57130 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 250 I Wednesday, December 28. 1983 I Rules and Regulations 

Postal Service. (For other availability of 

the Postal Contracting Manual, see 39 

CFR 601.104.) 

Ust of Subjec:ts in 39 CFR Part 601 

Government procurement, Postal 

Service, Incorporation by reference. 

Explanation of these amendments to 

the Postal Contracting Manual follows: 

Explanation of Changes 

This circular revises Postal 

Contracting Manual, Section 5, Part 1, 

Federal Supply Schedule Contracts. The 

Postal Service is not classified as a mandatory user of the contracts 

established by the Federal Supply 

Service, General Services 

Administration. Effective immediately. 

procuring offices are not to use Federal 

Supply Schedules unless it is in the best 

interest of the Postal Service to do so. 

(5 u.s.c. 552(aJ, 39 u.s.C. 401, 40C, 410, 411) 

w. ADea Sandlll'll. 

Associate General Counsel. Office of General 

Low and Administration. 

l!olt Doc. 83-343851'11ed 12-27-.'13: 1:45 ami 

IIIUJIIG CODE 77te-11-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[A-9-FRL 2492-6) 

Subchapter c-AJr Programs; 

Calfomla 1982 Ozone and co Plan 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This notice approves all 

portions of Califomia's1982 ozone (Q,) 

and carbon monoxide (CO) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for 

the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

and the San Diego Air Basin except the 

vehicle inspection/maintenance (1/M) 

elements. This action incorporates the 

approved revisions into the SIP, thereby 

revising the control strategy for 

attaining the Q, and CO standards in 

these areas by December 31, 1987. This 

notice also takes final action removing a 

condition of approval of the 1979 Q, end 

CO SIP revision for the San Francisco 

Bay Area which required the submittal 

of resource commitments for the 

Transportation Control Measures 

{TCMs). 

EFFICTIYI DATI: January 27, 1984. 

ADDRISSIS: A copy of today's revision 

to the California SIP Is located at 

The Office of the Federal Register, 1100 

"L" Street NW .. Room 8401, 

Washington, D.C. 20408 

Public Information Reference Unit, EPA 

Library, 401 M Street SW., 

Washington, D.C. 

FOR FURTHIR INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David P. Howekamp, Director, Air 

Management Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, 215 

Fremont Street. San Francisco, CA 

94105, Attn: WaUace Woo (415) 974-

7634. 

SUPPLIIIENTARY INFORMATION: This 

portion of the notice Ia divided into five 

sections. The ''BACKGROUND" section 

briefly summarizes the proposed actions 

on these plan revisions and diacusses 

EPA's parallel processing rulemaking 

procedure. The "SUPPLEMBNTARY 

REVISIONS" section discusses EPA's 

evaluation of any pertinent SIP revisions 

submitted to EPA after the proposed 

rulemaking notice. The "PUBUC 

COMMENTS" section describes public 

comment on tha proposed rulemaking 

notice and contains EPA's response on 

substantive issues. The section on "EPA 

AC110NS" details EPA's final actions 

on the plans. The "REGULATORY 

PROCESS" section contains procedures 

for judicial review of this action. 

Background 

On February 3, 1983 (48 FR 5074] EPA 

proposed to approve in part and 

disapprove in part the 1982 Q, and CO 

SIP revisions for the State of California. 

The proposal notice identified eleven 

areas of the State for which draft SIP 

plan revisions had been received by 

EPA. This notice addresses two of those 

eleven areas: the San Francisco Bay 

Area Air Basin, and the San Diego Air 

Basin. Final actions on the other nine 

areas will be addressed in separate 

Federal Register actions. 

For the two areas addressd in this 

notice, EPA proposed to approve the 

1982 SIP revisions, provided the ten 

elements for an approvable 1/M program 

were submitted prior to fanal action on 

the 1982 SIP revisions. and provided the 

following deficiencies were corrected 

prior to final rulemaking: 

San Francisco Bay Area Air BasinThe CO plan lacked: (1) Adequate 

documentation to support the 

attainment demonstration; and (2) 

documentation of a process for 

determining Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP). 

San Diego Air Basin-The CO and 0. 

plans lacked: (1) The necessary 

evidence of adoption of the control 

measures. (Z) documentation for the 

ozone modeling analysis and (3) en 

appropriate modeling analysis for CO. 

These deficiencies along with other 

minor deficiencies in the two plans were 

discussed in detail in Chapters Ill and 

VII of the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for the 1982 California Q, and CO 

SIP revisions. 

The TSD also noted outstanding 

conditions to correct deficiencies in the 

1979 Q, and CO SIP revisions for these • two areas. Revised New Source Review 

(NSR) regulations were required for the 

San Diego nonattainment area in order 

to satisfy the requirements of Section 

17Z(b)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

The San Francisco Bay Area and San 

Diego Oa plans did not adequately 

address the required stationary source 

control regulations for one Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC] source 

category addressed by a Control 

Techniques Guideline document. In 

addition, the San Francisco Bay Area 

Air Basin had an outstanding condition 

related to the resource commitments for 

the Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs). Since satisfaction of these 

outstanding conditions is a requirement 

for overall plan approval they are 

discussed in the ''SUPPLEMENTARY 

REVISIONS" and "PUBUC 

COMMENTS" sections of this notice. 

EPA's February 3,1983 proposed 

rulemaking for California's 1982 Q, and 

CO plan revisions was based on the 

review of plans which had not been 

formally submitted as SIP revisions and 

which are termed here as "draft" plan$. 

By processing the draft 1982 SIP 

revisions concurrently with State and 

local level action to adopt and submit 

the "final" plans, EPA intended to 

expedite the rulemaking process. EPA's 

proposed actions were contingent upon 

the "final" plans being substantively the 

same as the "draft" plans, except where 

remedies to deficiencies noted in the 

proposal notice were included in the 

final plan. 

The February 3, 1983 notice also 

proposed to retain the disapproval of the 

1/M portion of the 1979 Q, and CO 

nonattainment area plans for six urban· 

areas in California (including San Diego 

and the San Francisco Bay Area}. EPA 

has published a flnal rulemaking 

conditionally approving the 1979 1/M 

program SIP requirements in a separate 

rulemaking notice (November 25, 1983, 

48 FR 53114). Public comments received 

on the February 3, 1983 notice which 

addressed this issue were responded to 

in that notice. 

The February 3, 1983 notice of 

proposed rulemaking provided for a 45 

day comment period ending on March 

21, 1983. On March 21, 1983 EPA 

extended the public comment period an 

additlonal45 days to May S, 1983 for 

HeinOnline •• 48 Fed. Reg. 57130 1983 
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 250 I Wednesday, December 28, 1983 I Rules and Regulations 57131 

plans proposed to be disappreved (see 

48 FR 11725). On April S. 1983 (48 FR 

15273] EPA also extended the comment 

period to May 5, 1983 for the 1982 

California SIP revisions proposed for 

approval. 

Supplementary Revisions 

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

final1982 Os and CO plan was submitted to EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) on February 4, 

1983. The finalt98Z San Diego Air Basin 

Os and CO plan was submitted on 

February 28 and Al18ust 12. 1~. The 

final plans were substantively identical 

to the draft plans which were reviewed 

for the February 3, 1983 proposal notice, 

except for certain chall8es to correct 

deficiencies noled in EPA's TSD. The 

TSD noted both major and minor 

deficiencies in the 1982 SIP revisions. 

and the major deficiencies were noted in 

the proposal notice. In support of this 

fmal rulemaking action, EPA bas 

prepared an addendum to the TSD for 

these two areas which notes chall8es 

between the draft and fmal plans and 

evaluates these chall88s relative to the 

requirements for 1982 Os and C.O SIP 

revisions. A copy of the TSD addendum 

Is available at the EPA Region IX office 

(Docket file NAP-CA-a2). EPA's . evaluation of the final plans is 

summarized below: 

San Francisco Bay Area Air BasinThe final plan for Os and CO was substantively the same as the draft plan, 

except for additions to address the 

deficiencies cited by EPA in the TSD, 

lncludill8 the two major deficiencies in 

the CO portion of the plan, i.e., 

documentation for Demonstration of 

Attainment and Reasonable Further 

Progress process. The addition of Tech 

Memo 46 provides most of the required 

documentation for the two major 

deficiency areas, and a commitment is 

made to report on progress in further 

developing and implementing the RFP 

process in the Annual Reports. The 

addition of Appendix I to the final plan 

satisfies the outstandill8 condition 

related to TCM commitments. 

The final plan also included revisions 

which satisfied the minor deficiencies 

identified in the TSD which related to 

(1) the VOC emission inventory, (2} the ozone and CO design values. (3) growth 

allowances, (4) the allowable VOC 

emissions calculations, (5) the · incremental yearly reductions necessary 

to demonstrate RFP, (6) a TCM 

monitoring program, (7) documentation 

for the CO modelill8 analysis, (8) 

documentation for the CO control 

measures, {9) the contill8ency provision, 

(10) the procedure for determinill8 

conformity with the SIP, and (11) cel'tain 

requirements for public and 

governmental involvement. A detailed 

evaluation of aU of these changes is 

contained in the TSD addendum. 

San Diego Air Basin-The final plan was substantively the same as the draft 

plan except for changes which satisfied 

the deficiencies cited by EPA in the 

TSD. The final plan Included revisions 

which adequately addressed the three 

major deficiencies identified by EPA 

which required the following: 

1. Necessary evidence of adoption of 

the control measures. · 

2. Documentation for the ozone modelill8 analysis. 

3. Appropriate modelill8 analysis for 

co. 

The final plan also corrected several 

minor deficiencies which were noted in 

the TSD which related to {1} the RFP 

demonstration, (Z] identification of the 

allowable emissions level for the CO 

control strategy, (3) TCM monitorill8, (4) 

identification of emissions associated 

with major federal actions, (5) the 

contingency plan, (6) the procedure for 

determinill8 conformity with the SIP, (7) 

the plan to meet basic transportation 

needs, and (8) certain requirements for 

public and government involvement. A 

detailed evaluation of these chall8es Is 

contained in the TSD Addendum. 

//M-As noted in the 

"BACKGROUND" section of this notice, 

the February 3, 1983 notice proposed to 

approve the 1982 SIP revisions provided 

the ten elements for an approvable 1/M 

prosram were submitted prior to final 

EPA action. Final adopted regulations 

addressill8 the ten elements have not as yet been submitted. However, on October 3, 1983 the ARB did submit 

draft versions of the ten 1/M elements 

along with a schedule to submit all ten 

elements as adopted regulations by 

March 1. 1984. The ten draft elements 

inclpded: (1) Emission standards: (2) 

inspection station licensing· 

requirements; (3) emission analyzer 

specifications and maintenance/ 

calibration requirements: (4) procedures 

to assure that non-complying vehicles are not operated on the public roads; (5) a public awareness plan; (6) a mecharucs training plan: (7]1nspection 

test procedures; (8) record keeping and 

record submittal requirements: (9) 

quality control, audit and surveillance 

procedures; and (10) other official 

program rules. regulations and 

procedures which include geographic area designations, and a request for 

proposal for contract operated referee 

stations. EPA will take final action on the 1/M regulations In the near future. 

NSR-As noted above. a revised NSR 

rule is required to satisfy an outstandill8 

HeinOnline - 48 Fed. Reg. 57131 1983 

condition of approval for the San Diego 

Air Basin nonattainment area plan. 

Revised NSR rules were submitted by 

the ARB on March 1 and August 6, 1982 

and on March 11, 1983. The San Diego 

County APCD has since adopted further 

revisions to their NSR rule which are not 

approvable by EPA. These subsequent 

revisions have not as yet been 

submitted to EPA by the ARB. however. 

EPA will take action on San Diego's 

NSR rules in a separate Federal Register 

action. Dependill8 on the adequacy of 

the rules, EPA will either (1} remove the 

outstanding condition of approval, or (2) 

disapprove the SIP for failure to salisfy 

the requirement of Section 172(b)(6} of 

theCAA. 

VOC-The ARB submitted a revised 

refinery pump and compressor rule for 

the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin on February 3,1983. EPA believes that 

the revised rule satisfies the outstanding · condition of approval and will take 

action on it in a separate Federal 

Register. On July 19, 1983 the ARB also 

submitted a revised miscellaneous metal 

parts and products rule for the San 

Diego Air Basin. EPA will address the 

adequacy of the revised rule in a separate Federal Register action. 

Public Comments 

EPA received 21 comments which 

address one or both of these 1982 SIP 

revisions. EPA has prepared detailed 

responses to these comments as part of 

the support document for this 

rulemaking. The following is a summary 

of the comments and EPA's response to 

substantive issues which relate to EPA's 

proposed actions on these two plans. 

San Francisco Bay Area-Comments were received from the ARB. the 

Committee for Safe and Sensible San 

Francisquito Creek Area Routing. the 

Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District. the San Francisco Bay Area 

Planning Program, the City of San Jose, 

and the Western Oil and Gas 

Association. Several of the comments 

made reference to the revisions 

contained in the final plan which 

addressed the two major deficiencies in 

the CO portion of the plan, as well as the minor deficiencies noted in the TSD. 

As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTAL 

REVISIONS portion of this notice, EPA 

agrees that the revisions contained in 

the final plan satisfy the deficiencies 

noted in the TSD. One comment 

indicated that the plan contained 

deficiencies other than those noted in 

EPA's TSD including (1) the lack of an adequately specific ful1-s~ope data base, 

(2) the lack of a Southbay clean air 

transportation plan, and (3) a failure to 

satisfy certain additional plan 
57132 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 250 I Wednesday, December 28. 1983 I Rules and Regulations 

requirements. EPA disagrees since (1) an 

adequate data base is included in the 

final plan. (2) the rmal plan contains 

commitments to transportation 

programs. Including a specific 

commitment to reduce transportation 

emissions In the portion of the CO 

nonattainment area with the most 

severe problem, and (3) the final plan 

adequately addresses the minor 

deficiencies which were noted in the 

Additional Requirements section of the 

TSD. Another comment expressed 

concern over the nonattainment area 

boundaries; this concern will be 

addressed in a separate rulemaking 

action. Detailed responses to the 

comments may be found in the 

Response to Comments portion of the 

support document. 

San Diego Air Basin-Comments were received from the ARB. the San 

Diego Association of Governments, and 

the San Diego County Air Pollution 

Control District. Several of the 

comments made reference to the 

revisions contained in the final plan 

which addressed the three major 

deficiencies as well as several minor 

deficiencies. As discussed in the 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS portion of 

this notice, EPA agrees that the 

revisions contained in the final plan 

satisfy the deficiencies noted in the 

TSD. The comments also addressed the 

four remaining minor deficiencies noted 

in the TSD which were not specifically 

addressed by changes in the final plan. 

These four deficiencies included {1) the 

population forecasts used in the plan, (2) 

the lack of § 174 co-lead agency 

designations, (3} the lack of a summary 

of public comments, and {4) the need to 

address the effects of pollutant transport 

from the South Coast Air Basin. The 

comments received adequately address 

these four deficiencies since (1) it was demonstrated that the population 

forecasts used were appropriate, {2) the 

co-lead agency designations were the 

same as those already referenced in the 

1979 plan. [3} there were no public 

comments on the plan. and (4) the ARB 

reaffirmed the need for continued study 

of the pollutant transport problems in 

California. EPA does recommend that 

future plan updates assess the effect of 

the South Coast plan control measures 

on the high ozone concentrations in 

coastal areas of San Diego County. A 

detailed discussion of these issues is 

included in the Response to Comments 

portion of the support document. 

//M-EPA received comments on its 

proposal to require submittal of the ten 

elements for implementation of an 1/M 

program prior to approval or the 1982 

plans from the ARB. the Committee for 

Safe and Sensible Sun Francisquilo 

Creek Area Routing, the San Francisco 

Bay Area Planning Program. and 

Raymond Moon. The comments 

suggested a range of possible actions 

including {1) plan approval with 

subsequent submittal of the ten 

elements according to the 1/M 

implementation schedule, (2) conditional 

approval of the plan requiring the 

subsequent submittal of the ten 

elements by a specific date, and (3) plan 

disapproval until EPA is provided with 

the detailed information necessary to 

evaluate the 1/M program's 

implementation and effectiveness. As 

discussed in the SUPPLEMENTAL 

REVISIONS portion of this notice, EPA 

is not taking final action today on the 

1/M portion of the 1982 SIP revision. 

EPA wiU respond to these comments 

when it does take final action. 

EPA Actions 

Based on EPA'.s review of the draft 

and final 1982 O:t and CO SIP revisions 

and consideration of public comments, 

EPA takes final action approving the 

following plans (except for the 1/M 

element) under Part D of the CAA and 

incorporating them into the California 

SIP under Section 110 of the CAA. 

1. San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

O:t and CO Plan submitted on February 

4,1983. 

2. San l;liego Air Basin O:t and CO 

Plan submitted on February 28 and 

August 12. 1983. 

EPA is deferring action on the 1/M 

portion of these plans. Full plan 

approval will be addressed when F.PA 

takes action on 1/M. 

EPA also takes final action to rescind 

from 4{) CFR 52.232 the condition of 

approval for the San Francisco Bay Area 

1979 0, and CO plan which required 

TCM resource commitments. 

Regulatory Process 

This action is effective January 27, 

1984. Under the CAA, any petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be 

filed in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 

February 27. 1984. This action may not 

be challenged later in procedures to 

enforce its requirements. 

The Administrator has certified that 

SIP actions do not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (see 46 FR 

8709). The Office of Management and 

Budget has exempted this rulemaking 

from the requirements of Section 3 oi 

Executive Order 12291. 

HeinOnline- 48 Fed. Reg. 57132 1983 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Particulate 

matter, Ozone. Sulfur oxide. Nitrogen 

oxides. Hydrocarbons. Carbon 

monoxide. Incorporation by reference. 

(Sees. 110, 129 (uncodified). 171-178. and 301 

(a) of the Clean Air Act. as amended (42 

li.S.C. 7410, 7501 lo 7508. and 7601(alll 

Dated: December 12. 1D83. 

William D. Ruckelshaus. 

Administrator. 

PART 52-{AMENDEDJ 

Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 

4{) of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

Subpart F-callfomla 

1. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs {c)[135) and [c)(136) 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 ldenHficatton of plan. 

{c) • • • 

(135) The 1982 Ozone and CO Air 

Quality Plan for the San Francisco Bay 

Air Basin was submitted on February 4. 

1983 by the Governor's designee. 

{136) The 1982 Ozone and CO Air 

Quality Plan for the San Diego Air Basin 

was submitted on February 28 and 

August 12. 1983 by the Governor's 

designee. 

(Fll Doc.II:H:I6S9 Filed 12-27413; 8:45am] 

IIWNG CODE 010-50-M 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47CFA PartO 

(FCC 83-581] 

Delegatlona of Authority to the 

General Counsel 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has 

delegated authority to its General 

Counsel to dismiss in hearing 

proceedings: {1) Interlocutory appeals 

not authorized by the Commission's 

Rules and (Z) requests for substantive 

relief which the Commission may not 

grant because its jurisdiction over the 

proceedings has terminated. This new 

delegation of authority will eliminate the 

need for the consideration of 

unauthorized pleadings by the 

Commission en bone and the associated 

delay and administrative burden.