### 57130 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 48. 

### No. 250 

## I Wednesday, December 28. 

### 1983 

## I Rules and Regulations

Postal Service. (For otheravailability of thePostal ContractingManual, see39 CFR 601.104.)



### Ust of

### Subjec:ts in

### 39 CFR Part 601

Governmentprocurement, Postal Service, Incorporationbyreference.

Explanation ofthese amendments to thePostal ContractingManual follows: Explanation of Changes

This circularrevises 

### Postal ContractingManual, Section 5, 

### Part 1, 

### Federal Supply Schedule Contracts. The Postal Service is not classified as a 

### mandatory user

### of the contracts establishedby 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 ofthe Postal Service to do so. (5

## u.s.c. 552(aJ, 39

## u.s.C. 401, 40C, 410, 411)



### w. ADea Sandlll'll. AssociateGeneralCounsel. Office of General Low and Administration.

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

IIIUJIIG CODE 77te-11-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL2492-6)


### Subchapter c-AJr Programs; Calfomla 1982 Ozone and

## co Plan Revisions

AGENCY: 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: 

### Notice offinal rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

### This notice approves all portions of

### Califomia's1982 ozone (Q,) 

### and carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the San 

### FranciscoBay Area Air Basin and the San Diego AirBasin 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

### December31, 1987.This notice also takes final action removing

## a condition ofapproval ofthe 1979 Q, 

### end CO SIPrevision for the San Francisco Bay Area which required the submittal ofresource commitments for the Transportation Control Measures {TCMs).

EFFICTIYI DATI: 

### January 27, 1984.

ADDRISSIS:

### Acopy oftoday's revision
to the California SIP Is located 

### at The Office oftheFederalRegister, 1100 "L" 

### Street NW

.. 

### Room 8401, 

### Washington, D.C. 20408 

### Public Information Reference Unit, EPA

Library, 401 

### MStreet 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 ofthe notice 

### Ia divided into five sections.The ''BACKGROUND" section briefly summarizes the proposed actions

on these plan revisions and diacusses EPA's parallelprocessing rulemaking procedure. The "SUPPLEMBNTARY REVISIONS" section discusses EPA's evaluation ofany pertinent SIPrevisions submitted to EPA after the proposed rulemaking notice. The "PUBUC COMMENTS" 

### section describes public
comment on thaproposed rulemaking notice and containsEPA's response on substantive issues. The section on "EPA AC110NS" details EPA's final actions

on the plans. The "REGULATORY PROCESS" section contains procedures forjudicial review ofthis action. Background

On February 3, 

### 1983 (48 FR 5074] 

### EPA proposed to approve in 

### part and disapprove in part the 1982 Q, 

### and CO SIPrevisions for the State ofCalifornia. The proposal notice identified eleven

areas ofthe Statefor which draft SIP plan revisions had beenreceived by EPA. This notice addresses two ofthose eleven areas: the San Francisco Bay Area AirBasin, 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 SIPrevisions, provided the ten elements for an approvable 1/Mprogram

were submitted prior to fanal action on the 1982 SIP

### revisions. and provided the following deficiencies were corrected prior to final rulemaking:



### San Francisco

### BayAreaAir

### 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 DiegoAir

### Basin-The CO and 0. plans lacked: (1) The necessary evidence ofadoption ofthe 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 indetail in Chapters Ill

### and VII ofthe Technical SupportDocument (TSD) for the 1982 California Q, 

### and CO SIPrevisions.

The TSD also noted outstanding conditions to correct deficiencies in the 1979 Q, 

### and CO SIPrevisions for these • two areas. Revised New Source Review (NSR) regulations were required for the San Diego nonattainment area in order
to satisfy the requirements ofSection 17Z(b)(6) ofthe Clean AirAct (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 FranciscoBay

### Area AirBasin 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 ofthis notice.

EPA's February 3,1983 proposed rulemaking for California's 1982 Q, 

### and CO plan revisions was based on the review ofplans which had notbeen formally submitted 

### as SIPrevisions and which are termed here as "draft" plan$. By

### processing the draft 1982 SIP revisions concurrentlywith 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 asthe "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 ofthe 1/Mportion ofthe 1979 Q, 

### andCO 

### nonattainment area plans for six 

### urban·

areas in

### California (including SanDiego 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, 1983notice of proposed rulemaking provided for a 45 day commentperiod ending on March 21, 1983. On 

### March 21, 

### 1983EPA extended the public commentperiod an additlonal45days 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 AirBasin final1982 

### Os and CO plan was submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) onFebruary 4, 1983. The finalt98Z SanDiego AirBasin 

### Os and CO plan was submitted 

### on February 28 andAl18ust 12.**1~.** The final plans were substantivelyidentical
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 notedboth major and minor deficiencies in the 1982 SIP revisions. and the major deficiencies were noted in the proposal notice. In support ofthis fmal rulemaking action, EPA bas prepared anaddendum to the TSD for these two areas which notes chall8es between the draft andfmal plans and evaluatesthese chall88s relative to the requirements for 1982

### Os and C.O SIP revisions. A copy ofthe TSD addendum Is available at the EPA Region IXoffice (Docket file NAP-CA-a2). EPA's

. evaluation ofthe final plans is summarized below:

San Francisco BayAreaAirBasinThe 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 theTSD, lncludill8 the two major deficiencies in the CO portion ofthe plan, i.e., documentation for Demonstration of Attainment andReasonable Further Progress process. The addition ofTech Memo 46provides most ofthe required documentation for the two major deficiency areas, and a commitmentis made to report on progress in further developing and implementing the RFP process in the Annual Reports. The addition ofAppendix Ito 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 ofaU ofthese changes is contained in the TSD addendum.

SanDiegoAirBasin-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 ofadoption of the control measures. ·

2. Documentation for the ozone modelill8 analysis.

3. Appropriate modelill8 analysis for 

## co.

The final plan also corrected several minordeficiencies which were noted in the TSD which related to {1} the RFP demonstration, (Z] identification ofthe allowable emissions level for the CO control strategy, (3) TCM monitorill8, (4) identification ofemissions associated with major federal actions, (5) the contingency plan, (6) the procedure for determinill8 conformity with the SIP, (7) the plan to meet basictransportation needs, and (8) certainrequirements for public and government involvement. A detailed evaluation ofthese chall8es 

### Is contained in the TSD Addendum.

//M-As noted in the "BACKGROUND" section ofthis notice, the February 3, 1983 notice proposed to approve the 1982 SIPrevisions provided the ten elements for an approvable 1/M prosram were submitted prior to final EPA action. Final adopted regulations addressill8 the tenelements have not as yetbeen submitted. However, on October 3, 1983 the ARB did submit draft versions ofthe ten 1/M elements along with a schedule to submit all ten elements as adoptedregulations by March 1. 1984.The tendraft elements inclpded: (1) Emission standards: (2) inspection stationlicensing· requirements; (3) emission analyzer specifications and maintenance/ calibration requirements: (4) procedures to assure thatnon-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 ofapproval for the San Diego Air Basin nonattainment area plan. Revised NSR rules were submitted by the ARB on March 1and 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 ofapproval, or (2) disapprove the SIP for failure to salisfy the requirement ofSection 172(b)(6} of theCAA.



### VOC-The ARB submitted a revised refinerypump and compressorrule for the San Francisco Bay Area AirBasin

on February 3,1983. EPA believes that the revised rule satisfies the outstanding

·condition ofapproval and will take action onit 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 ofthe revised rule in a separate Federal Register action.

Public Comments

EPA received 21 comments which address one orboth ofthese 1982 SIP revisions. EPA has prepared detailed responses to these comments aspart of the support document for this rulemaking. The following is a summary ofthe comments and EPA's response to substantive issues which relate to EPA's proposed actions on these two plans.

San FranciscoBayArea-Comments

were received from the ARB. the Committee for Safe and Sensible San Francisquito Creek Area Routing. the Bay Area AirQualityManagement District. the San Francisco Bay Area Planning Program, the City ofSan Jose, and the Western Oil and Gas Association. Several ofthe comments made reference to the revisions contained in the final plan which addressed the two major deficiencies in the CO portion ofthe plan, aswell as the minordeficiencies noted in the TSD. As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS portion ofthis 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 ofan adequately specific**ful1-s~ope** data base, (2) the lack ofa 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 ofthe 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 ofthe TSD. Another comment expressed

concern over the nonattainment area boundaries; this concern will be addressed in a separaterulemaking action. Detailed responses to the
comments may befound in the Response to Comments portion ofthe support document.

San DiegoAirBasin-Comments

werereceived from the 

### ARB. the San Diego Association ofGovernments, and the SanDiego County Air Pollution Control District. Several ofthe
comments made reference to the revisions contained in the final plan which addressed the three major deficiencies as well as severalminor deficiencies. As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTALREVISIONS portion of this notice, EPA agrees thatthe 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 werenot 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 ofpublic comments, and {4) the need to address the effects ofpollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. The
commentsreceived 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
1979plan. [3} there were no public
comments on the plan. and (4) the ARB reaffirmed the need for continued study ofthe 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 ofSan Diego County. A detailed discussion ofthese issues is included in the Response to Comments portion ofthe support document.

//M-EPA received comments on its proposal to require submittal ofthe ten elements for implementation ofan 1/M
program prior to approval orthe 1982 plans from the ARB. the Committee for Safe and Sensible Sun Francisquilo Creek Area Routing, the SanFrancisco Bay Area Planning Program. and Raymond Moon. The comments suggested a range 

### ofpossible actions including {1) plan approval with subsequent submittal ofthe ten elements according to the 1/M implementation schedule, (2) conditional approval ofthe plan requiring the subsequent submittal ofthe 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 ofthisnotice, EPA is not taking final action today on the 1/M portion ofthe 1982 SIP revision. EPA wiU respond to these comments when it does take final action.

EPA Actions

Based on EPA'.s review ofthe draft and final 1982

### O:t and CO SIP revisions and consideration ofpublic comments, EPA takes final action approving the following plans (except for the 1/M element) under Part D ofthe CAA and incorporating them into the California SIP under Section 110ofthe CAA.

1. San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

### O:t and CO Plan submitted onFebruary 4,1983.

2. San l;liego AirBasin 

### O:t and CO Plan submitted on February 28 and August 12. 1983.

EPA is deferring action on the 1/M portion ofthese 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 SanFrancisco Bay Area 1979 0, and CO plan which required TCM resource commitments.

Regulatory Process

Thisaction is effective January 27, 1984. UndertheCAA, anypetitions for judicial review ofthis 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 laterin procedures to enforce its requirements.

The Administratorhas certified that SIP actions do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities (see 46 FR 8709). The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rulemaking from the requirements ofSection 3 oi Executive Order 12291.

HeinOnline- 48 Fed. Reg. 57132 1983

### List 

### ofSubjects

### in 40 CFR Part 52

Airpollution control, Particulate matter, Ozone. Sulfur oxide. Nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons. Carbon monoxide. Incorporation by reference.
(Sees. 110, 129(uncodified). 171-178. and 301 (a) ofthe 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 ofPart 52 ofChapter I, Title
4{) ofthe Code ofFederal 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 SanDiego Air Basin

was submitted on February 28 and August 12. 1983by the Governor's designee.

(Fll Doc.II:H:I6S9Filed 12-27413;8:45am]

IIWNG CODE 010-50-M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47CFA PartO

(FCC 83-581]
Delegatlona 

### ofAuthority to the General Counsel

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:TheCommission has delegated authority to itsGeneral Counsel to dismiss in hearing proceedings: {1) Interlocutory appeals
not authorizedbythe Commission's Rules and (Z) requests for substantive reliefwhich the Commission may not grant because itsjurisdiction over the proceedingshas terminated. This new delegation ofauthority will eliminate the need for the consideration of unauthorized pleadings by the Commissionen bone and the associated delay and administrative burden.