative Procedure

Act). The State is the party responsible

for meeting the deadlines and the State

has agreed to the deadlines. In addition

the public has 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

45 FR 21297, April 1,1980).

40 CFR Part J2 Rescissions

EPA is taking final action to rescind

certain Federally promulgated

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

VOC RACTRequirements

The April 4,1979 General Preamble

(44 FR 20376) requires states to submit

VOC RACT regulations for certain •

sources located in ozone nonattainment

areas. The first set of RACT 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 II CTG

documents were to have been submitted

by July 1, 1980 (44 FR 50371, August 28,

1979). Continued satisfaction of the Part

D requirements for the ozone portion of

the Imperial County NAP is contingent

on the submittal of the Group H1 RACT

regulations. Further, these requirements

have been set forth in 40 CFR 52.223.

Attainment Dates

The 1979 edition of 40 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) of the Act.For each

nonattainment-area where a NAP

provides for attainment by the deadlines

required by Section 172(a) of the Act,

the new deadlines are substituted on

California's attainment date chart in 40

CFR Part 52. The earlier attainment

dates will be referenced in a footnote to

the chart. Sources subject to plan

requirements and deadlines established

under Section 110(a](2](A) prior to the

1977 Amendments remain obligated to

comply with those requirements, as well

as the new Section 172 requirements.

Congress established new attainment

dates under Section 172(a) to provide

additional time 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 not included to give

sources that failed to comply with pre1977 plan requirements by the earlier

deadlines more time to comply with

those requirements. As noted by

Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing

the 1977 Amendments:

Section 110(a](2) of the Act made clear that

each source had to meet its emission limits "as expeditiously as practicable," but not

later than three years after approval of a

.plan. This provision was not changed by the - 1977 Amendments. It would be a perversion

of clear Congressional intent to construe Part

D to authorize relaxation or delay of emission

limits for particular sources. The added time

for attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality-Standards was provided, if

necessary, because of the need to tighten

emission limits or bring previously

uncontrolled sources under control. Delays or relaxation of emission limits were not

generally authorized or intended under Part D

(123 Cong. Rec. H 11958, daily ed. November

1,1977).

To implement Congress' intention that

sources remain subject to pre-existing

plan requirements, sources cannot be

granted variances extending compliance

dates beyond the attainment dates

established prior to the 1977

Amendments. EPA cannot approve such

compliance date extensions, even

though a NAP with a later attainment

date has been approved. However a

compliance date extension beyond a

pre-existing attainment date may be

granted if if will not contribute to a

violation of an ambient standard or a

PSD increment (44 FR 20373-74, April 4,

1979).

In addition, sources subject to preexisting plan requirements may be

relieved of complying with such

requirements if a NAP imposes new,

more stringent control requirements that

are incompatible with controls required

to meet the pre-existing regulations.

Decisions on the incompatibility of

requirements will be made on a case-bycase basis.

Note.-EPA has determined that this action

is "specialized," and therefore not subject to

the procedural requirements of Executive

Order 12044.

(Sec. 110,129.171-178, and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7410,

7429,7501-7508. and 7601(a])

Dated. November 4,1980.

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 1,1 980.

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)(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 of Plan Compliance with

Clean Air Act Requirements.

(ii) Imperial County plan to attain

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for oxidants, October 31, 1978.

(iii) SIP Revision-Imperial County

ARB Staff Report, No. 79-4-2.

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

1979.

(v) Copies of Board 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 to Part D, Title I of

the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977,

for the nonattainment areas listed in this

paragraph. In addition, continued

satisfaction of the requirements of Part

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 of additional RACT

requirements for sources covered by

CTGs issued by the previous January.

(1) Imperial County for 03.

4. SubpartF of Part 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 D conditional approval..

-(a) The following portions of the

California SIP contain deficiencieswith

respect to Part D of the Clean Air Act

which must be corrected withii the time

.limit indicated.

(1) The Imperial County portion of the

iCalifornia SIP.is approved as satisfying

Part D requirements for Oa provided the

following conditions are met.

- ,. (i) By May 7, 1981, the NSR rules must

be revised and submitted as an SIP- -

revision. The rules must satisfy Section

173 and 40 CFR'51.18, "Review of new

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 not now satisfy and (2) -

those deficiencies cited in EPA's

Evaluation Report Addendum

'(contained in Document File NAP-CA06 at the EPA Library in Washington;

D.C. and the Region IX office).

(ii) By January 1,1981. a cutback

- asphalt rule which reflects reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

must Be submitted as an SIP revision.

5. Section 52.233 is amended by

adding paragraph (a), as follows:

§ 52.233 Review of new sources and

modifications.

(a) The following regulations are

disapproved because they are not

consistent with Clean Air Act

requirements.

(1) Imperial County APCD.

[i) Subparagraph C.5. of Rule 207,

Standards for Permit to Construct,

submitted March 17, 1980.

6. Section 52.233, subparagraphs (h)

and (i) are hereby revoked and reserved.

7. In § 52.238, the column headings are

revised, the entries for Southeast Desert

Intrastate are revised, 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 control region and nonattatnmenl area TSP SO$ ___________________ reo co o

Rimay Secondary primnary S-cndary

Southeast Desert Intrastate:

a Imperial county portion.... ...... (e) (e) (e) (c) (0) (0) (h)

b. Remftnder of AOCR - (a) (a) (C) (c) (0) MJY$1. ._! I1. 1977 1977

Note.--Dates or reemences vich are itatt eced 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) pieor to the 1977

Cean Air Act Amendments remain ob gated to comply with those requirements by th earter dc3d-n. The cartr attazhrw

dates are set out at 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 of Public

Land Order No. 5756 of September 22.

1980.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10. 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Evelyn Tauber, 202-343-6486.

By virtue of the authority contained in

Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976, 90 Stat.

2751:43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as

follows:

The description of land in Public Land

Order No. 5756 of September 22,1980, as

published in 45 FR 63850-63851 of the

issue of September 26.1980, is hereby

corrected by changing lot 9 to read

SY2S1ANE NE 4 in Sec. 19. T. 8 S.. R. 18

W. The total acreage remains

unchanged.

Guy R. Martin.

Assistant Secretary of the Interfor.

November 4.1980.

FRa D o- l-Mf---d 11-7-eo e43 aml

BILLING COOE 4310-"

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Child Support Enforcement

45 CFR Part 305

Assignment of Benefits; Collection of

Medical Support and Payments;

Correction

AGENCY: Office of Child Support

Enforcement (OCSE). HHS.

ACTION: Correction of final regulations.

SUMMARY: This notice corrects an error

in the final regulations published in the

Federal Register on February 11,1980

(45 FR 8982)-on medical support

enforcement. The final regulations

contain an incorrect regulatory citation

in 45 CFR 306.100].

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12.1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Michael P. Fitzgerald (301) 443-5350.

'SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register for Monday, February

11.1980 make the following correction in

FR Dec. 80-4030 appearing at page 8982:

On page 8987, in the third column, in

§ 306.10(j). in the 2nd line, replace the

citation "42 CFR 443.154" with the

citation "42 CFR 433.154".

Dated: November 4. 1980.

'Robert F. Sermier,

A cling Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor

Manogement Analysls and System.

BILLING CODE 4110-7-U