### 5074 Fedeeal Register 

## / Vol. 48, No. 24



## , 3, 1983 

## / .Proposed Rules

uvith Part D of the Clean Air Act and i:stablished 11PA policy. • 'Che attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration portions of the Trucicee Meadows plan ium proposed to be disapproved, since teclmical errors exist which tnvalidate Ihe demonstration.



## ::. Overall, the 1982 SIP revision for Trxckee Meadows is proposed to be diftapproved, since it fails to demonstrate attainment of the standards by December 31,1987 and does not pirrvide for RFP. The plan must also incilude evidence of commitments to the co:atrol measures.

:i. Overall, the 1982 SIp revieion for Las Vegas Valley (s proposed to be dhiapproved, since the delay in implementation of the I/M program from July,1961 to July 1,1983 doesnot represent an implementatlon.schedule wldch is as expeditious as practicable and is inconsistent with established 13FApolicy for 1/M. If the major defidendes listed in ite ms 2 and 3 above are not remedied before EPA takes final action. EPA praposes to disapprove the 1982 S)p rervisions for Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows. Under Section 11o(a)(2)(I) and 40 CFR 82:24 (19s1), di,iapproval would Mgger a moratorium on. the construction and modification of major stationary sources of CO in these nanattainment areas. Disapproval may also result in restrictions on Federal funding pursuant to Sections 178(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Air Act. Under Sectien '17ti(a), II'A and the Department of Ttansportation muet limit funds for air qL.ality planning and transportation projects in any nonattainment area w:here transportation control measures are necessary for attainment and where EPA Snds that a state has not su.bmitted. or made reasonable efforts to su.bmit, a plan meeting the requirements of Section 172. Under Section 918(b), the A-dministrator has discretion to limit sewage treatment funding in similar circumetances. EPA wtll publish a se•parate notice of proposed rulemaking aiid provide an opportunity for comment before imposing either of these funding restrictions. For more information on the scApe of the restrictions and the procedures 13PA wW follow; see 45 FR 2 1 4*2 (AprA 10, 1980) (air quality planning and transportation grants) and 45 FR 53362 (August 11,1980) (sewage treatment grants). Intereeted parties are invited to cmmment on aH aspecta of these proposed'ections. Comments should be sabmitted to the EPA Region 9 offlce. Under Bxecutive Order i2291, today's aation is not "Major." It has been submitted to the Offlce of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

I3at of SubJeds in 40 CFR Part 52 Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead. Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations. Authortty: Secttons 110. 129,171 178 and 301(e) of the Clean Air Act ae amended (42 U.9.C. 7410, 74Z9, 7501 to 7508 and 7901(a)). Dated: November 30.198Z. Sonia F. Crow,

, Regiona/Adminiattnton

(FR noa e1464e Nsd 14-ex e0 aei
tuu.sa cooe eeeo-aw

40 CFR Part 52

W!-FRL Z25f-61

Csllfornla State Implententation 

### Plan
Revbions

Aaettcr. Bnvironmental Protection Agency (BPA). 

### Ae'nott Notice of proposed rulemaking.

stJauNARr. This document proposes to approve the California 1982 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the ozone (O,) and/or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas in the San Frandsco Bay Area Air Basin (O, and CO), the North Central Coast Air Basin ' (O,), the San )oaquin County (O, and CO) and Stanislaus County (Os) portions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area portion of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (CO), the San Diego Air Basin (O, and CO). the Santa Barbara County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin (Os) and the California portion of the Tahoe Interstate Air Basin (CO). This not(ce also proposes to disapprove the California 1982 SIP revisions for O,'and/ or CO nonattainment areae in the Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin valley Air Basin (O, and c0), the Sacramento Metropolitan Area portion of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (O'), the South Coast Air Basin (Oa and C% and the Ventura County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin (O,). These revisions have been evaluated against the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA policy for areas whieh have received an extension to 1987 for attainment of the O' or CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)• EPA is proposing to approve the motor vehicle inspect9on and maintenance (I/ M) legislation submitted on September 17,1992 as a revision to the S)P. However, EPA is proposing to disapprove the I/M imp)ementation schedule included in that submittal. Tbis
would result in a continuation of the existing moratorium on the construction of major O, and CO stationary sources in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, Fresno Coumty, Sacramento MetropoUtan Area, San Diego County, South Coast Air Basin, and Ventura County.

oATE: Comments should be submitted to EPA on or before March 21,1983.

ADOResfes: Send any comments to: Regiorial Administrator, Attn: Air Management Division, Air Programs Branch, State Liaison Section (A-2-2). Environmenta) Proteotlon Agency, Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Copies of the 1982
SIP revisions and EPA's evaluationa may be inspected during normal bueiness hours at the above address or at the following locations: California Air Resources Board,1102 Q Street, Sacramento, CA 95si2. The of8ces of the lead planning agendes for each of the plens.

FOR RRITMER RiFORMATtON CONTACT. WaUace D. Woo, Chief, State f.iaison Section, Air Programs Branch, Air ' Management Division, Bnviranmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone No. (415) 974-7894,
FIS: 454-7e94.

StIPPLt3MEJtTARY INFORMAifOMt

Introductio

This discussion contains the following three sections: Bacicground, Plan 8valuation, and Proposed Actions. The "Background" section briefly sumimarizes the'history behind the development of 1982 SIPs and explains EPA's parallel processing rulemaking procedure. The "Plan Svaluation" section discusses EPA's review of the 1982 SIP revisions.l7tis discussion is based on 13PA'9 final policy criteria for revfewtng 1982 SIPs publ(shed on January 22,1981(48 FR 7182). This policy supplements the "General Preamble" for SIP revisions for nonattainment areas publiahed on April 4,1979 (44 FR 20372 

## 9. The "Proposed Action" section describee the rulemaking actions which are being proposed and the potential impact of any dieaprovel action. Public comment is invited on all actions proposed by IPA.

I 1E1pA pubMed tonr eddltionat notices tnpplemeat6ig the General Preamblr. Jiily 7. 1970 (a mt ssseak eusu.t 21L zs7s (+e FR sosnk Saptemba 17,1979 (44 FR 63791k and Novamber 28. zs7s (a FR 071e2).

HeinOnline

-- 48 Fed. Reg. 5074 1983

### Federal Registee / VoL 

### 48. No. 24 / Thureday, February 3, 1989 / Propoeed Rules 6075

Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977 required states to reviae their SIPs by January 1979 for all areas that had not attained the NAAQS by December 81,1982, tmleas the state demonstrated that it could not attain either the O, or the CO etandards by ' that date deapite the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (CAA Section 172, paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)). For these areas, Section 172(a)(2) of the Act allowed EPA to
extend the attainment date to no later than December 81,1987. For areas . where EPA approved an extension of the attaInment date beyond 1962, statea were reqnired to submit to EPA by July 1982 a SIP revision which provided for attainment by 1987 and which complied with other requirementa of Part D of the

act. EPA has taken formal action on the thirteen California 1979 SIP revisions which requested an extension beyond 1982. The draft 1982 S1P revieiona for eleven of these areas are addreased ln ' this notice.'The eleven ereas are Heted in Table i along with the date of fmal rulemaking ection on the 1979 SIP revisions, and the date on which EPA
received the draft 1982 revisiona.

siwNO cooE eseo-eo-tr

'An extenetan wae aleo grented for the weetem portton of SI Dorado County and the Mid-County portion of Plecer County. A Iae2 SIP revision ie not required for theae ereaa eince they are rurat areaa which are expaeted to attatn ths etenderds es e reeult of emlesion reducltonr echteved in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5075 1983

### 5026 Federal ltegister•/ Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3,1983 / Proposed Rules

~ 

### .

Table 1- Status of 1982 SIP Revisions for California

1982 SIP Revision 

### Final Action Fbr 1982 Draft Plan

Non 

### attainment Area on 1979 Plan a 

### Pollutants R,eaeived by FRA on a

San >:'rands

~ 

### ao Bay A 

### re a •3-19-82 03, 00 7-14-82


### Air Basin ,c (47 FR 11866)

Fresno Co. b 7-1-82 0 3► CO 12-23-81 (47 FR 28617)

North Central Coast 12-4-80 Air Sasin (45 FR 80279) 03 8-6-82

Sa(samento Metz+ropolitan 7-1-82 03, 00 11-12-81

Are+ab ( 47 FR 28617 )



### San Diego Co. b

, o 4-14-81 03, 00 10-29-82 (46 FR 21749)

San Joaquin Co. 5-7-82 03, CO 8-10-82 (47 PR 19694)

Santa Barbara Co. 5-5-82 03 9-24-82 (47 FR 19330)



### Saith ODast Air Basin b

, o 1-21-81 03, QO 8-12-82 (46 FR 5965)

St.3nislaus Co. c 5-7-82 03 6-29-82 

### ( 47 FR 19694 )



### Ve'ntura Oo. b 7-1-82 0 3 1-11-82 (47 PR 28617)

Lake Tahoe Basin 6-23-82 0D 10 ,4-82 (47 FR 27065)

a) In addition, EPA published the following final rulemaking notioes which approved or oonaitionally apprroved regulations for the Gxoup I
an5 II Conttrol T ~2~ 

### nique (

~ 

### ideline sourae ostegories: June 4, 1982 

### [47 FR 243061 (San Diego)t June 18, 1982 [47 FR 26984) (San Joaquin and Stanislaus)= Jdly 8, 1982 [47 FR 296681 (for all areas list:ed above except La)ae Tahoe ) .



### b) Urban areas which require a wtor vehicle I/M program.

a) EPA published . a separate 

### ftderal Register noti ae appr+oving the extension 

### to 1987 for these areas on November 10, 1982 [47 FR 50864j.

d) Other infozmation used in support of F2?A's evaluation is refereno=d in the Teohni oal Support Docunent. .



# /

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5076 1983Federal 'Reglster / Vo). 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules 5077

Several of the final rulemaking actions on the i979 SIPs listed conditiona that had to be met before the 1979 SIP revisions could be fully approved under Part D of the Act. The 1982 SIp revisions eatisfy some of these conditions (see Propoaed Action section). Other conditiona atill outstanding muat be satisfied pursuant to the January 22, 1981 policy for 1982 SIP revisions. For areaa that received an extension of the Oa or CO attainment deadline, the Act required that spedfic measures be included in the 1979 SIp revisions. One measure, for urban areas with populations greater than 200,000 (1970 cenaus), is a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. Six of the thirteen areaa receiving an extension had populations greater than 200,000 and were required to satisfy the I/M requirement (see Table 1). The 1979 S1P reviaions for theae areae did not include evidence of I/M legal authority or a schedule to implement the program by December 31,1982: These I/M deficiendes prevented BPA from approving or conditionally approving the 1979 Oa and CO SIPs for the six

areas. Legialation which providea the necessary legal authority to implement an I/M program in these aix areas was recently passed by the California Legislature. The Governor signed the I/ M legialatioa into law on September 10, 1982. This legislation, along with a achedule to implement the I/M program in March,1984, wae aubmitted to SPA on September 17,1982 as a reviaion to the SIP. ' This Federal Regiater notice propoaea EPA action oa the September 17,1982 

### reviaion as it relates to both the outstanding defidenciea in the 1979 SIP revisione and the requirements for an acceptable 1962 SIP reviaion. Today'e Federal Register action on the 1982 SiPe is being procesaed concurrently with state and local level action to adopt and aubmit the fina11982 SIP reviafons. ln order to expedite the rulemaking procesa, EPA reviewed the draft 1982 SIPs received on the datea indicated in Table 1. Copiea of the plans, and any revised versions, are generally available at the office of the Air Pollution Control Districte and the Metropolitan Plenning Organization within the individual areas. While final 1982 SIPe may have been aubmitted to EPA by the time of publication of this notice, none were received in the time to be reviewed and discusaed in today's notice. This notice allows EPA to accompliah its administrative rulemaking procesa roughly parallel with that of the State. Conaequently, final EPA actlon may be completed shortly after the State completea its adoption and submittal processes. • If the draft 1982 SIP revisione are substantially changed—except to remedy deficienciea dted in thia notice—EPA wW evaluate those diangea and publla6 a revieed notice of propoaed rulemaking. Otherwise, follo wing the etate'e adoptioa end submittal of the 1982 SIp revisiona, EPA will coasider public commenta received and pmceed dlrectly to a notice of fiqal rulemaking on the reviaions discussed in today'a notice.

Plan Bvaluatlon

This evaluation is divided into two parts.l1te firet parb (i) Providea a general description of the control strategy for achieving the Oi and CO NAAQS throughout California, (2) evaluatea the requirement that California adopt and implement an I/M Program, (8] diacusaea California's aubmittale of stationary aource control regulationa, and (4) evaluatea the adequacy of the plaas for certain

. additional requirementa The aecond part containe a more detailed evaluation of portions of tha 1982 SIP revision for each nonattaiam

~ nt area ("the plan"). The evaluation includee a summary of the adequaoy of the area's control atrategy for attaining the atandards. The detailed evaluation.le based on a more compreheneive review contained in EPA's Technical. Support Dacument (TSD) which is available at the addresaea liated above. The TSD indudea a deatxiption of maJor de8ciencies addressed in thie aotict# as well ae other minor defideadea not addresaed apedfically in thia notice.

A. Generol Plan Bvoluation Control Strategy Methodology: Development of coatrol strategies begins by compiling an area's recent (base year) emisaions iaventory and evaluating the area's worst air quality measurements (design value/design day). A mathematical model ia then 

### uaed to determine how much the base year emissions must be reduced (allowable emissiona) in order to . achieve acceptable air quality measurements (attainment of the NAAQS). Once this allowable emission level ia lmown, control measurea can be developed. adopted, and implemented to reduce attainment year pro jpcted emisaiona to the allowable emiasion level. O, is formed from various precuraore—primarlly oxidea of nitrogen (NOJ and a clasa of hydrocarbons called'wolatlle organic compounds" (VOC). Bight of the ten 1982 Os control strategies rely solely on additional reductions in VOC emisaions to attain the NAAQS. Two of the 0, control atrategiea rely on reductiona of both VOC and NO = . The reductions are achieved through measures such ae motor vehicle inapectton and ' maintenance, control of atationary eources, and reduction of vehicle traffic through transportation control measures (TCMs).'Table 2 presenta the base year VOC emisaion inventory, air quality (Os) design value, allowable VOC enussion level,1987 projected VOC emisaions (without additional controls), and the required emiesion reductiona from the 1987 projected emisaion level for each of the Oa nonattalnment areae in California. Violations of CO are cauaed primarily by mobile source emisaions. They generally occur in the areae around major interstictione or in central busfnea,s districta where vehiclea tend to idle for relatively long perioda. The control measurea normally uaed to attain the CO staadard are motor vehicle IJM and TCMs. Table 9 preaents information, similar to that presented in Table Z; which fonne the basis for the CO control etrategiea in Califomia.

su.uNO cooe arao-ao-Y

' F

~ uibsr emieston reductiow are ateo acbievad through ffie Celtfornia Motor Vetdcle limiseion Control Rogam. The rednctioaa are generellq
reflected in tha beeeline em4sfon eedmatea. However, wme plenr elelm a eeparala emieaton reductlon credtt for tbie pro

~ am.

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5077 1983

### 5076 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules • 1

~

Table 2- Ozane Control Strategy Basis

. ' Allowable Required t70C Base year WC 9 ~ VOC WC 1987 Projected Omission
Irnentocy Og design Reduction Hn

~ ssions , vOC Emissions Fs,eduction
Nor.attairaaent Area ttons/day) value. ppe Reguiced (ton

~ (tons/day) (tons/day)

Sari F

~ ancisco tiety Area Air Basina

Fresno Co.a

North Central Coast Ai.r Basinb

Sac:ramento Metropolitan Areaa

San Diego Co.b

Saith Coast Air BasLnb,c

Stt

~ nislaus Co.b

ventuca Co.

- Oxnard Areaa; l San Joaquin Co.b

Sarita Barbara Co.b

a) Mnission estLnates are based on an average swmer day.

_ b) E]nission estimates are based on an average annual day. c) The South Coast will also require a 28% reduction in NDj l emissions (50 tons/day) to attain by 1987. d) Oxnard Area will also require a 48% ceductipn in NO x emissions (18.3 tons/day) to attain by 1987. e1 Ojai Area will also require a 428 reduction in NO R emissions (5.3 tons/day) to attaln by 1987.

Table 3- Q
~ Oontml Strategy Basis

• Reguired

ease Year Allowable 1987 Pmjected ElniBSion

. Irnrentory OD design E Reduction r4nissions

~ missions laeduction wnattainment Area {tons/dayi value ppm tiequired (tons/day) ltans/day) ft,orns/day)

San FCancisoo Bay Area Air Basin 3220 19.4b Nn NA NA t4i►

Fresra Co. 360.2 16.1a 41 211.4 321.6 110.2

Sacramento • Metropolitan Area 634.0 14.3a • NA NA NA t'D►

San oiego Co. 1237.2 10.1a 11 1101.1

. 999.5 0

San Joaquin Co. 'i11.2 10.1a 9 283.4 263.0 0

South Coast Air Basin 6747 25a 65 2346 4824 2478

Lake Tahoe Basin 198.8 28b NA NA NA

. NA

a) R ~ I Oesign Value b) Local Design Value etA - Not Appli

~ ble: Control Strategy based an estimated ambient mncentrations with supportiny inventories a.S

~ Xi bec ~ i vi

- ~e.'~p~ nic,q! .St4 ~o~

~ 

## ouuwwelnt .

~ 

## . 1393 1732b► 0.19 31 967 (430b) 1091 (515b) 124 (85b)

157.5 0.18 70 47.6 163.7 116.2

109 0.12 0 109 96 •0

• 112.2 0.22 50 56.1 80.6 24.5

305.5 0.18 31 210.8 222.2 11 .4

98.5 0.14 28 71.4 86.2 14.R

24.4 0.14 18 20.0 17.7 0

150t 0.44 85 225 963 738

. ~

. 50.2 0.14 31 34:6 39.1 4.5

88.7

. 0.19 48 46.1 58.9 12.8 Ojai Areaa,e 13.7 0.17 42 7.9 9.6 1.7

HeinOnline - 48 Fed. Reg. 5078 1983Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules .5079



### Calffornfa Inspection and Maintenance Pmgrnm: The California Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 33 which outlines an I/M program for urbanized areas. This program covers passenger cars and other light and medium duty vehicles, and provides for inspection at initial reg.stration, upon change of ownership, and at vehicle registration on a biennial basis. Inspections will be carried out by private garages (decentrallzed pragram) licensed by the state. A loaded-mode or an idle exhaust test will be used depending upon the program specifieations to be developed by the State Department of Consumer Affairs. The teat will also include a visuai. inspection of emission control devices. The program will be enforced through the vehicle registration system. Vehicles failing inspection muat be repaired and reinspected before the regiatration is
renewed. Vehicles exempt from the I/M requirement inelude vehicles overtwenty years old, motorcycles. heavyduty vehicles and diesel powered vehicles. A limit on the cost of repairs has been initially set at $50. This amount may be increased up to $100 if justified by increases in the Consumer Price Index. Based on: (1) The previously submitted 1979 SIPs, (2) the legislation and implementation schedule submitted on September 17,1982, and (3) the draft 1982 revisions, EPA evaluated the plans for the six urban areas in which I/M ie required as follows: (1) Legal Authority—The legal authority to implement and enforce an I/ M program is contained in the submittal of Senate Bill 33 (Chapter 892, Statutes of 1984 signed by the Governor on September 10,1982). (2) Commitment to Implement—The
1979 STPs submitted for the urbanized areas contained eommitments to implement I/M by local air planning agencies and the California A'v
Resources Board. Senate Bill 33 completes the State's commitment to implement an I/M program. (3) Resources—The legislation contains a fee system to support the coat of the inspection program and

- authorizee a$3.5 million loan to support initial implementation. The repair costs are paid by the vehicle owner or manufacturer. (c) Schedule forlmplementation--The legislation specifies that the State shall endeavor to implement the required program as soon as practicable after January 1.1983. The schedule submitted by the State contains interim milestones as required in the July 17,1978 I/M Policy memorandium and indicates a program startup date in March,1984. The Act requires that all reasonably
available control measures be implemented as expeditiously as practicable (Section 172(b)(2)). To satisfy this requiiement. EPA policy requires that states begin implementation of I/M programu by December 31,1982. The March, 1984 I/M implementation date is inconeistent with the policy and prevents HPA from approving the submitted implementation schedule.

~ (5) Prognom Effectiveness—The required commitment to achieve a 2556 reduction in light duty vehicle exhaust hydrocarbon and CO emissions by 1987 from I/M is included in the September 17 SIP revision submitted by the State. Further, EPA has evaluated the biennial I/M program authorize'd by Senate BiII 33 and detenained that it meets EPA's minimum 25% reduction requirement In addition to these five I/M requirements for the 1979 plans,1982 SIP revision requirements for I/M were published in the January Z2,1981 Federal Register. As discussed in this policy, the 1982 SIP revisions were to include ten specific I/M program elements. These ten elements pertain to rules, regulations and all other I/M provisions which could affect the ability of the I/M program to achieve the minimum emisaion reduction requirements. The ten elements are: (1) Inspection test procedures; (2) emission standards; (3) inspection station licensing requirements; (4) emission analyzer specifieations and maintenance/calibration requirements; . (5) recordkeeping and record submittal requirements; (e) quality control, audit, and surveillance procedures; (7) procedures to assure that non-complying vehicles are not operated on the public roads; (8) any other official program rules, regulations and procedures; (9) a public awarenes's plan; and (10) a mechanics training program if additional emission reduction credits are being claimed for mechanics 

### tr aining. ' As stated above, the legal'authority to develop, implement and operate the I/M program was signed by the Govemor on September 10,1982. Although the State is working on an expeditious implementation the State has not yet completed work on the program details to address these ten elements. The implementation schedule submitted by the State on September 17, 1982 indicates full program start-up in
March 1984. Interim milestones, consistent with EPA's I/M policy memorandum of July 17,1978, have been identified for the public information program, regulation adoption for testing procedures and quality control, station licensing, emission standards, analyzer specifications end mechanics training. It is EPA's understanding fiom the State that the ten required elements will be submitted to EPA as soon es they are adopted. Together, the 1979 SIP submittals and the September 17,1982 I/M SIP revision satisfy the criteria for-approval of the 1979 plans, except for the schedule to implement I/M. The March 1984 date to begin I/M implementation is inconsistent with EPA policy. EPA policy requires implementation of I/M programs by December 31,1982. This deficiency prevents IIPA from fully approving the 1979 SIP revisions. Stationary Souzue Control Measures: The State of California has submitted stationary source regulations which represent reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all sourr.es of VOC covered.by EPA's Group 1 and Il Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents, except for minor deficiencies noted in the Technical Support Document. EPA has taken final action on these regulations in the Federal Register actions referenced in Table 1. For some of the regulations, EPA detenmined that there were minor deficiencies, and-required the State (at 40 CFR 522.32) to correct the deficiendes as a condition of the 1979 SIP approvaL The Technical Support Document liets aA of the rulea which atill contain deficiendes, and discusses deletion of the conditions for the following two rules: (1) Ventura County Rule 74.3 "Paper, Fabric and Film Coating" (2) Stanislaus County Rule 410, "Storage of Petroleum Products" With reapect to Rule 74.3, EPA has reviewed information submitted by the affected source. EPA has determined that allowance of a seven-day averaging period for compliance with the rule will not significantly affect attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone and will allow for increased flexibility of source operations. Rule 410 does not represent RACT for floating roof tanks. However, the Air Resources Board has informed EPA that there are no affected sources within the District. Additional Requinements: The Clean Air Act also requires the 1982 SIP revisions to contain: (1) Adequate evidence of public and governmental involvement. (2) A contingency provision which describes the proceas for correcting failure to meet reasonable further



### progress.

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5079 19835~ 

### D80 Federel Register / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 8, 1983 / Propoaed 

### R ules

_ _

(9) Procedures to ensure conformance hith the SIP for transportation plans, p:rograms, and projects which are a;pproved by the Metropolitan Plannirig Cnganization. (4) A commitment to developing, e:Kpanding or improving public tiansportation to meet basic tianaportation needs. Each of the plans addressed in this r'otice eatisfies these requirements, except for minor deficiendes noted in the Technical Support Document.



### S. Detalled Plan Evaluatioa San Franciaco BayAn°a: 0. Platt— The baseline and proiected emission iziventories and air quality data are adequate to support the control strategy. Certain minor de5dendes are discussed in the Tecbnical Support Document The control strategy is based on the LIItAQ niodeL The modeling analysis is adequate to support the control strategy. hfinor defidendes are noted in the T'echnical Su p

port Document The control strategy demonstration bidicates that an 86 ton/day reduction (,annual average VOC) is required to attain the standard. This reduction will be achieved through implementation of an I/M program (29 tons/day) and stationary source control measures (56 tons/day). Transportation control nieasures (TCMs) are expected to provide additional reductions (2.7 tons/ day). However, the TCM contribution is noi included as part of the d.emonetration of attainment since the emission reductions achieved would not provide for attainment of the ozone standard any sooner. Stationary source control measures in addition to those already adopted and/or TCMs are n.eeded to attain the standard and these additional meaeuree are addreased in f

~ e plan. Bither theee additional measures have aiready been aubmitted for inclusion in the SIP or schedules for Eheir adoption are included in the p lan. 7'he acheduled measuree are detailed in the Technical Support Document The

r~ eceasary commitments for adoption snd implementation of the control rneasurea will be included in the

e

~ dopted plan. The schedulea for

~~ doption and implementation of the fidditional measurea are as expeditioue f

~ s practicable. The plan containe a etrategy that will be implemented eo that there are annual iccremental reductions in emiasions which will provide for reaaonable iurther propess towerd attainment of the O, standard. CO Plan—Baseline and proJected

~ egional emieaion inventories and air quality data are presented to support the contml attategy. However, certain documentation has not been provided to support the mode)ing approach. This documentation must include the areawide and local emission inventories and the derivation of the modeled design value. This is further discussed in the Tedmical Support Document. The control strategy is based on a modified rollbacic model, which is adequate to support the control strategy, except for the documentation previously noted and discussed in the Technical Support Document The control strategy-demonstration indicates that a 2896 reduction in CO emissions at the desiga intersection is required to attain the CO standard. This reduction is achieved through implementation of an inspection and maintenance program (2096) and 1'CMs (8%). The control strategy demonstration of attainment of the CO standard by 1987 must be docamented in the flnal plan. This is further discaased in the Technical Support Document The TCM measures must be included as legally adopted measures, or a schedule for ad op tion neede to be included in the plan. The necessary commitments for adoption and implementation will also need to be included in the adopted plan along with docmnentatlon that the schedule for adoption is as expeditious as practicable. This is further discussed in the Technical Support Document As required by Section 172(b) of the CAA, the strategy will be implemented so that there are annual incremental reductions in emissions which wtll provide for reasonable further p rogre ss toward attainment of the CO st dard. However, documentation of these reductions has not been'provided. This ie further diecusaed in the Technical Support Document

1~ }+esno Corurty. 0. Plan—The baseline end proJected emission inventories and air quallty data are adequate to support the control etrategy. TLe control strategy is based on the dty-epeci8c F1CMA model. The modeling anelyeis is adequate tb support the control strategy The control strategy demonstration indicates that a 118.2 ton/day , hydrocarbon (HC) reductfon is required to attaia the etanderd. Smission reductions for 1987 are ac6leved through impiementatlon of an I/M pro

~ aoi (b.b tona/day), statio source control measures (69.2 to

~ day) and TCMs (0.4 toas/day). Attainment is not pro

~ ected by 1987, as there is an antidpated ehortfall of 4&0 tone/day. Stationary source regnlations for VOC eourcee have been prevtously eubmitted for incluaion ia the SIp and are . addressed in separate Federal Kegister actiona. Additional meaeures are needed to attain the standard and these additional measuree are included in the plan. Schedules foa

~ adoption of stationary control measures and TCMs are included in the plaa. (These measures are detailed in, the Technical Support Document) Tbe necessary committments for adoptlon and implementation of all of the control measures are also included in the plan. Therefore, the 1979 plan condition for TCMa cDntained in EPA's Jnly i,1982
Bnal rul nottce (47 FR 2t1817) will be setlsfl The transportation control portion of the plan fails to provide adequate documentation for the limited extent of implementation of the Section 108(f) measures contained in the plan. BPA's analysis indicates that, without a technical basis fot refedion, the limited coverage and voluntary nature of several transportation control measures included in the plan do not represent an acaeptable demonstration of implementing all reasonable and avaffable measures. A)though substantial progess is made towards attainment of the ozone standerd, attainment is not proJected to oacar by i987. Thus the requifement for demonstrating reasonable further progress in achieving the standard, as specified in Section 172(b) of the CAA. is not met. CO Plae—The baseline and projected emission inventories and air quallty data are presented to support the control strategy. The control strategy is based on the rollback model. The badkgmund concet tration was not spedfied. Tbe eontrol strategy demonstration contained in the plan indicates that a li0.ib ton/day reduction A. required to

attain the co atandard.1987 emieaion reductions are achieved through implementation of an I/M program c82.08 tona/day) and TCMa c3.b2 tons/ day). The lan eetfmates a shortfall of 24.47 tons

~ day in attaining the steadard by 1987. Analyais of the control measures for carbon monoxide is included in the evaluation of the ozone plan noted above. Attainment is not pmjected to occur by 1987. Thue, the requirement for, demonstrating reasonable further progreea ie not met. 

### North Centrnl Coast Afr Basln: 0. Plan—Tbe North Centrel Coest Air Basin is currently designated nonattainment for O, with an extension to 1987 for attainment of the NAAQS. However, the highest violatione of the O, NAAQS at HoWster were not used in the aelection of the design value beGause the Califoraia Air Resourcea Board detenmined that these violationa

HeinOnline — 48 Fed. Reg. 5080 1983

### Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, Februar y 

### 3, 1983 / Proposed Rulea 5081

were due to transport from the Santa Clara Valley. Thia resulted in selection of a design value of 0.12 ppm, which equals the O. NAAQS, and results in a maintenance rather than an attainment plan. The maintenance plan is supported by a contingency strategy rather than a control strategy. The buseline and projected emisaion inventories and air quality data are adequate to support the contingency strategy. Certain minor deficiencies are discussed in the Technical Support Document. The air quality analyais is based onthe city-specific ®QvIA model. No additional stationary source control measures and TCMs are needed to attain the standard. However, additional measures have either already been submitted for inclusion in the SIP or achedules for their adoption are included in tlte plan. These measurea are detailed in the Technical Support Document. The necessary commitmenta for adoption and implementation of the control measures will be included in the fuial plan; the schedules will be based upon future ozone nonattainment statue. Sacramento Metropolftan ArBa: O, Plan—The baseline and projected emission inventories and air quality data are adequate to support the control atrategy. The control strategy is based on the SMOG model. The modeling analyais is adequate to aupport the control strategy. Minor deficienciea in the inventories and modeling analysis are noted in the Techaical Support
Document. The control strategy demonatration indicatea that 124.5 ton/day reduction is required to attain the atandard.1987 emission reductions will be achieved through implementation of an inspection and maintenance program (8.8 tana/ day), atationary aource control mea8ures • (3.9 tona/day) and TCMs (3.8 tons/day). The lan eatimates a ahortfall of 8.8

tona 

# ~ day in attaining the atandard in

1987. Stationary aource control meaeurea beyond the CTGs and remaining major sourcea as well as TCMs are identified in the plan. Either theae measurea have already been included ia the SIP or achedulea for their adoption are included. Therefore, the 1979 plan conditiona for TCMa contained in SPA's July 1,1982 final rulemaking notice [47 FR 18817) will be satiafied. The • tranaportation control portion of the plan fails to pmvide adequate documentation for ihe limited extent of implementation of the Section 108(f) measurea contained in the.plan. EPA's analyaia indicatea that, without a technical basis for rejection, the limited coverage and voluntary nature of aeveral transportation control measurea included in the plan do not represent an acceptable demonstration of implementing all reasonable and available measures. Although aubstantial progress is made towards attainment of the ozone atandard, attainment is not projected to occur in 1987. Thus the requirement for demonstrating reasonable further progress is not met. CO P/an—The baseline and projected emission.inventoriee and air quality data are adequate to aupport the cbntrol strategy. The regional control strategy is based on the SMOG model and the Caline III model ia used to analyze CO hotapots. These modeling analyses are adequate to eupport the wntrol strategy. Minor deficiencies are diacusaed in the Technical Support Document. The SMOG analysis indicatea the highest a hour average concentrations for the design day in 1987. These - eatimates plus a

- chosen background concentration value indicate attainment of the 8-hour CO standard. No estimate of an allowable emiasion level ia provided. The plan indicates that with I/M and the California emission standarde, the area will project attainment of the CO Standard by 1987. 1'he plan does not presently include annual incremental reductiona in emisaions that would provide for reasonable further progress (RPP) towards attainment of the CO standard. 1'he Sacramento Area Council of Governments has committed to include an RFp demonstration in the final plan. Sarr Diego County: O, Plan—The baseline and projected emisaion inventories and air quality data are adequate to support the control atrategy. The control strategy ia based on the MADCAp model. The modeling analysis ia not adequate to support the control atrategy. Documentation ia needed to verify the design day selection and other modeWig aseumptions discusaed in the
Technical Su p port Document. The control atrategy demonstration indicatea that a 78 ton/day reduction is required to attain the atandard. This reduction will be achieved through implementation of an IJM progiam, stationary source control meaeurea, TCMa, end mobile source control

measurea. Stetionary source control measuree beyond the CTGs and remai: ing major sources as well as TCMs are needed to attain the atandard. Sither theae • additionel measurea need to be submitted for incluaion in the SIP or schedulea for their adoption need to be included in the plan, These measurea are detailed in the Technical Support Document. The neceesary Commitmeats for adoptian and implementation of the control measures must be included in the plan, and the achedules for adoption and implementation of the additional measures need to be as expeditious as practicable. This defidiency is diacusaed in the Technical Support Document. The plan contains a strategy that will be implemented so that there are annual incremental reductions in emissiona which wiII provide for reasonable further progress toward attainment of the O, standard.
CO Plan—The baseline And projected emission inventories are adequate to support a control strategy demonstration. The plan does not include sufficient air quality data and does not include a modeling analysis, although aufficient information does exdst in the plan to estimate the allowable emission level. A rollback calculation perfonmed by EPA based on data in the plan indicates that a 136 ton/ day reduction from the 1979 emission level is required to attain the CO standard by 1987. Tliis reduction is achieved through implementation of an I/M progeam, TCMs and inobile source control meastres as discussed above in the O s plan section. The control strategy demonstratea attainment of the CO standard by 1983. San Joaquin County.• O, Plan—The baseline and projected emission inventoriee and air quality data are -Y adequate to aupport the control strategy. The control strategy is based on the city-specific EIQMA model. The modeling analysis is adequate to siipport the control atrategy. The controi strategy demonstration indicates that a 14.8 ton/day reduction is required to attain the standard. This reduction will be achieved through implementation of the mobile aource control meaeurea, including the California Motor Vehicle Emiasion Control progeam (14.Z tone/day), atationary source control measurea (22.8 tona/day), and TCMs (0.14 tona/day]. The control strategy demonatratea attainment of the O, standard by 1988. Stationary source control measures beyond the CTGs and remaining major sources ae wall ae TCMs are needed to attain the atandard, and they are included in the plan. ffither theae additional measurea have already been eubmitted for incluaion in the SIP or schedulea for their adoption are included in the plan. These meaeurea are.detalled in the Tecbnical Support Document. The necessary commitments for adoption and implementatlon of the control measurea ere included in the plan, and the schedulea for adoption aad implementation of the additional

measures are ae e

~ cpeditioue as

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5081 1983

### 5082 Federal Regieter / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules

practicable. Therefore, the 1979 plan cc-ndition for TCMs contained in BPAs May 7,1982 5na1 rulemaking notice [47 Fit 1M] will be satiefied: The plan Includes a strategy that will be implemented so that there are annual incremental reductions in emissions which will provide for reasonable further progress toward attainment of the O s standard. COPlan—The baseline and projected emission inventoriee and air quality data are adequate to support the control etrategy. The control strategy is based on the rollback modeL The modeling aiialysis is adequate td support the control strategy. The control strategy demonstration ir.dicates that a 27.7 ton/day reduction from the 1979 emiseion level ie required to attain the CO standard by 1987. Thia reduction is achieved through irnplementation of the California Motor Vehicle Emission Control program (52.2 tone/day) and TCMs (7.4 tons/day). The omtrol strategy demonstrates atteinment of the CO etandard by 1983. These control measures are included aa legally adopted measures, or schedules for adoption are included In the plan. The necessary commitments for adoption and implementation are Licluded in the adopted pian and the schedulee for adoption are considered to be as expeditious as practicable. 1'herefore, the TCM condition contained Li EPA'e May 7.1982 final notice is satisfied. The plan includes a strategy that wlll t-e implemented so that there will be ennual incremental reductions in emissions which wW provide for reasonable further progress toward e.ttainment of the.CO etandard. Santc Barbaro County.• O, Plan—The baseline and projected emission inventories and air quality data are edequate to support the control etrategy. 71e control strategy 

### ie based on the IOQNA model. The modeling analysis 

### is cLdequate to support the control strategy coccept that it does not model the entire• Inventory. This de6ciency te diecussed in the Technical Support Document. The control strategy demonstration indicatee that a 2.4 ton/day reduction iiom the i979 emission baeeline is required to attain the etandard.l'his reduction will be achieved through implementation of the 1979 plan ineasures. Additional measures were adopted both prior to and as part of this .plan revision. Emission reduction credit is not taken for them, however. The aontrol strategy demonstrates attainment of the O. standard by 1984. Stationary source regulations for VOC eources covered by l3PA'e CTG documenta have been previouely submitted for inclusion in the S1P, except for minor deSdendes noted in the Technical Support Document. The plan includes a strategy that will be implemented so that there are annual incremental reductions In emissions which wW provide for reasonable further pmgrese toward attainment of the O. standard. South Covat Alr Bas1n: O, Plan—The beseHne and projected emiseion inventorlee and air quality data are adequate to support the control etrategy. Certain minor deficiendes are discussed in the Technical Support Document. The control strategy is based on city-specific 

### F•1QvIA as a first-phase modeling/ screeniag tool. A trajectory-specific 

### E[QWA analysis was also conducted to determine the emiesion reductions required to achieve the etandard and to estimatq future ozone concentrations. A sophisticated photochemical model was used to assees the effectiveness of the• plan's control strategy. The modeling analysis is adequate to eupport the control strategy. Minor deficiendes are noted in the Technical Support
Document. The control strategy demonstration indicates that a 738 tone/day reduction in hydrocarbons and a 60 tons/day reduction in NO, are required to attain the oaone standard by 1987. Attainment is not projected by 1987 wlth an anticipated shortfall of 524 tons/day in VOC. Stationary source control measures beyond those already adopted and mobile source control measures, Includiing TCMe, are needed to attain the etandard. Additional meaeuree have already been submitted for iaclusion in the Slp and schedulee for the adoption of other measuree are included in the plan. Schedulee for adoption and implementation of additional measures are as expeditious as practicable. The measures are detailed in the Technical Support Document. The plan contains a short-range strategy, consisting of 104 meaeuree for implementatlon between 1982 and 1987. The strategy includes measures coverIng petroleum induetries, power plants, surface coatings and solvent use, transportation eyetem desigo, aviation and marine sources, energy conservation and vehicle emission controls. The air quality modeling analysis shows that implemezitation of all measures in the short-range strategy wil] reduce the peak ozone level from 0.44 ppm in 1979 to 0.28 ppm in 1987. In addition, by 1987, first-etage air

. pollution episode daye will be re duced by up to 30% and second-stage episodes reduced by 95i. A long-range ozone control strategy is also included in the plan to indicate the direction the Air Hasin would need to take to demonstrate attainment. No emission reductions are claimed for thia portion of the plan which ie offered only for consideration and further stud'y. The long-range etrategy falls izito three areas: (a) energy use; (b) transportation and land use; and (c) new teclmology. The plan doee not contain a technical/fiecal analysis leading to rejection of TCMs. EPA's evaluation indicates that a eignificant number of TCMs are lleted in the plan ae "not reasonably evaffable" or available for use as offeete. However, based on subetantial experience in both the South. Coast and other urban areas in the country, these measures have been found by 11PA to be reaeonable and available, technically defeneible and cost-effective. The plan does not include commitments to adopt all measures which are recommended for implementation between 19a2 and 1997. In addition, the plan claims emission reduciion credits for short-ra,nge strategy measures which may require etate or federal enabling leglelation prior to local enactment of the measure. The plan also claime emiesion reductions for short range strategy measures which assume promulgation of tederal regulations although a notice of intent by the appropriate federal agency to promulgate such regulatione hae not been signed. Although all measures which appear reasonable and available for implementation should be identified along with associated emissions reductions, BPA caimot accept meaeures as part of the control strategy which are not accompanied by legal authority or commitments to implement. Although substantial progreas toward attainment will occur, the requirement for reaeonable further progress is not met since the control strategy does not provide for attainment by December 31,

1987. CO Plan—The baseline and projected emieston Inventories and air quality data are adequate to support the control strategy. Minor defidendes are discussed in the Technical Support Document. The controls strategy ie based on a proportional roll back model. The control strategy demonstration indicates that a 2188 tons/day reduction is required to attain the CO standard. Reductione through 1987 will be achieved throngh implemeritation of area eource, on-road and o8-road mobile source controls, including an inspection and maintenance pros¢am

HeinOnline
-- 48 Fed. Reg. 5082 1983

### Federal Regrister / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 9, 1988 / Proposed Rules 5088

and TCMe. Attainment of the CO standard is not projected by 1987 with an anticipated shortfall of 1327 tons/ day; however, the plan does provide for attainment of the standard by the year 2000 through implementation of measures adopted between 1982 and

1987. Measures in the'control etrategy are included as legally adopted measures, or schedules for adoption are included in the plan. Schedules for adoption are considered to be as expeditious as practicable. However, EPA finds that this portion of the CO plan ie de#ident for the same reasons identified for this portion of the ozone plan. Section 172(b) of the CAA requires the controi strategy to provide for annual incremental reductions for reasonable further progress toward attainment of the CO standard. Althrough substantial progress toward attainment will occur, the requirement for reasonable further progress is not met since the control strategy does not provide for attainment by December 91,1987. Stanlslane Coanty: Oa Plan—The baseline and projected emission inventories and air quality data are adequate to support the control strategy, with the exceptionof two deficienaies. Apparent discrepancies amOng the y inventories and annual averagea of emiesions potentially could affect the adequacy of the control strategy. EPA " anticipates that these issues will be resolved soon. (The del~iciencies are discussed in the Technical Support Document.) The control strategy is based on the city-spedfic EKMA model. The modeling analy'sis is adequate to support the control strategy. The control strategy demonstration indicates that a 4.8 ton/day emission reduction from projected 1987 emissions is required to attain the etandard. This reduction wW be achieved through implementation of stationary source control mearuses (4.8 tons/day) and TCMs (0.18 tons/day). Stationary source control measures beyond those already adopted and TCMs are needed to attain the standard and are included in the plan. Either these aditional measures have already been submitted for inclusion in the SIP or achedules for their adoption are included in the plan. These measures are detailed in the Technical Support Document. The necessary commitmente for adoption and implementation of the additional measures are as expeditious as practicable. The plan is deficient in not including documentation for the stationary source reductions. EPA aatidpates that this issue wiil be remedied sooa. This deficiency and one minor defidency pertaining to TCMs are discussed in the Technical Support Document. The plan includes a strategy that wtll be implemented so that there are annual incremental reductione in emissions which will provide for reasonable further progess toward attainment of the O

~ standard. Ventwn Connty.• Os Plan—The baseline and projected emission inventories and air quality data are adequate to support the control strategy. Certain minor deficiencies are discussed in the Technicai Support Document. Thecontrol strategy is based on the dtyspecific EKMA model. The modeling analysis is adequate to support the control strategy. Minor de8ciencies are noted in the Technical Support Document. The control strategy demonstration indicates that in the Oxnard Plain portion of the air basin a reduction of 12.8 tons/day of VOC and 18.3 tons/day of NO = is requtred to attain the standard, while in the Ojai vauey portion of the air basin a reduction of 1.7 tons/day of VOC and 6.8 tons/day of NO = is required. Reductions will be achieved through impiementation of an inspection and maintenance program, stationary source control measuree, and TCMe. The total emieeion reductions achieved by 1987 from measures contained in the plan is estimated to be 8.8 tons/day for VOC and 18.0 tons/day for NO,. However. despite implementation of all adopted measures, the ozone standard will not be atteined. The plan does indicate that the nonattainment area can attain an ozone level of 0.19 ppm sometime after 1987 if all measures contained in the plan are implemented. Stationary source measures beyond those already adopted and mobIIe source control meaeures, including TCMe, are needed to attain the standard and are addressed in the•plan. Additional measures have already been submitted for inclusion in the SIP and schedules for the adoption of other measures are included in the plan. These measures are detailed in the Technical Support Document. The necessary commitments for adoption •and implementation of control measures are included in the plan, and the • schedules for adoption and implementation of the additional measures are as expeditious as practicable. Tbree of the control measures contained in the plan are intenmittent voluntary control measures. One additional measure is an intermittent control. but it ie mandatory. Adequacy of any control strategy is partially, dependent upon veritiable claimed emission reductions, with supportable technical analysis and documeittation. In any case. Section 129 of the Clean Air Act prohibits allowmg the degree of emission reduction which is necessary to attain standards to be affected by "intermittent controls of air pollutants varying with atrnospheric conditiona." Even if such measures were made mandatory, and legally enforceable, problems related to the unrellability or verification of inethods of predicting atmospheric conditions would need to

be overcome. The transportation control portion of the plan'fails to provide adequate documeatation for the limited extent of itnplementation of the Section 108(f) measures contained in the plan. EPA's analysis indicates that, without a tecbnical basis for rejection, the limited coverage and voluntary riature of several transportation control measures included in the plan do not represent an acceptable demonstration of implementing all reasonable and avallable measures. . Although substantial progress toward attainment wlll occur, the requirement for reasonable further progress is not met since the control strategy does not provide for attainment by December 91,

1987. Lake Tahoe Basfn: -CO Plan—This notice evaluates that Lake Tahoe Basin Plan for its adequacy in demonstrating attainment of the CO standard in the California portion of the Basin, since only this area was p•anted an extension to 1987. EPA is defening action on.the plan as its pertains to the Nevada portion of the Basin. The baseline emission inventory, air quality data, and modeling analyses are adequate to support the control strategy. The control strategy demoastration indicatee ambient air quality reductions at each modeled site resulting from the control measures. These reductions are achieved through adoption and implementation of an I/M program and TCMs. Emission reduction credits are taken for both non-resident vehicles subject to the I/M program in the six urbanized areas of Califorrnia and for resident vehicles in ffi Dorado County. The control strategy demonstratea attainment of the CO standard by 1987. Certain of these control measures are included as legally adopted measures; schedules for adoption are also included in the plan. For I/M, the legal authority for the non-resident program is the California legislation discussed earlier in this notice. The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (Pub. 4 98-511) gives the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency the authority to develop aa I/M ordinance _

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5083 1983;;084 Fedsral Register / 

### Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3, 1983 / Proposed Rulea

foi the Baein. The plan apecifies that the 'fahoe program wW be ainiilar to the one being developed for the California urbanized areas. Necessary commitinenta for adoption +md iraplementation of the various control measures are included, and their tichedule for adoption is conaidered to 12e as expeditious as practicable. The State has committed t6 providing the :remaining required evidence of coatrol :measure adoption and implementation ;chedules. Therefore, the 1979 plan conditions for TCMa, reaources, and evidence of adoption and implementation schedulea contained in BPA's )une 23,1982 Hnal rulemaking notice (47 FR 27085) wtll be satisfied. In addition, the conditional appmval contained in the 5na1 rulemaking notice which related to Basic Tranaportation Needs has beea satiafied in the 1982 SIP reviaion. ' The plan does not preeently iaclude annual•incremental reductions in emieaiona that would provlde for reasonable further progreas towarda attainment of the CO atandarda. The State will submit a revised demonatration in the flnal plan.

Propoeed Actiona

Based on EPA's review of California's September 17,1982 submittal regarding motor vehicle I/M, it is proposed that the followiag actions be taken: 1. The September 17;1982 submittal is propoaed to be approved and inco orated iato the SIP as meeting all the I?M requirementa of the 1979 plana (except for the implementation achedule) since it strengthens the control requiremente of the SIP. 2 The implementation schedule is pmposed to be disapproved aince it doea not require program etart-up by December 91,1982. This would result in a continuatIon of the exiating moratorium on the construction of new or modified major eources of O. and/or CO ia the San Frandsco Hay Area Air Basin, Fresno County, Sacramento Metropollten Area, San Diego County, South Coaet Air Basin arid Ventura County. 9. It is pmpoaed that the California I/M program is adequate to satiafy the I/M requirementa for the 1982 SIP reviaion, provided the ten elements for a fully epprovable I/M program are submitted prior to EPA'e final action on the 1982 SIP revisiona. Failure to eubmit the ten elemente could result in plan disappraval. Based on evaluation of the draft 1982 SIP reviaiona, EPA te propoaing to teke the following actiona on the 1982 SiP reviaiona under the procedure of 

### "parallel processing": '1. All portions of California's 1982 SIP revisions are propoaed to be approved and incorporated into the SIP (except as noted below), since they update the SIp data baae, provide new control meaeures which are needed to attain the NAAQS, and meet other apecific requirements of Part D of the Act.

—Intermittent control measurea identified in the Ventura County planas R-38/N-18 (No Use Day), R-39/N17 (No Drive Day), R-40 (No Spray Day) and R-41/N-18 (Stationary Source Curtailment) are proposed to be disapproved, aince they are inconsistent with Sectiona 110 and 123
of the Act. —Control measures contained in the South Coaet Air Basin plan which are not accompanied by (1) certification of legal authority to implement the meaeures, (2) a commitment by the appropriate agency to implement the measures, and (3) evidence that adequate funding wW be available to implement the measures, are propoaed to be disapproved, eince they are incbnsistent with Section 110 of the Act and 40 CFR Part 61. ' 2. Overall, the 1982 SIP revisiona for the following areas are propoaed to be approved as meeting the requirementa of Part D of the Act, except for the defident plan elements noted. Remedies
for the noted defidencies muat be submitted to EPA prior to $nal approval of the plans. Failure to remedy the deficiences could reault in disapproval of the overall plan. 

### San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (O, and CO): —The CO plan lacka adeaute documeatation to support the attainment demonstration. —The CO plan lacke documentation of a procesa for detenmining reesonable further progresa. North Central Coast Air Basin (O

~ : The plan doea not include a demonstration that reasonable further progi'esa will be met. San Diego County (O,) and (CO) : The plana lack the neceasary evidence of adoption of the control measuree. The plana leck documentatlon for the attainment demonatrations (including a modellng enalyais for CO).
San Joaquin County (O, and (CO) : Santa Barbam County/0 3 ):
-The attainment demonatration ie not baeed on en adequate modeling analyais since the tldelanda portion of the 

### inventory was excluded. Stanislaus County (OS) : —The emisaion inventory may not be adequate to support the attainment demonatration. —The plan lacks documentation for the estimates of stationary source emiasion reductions. • Tahoe Interstate Air Basin (CO) : —The plan lacka evidence of local agency comiaitment to the recommended control measurea. The plan lacks an adequate demonatration oireasonable further '

progresa. • 3. Overall, the 1982 SIP revisions for the following areas are proposed to be disapproved, aince they fail to satisfy the following requirements of Part D of the Act: i) the plans fail to demonatrate attainment of the atandarda by December 31, 1987; 2) the plana do not provide for reasonable further progress; and 3) the plans do not contain adequate juatification for the rejection of certain TCM's listed under Section 108(f) of the

Act. 

### F}+esno County (Os and CO). 

### Sacramento Metropolitfan Area (Oy). 

### South Coast Air Basln (a and CO). 

### —Ventum Corurty (O,).
4. Elements of the 1982 SIP revisions and additional information received on VOC regulations eatiafy the following conditions of approval of the 1979 SIP reviaiona. It is proposed that thes8 conditions be removed upon final action on the 1982 SIP revisiona. 

### Fi+esno County: —TCM commitments • 

### Sacromento Metropolitan Area:
TCM commitments 

### San Joaquin County: —TCM committnents. 

### Stanislaus County. —Rule 410 deficency. 

### Ventura.Countya —Rule 74.3 deficiency.' 

### Lake Tahoe: —Resource commitmenta to imptement the. plan. • —Commitment to Basic Tranaportation Needa. • —TCM commitmenta. If the major deficiendes llsted above in item 3 are not remedied before EPA tekea final action, SPA is pmpoaing to disapprove the four 1982 SIP revisiona. Under Section I10(a)(2j(n and 40 CFR 62.24 (1981), disapproval would trigger contiunation of a moratorlum on the construcGbn and modificatiori of major atationary sources of O, and/or CO in the nonatteinmeat areea. Disapproval may also reault in reatrictions on Federal funding purauent to Sections 178(a) and 318(b) of the Act. Under Section 178(a], EPA and the Department of Traasportatioa must limit funds for air quality planning and transportatioa projecta in any nonattainment area where

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5084 1983

### Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 3, 1983 / Proposed Rules 5085

transportation control-meaeures are necessary for attainment and where - EPA fmde that a state has not submitted, or made reasonable efforts to submit, a plan meeting the requirements of Section 172. Under Section 318(b), the Administrator has the discretion to limit sewage treatment funding in similar circumstances. EPA will publish a separate notice of proposed rulemaking and provide an opportunity for comment before imposing either of these funding restrictions. For more information on the scope of the restrictions and the procedures EPA will follow, see 45 FR 24892 (April 10.1980) (air quality planning and transportation grants) and 45 FR 53382 (August 11,1980) (sewage treatment grants). Interested parties are invited to comment on all aspecta of these proposed actions regarding the California SiP. Commeats should be submitted to the EPA Region 9 Office. Under Executive Order 12291, today's action is not "Major". It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.



### I.ist of Subjeds in 48 CFR Part 52 Air pollution control, Intergovennmental relations, Ozone. Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, l.ead, Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons. Authodty: Sections 110,123.129.171-178 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 741% 7423, 7429, 7501 to 7508 and 78p1(a)). Dated: November 30,1982.

Sonia F. Crow, Regionol Admfnislnator.

[PR Doa e8-M7 Fead 2-2-0. 8:45 eml

6a11N0 CODE 6560-0-M



### 40 CFR Part 52

[EPA Aotlon MO 999; A-7-FiiL 2261-31



### Approval and Promulgatlon of Impismentation Plans: State of Missouri; 1982 

### Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Attalnment Plan AQeqcr: Environmental Protection

! °, gm cy (EPA)• 

### Ac'rtotr. Proposed rulem aking.

suMMAqr: The Clean Air Act requires that all states which received an extension beyond December 31,1982, to attain either the ozone or carbon monoxide standards submit a revised plan by July 1,1982,.ehowing that the standards would be attained by December 31, 1987. The State of Missouri has submitted a draft plan for the St. Louis area. EPA is proposing to disapprove this plan. The plan contains numerous deficiencies including a failure to demonstrate attainment of theozone standard, an inadequateinspection and maintenance'program for motor vehicles, inadequate controls on stationary sources and other

. deficiencies. Disapproval di the plan would result in a moratorium on the construction and modification of major stationary sources of ozone and carbon monoxide in the nonattainment areas. ' Reetrictions on funds for air quality planning and transportation projecte could follow. EPA is solidting comments on its proposed action.

DATE Comments must be received on or before March 21,1989. 

### ADDeesBM Comments should be addressed to Mr. Wayne G. Leidwanger, Air Branch, Envlronmental Protection Agency, 324 East lith Street, Kansas City, Missouri 8410e. Copies of the state's submission and EPA'e technical evaluation are available during nonmal business hours at the preceding address as well as at the following locations: Missouri Department of.Natural Reaourcee,1101 Rear Southwest Boulevard, Jefferson City, Missouri 85101; East-West Gateway. Coordinating Counci1,112 North Fourth Street, St. Louis, Missouri 83102.

FOR FNRTHER IpFORMATION CONTACr: Wayne Leidwanger at (818) 374-3791 (FPS 758-3791).

sUPPLEMEtiTARY 1NFORMATIoN: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 added a new Part D to'Title I of the Act. [Sections 171 178 of the Clean Air Act; Section 129(c) (uncodified) of Pub. L 95- 95). Under this ParL the statee had to revise their State Implementation Plana (SIPs) for all nonattainment areas and submit the revisions to EPA by January 1,1979. The revised plan had to provide for attainment by December 31,1982, unless the State demonstrated that it could not attain either the ozone or carbon monoxide (CO).standard by that date (Sections 172(a)(1),172(a)(2)). If SPA approved thie demonstratlon, the attainment date for ozone or CO could be extended up to December 31, 1987, and the State could defer compliance with certain of the Part D planning requirements. States receiv(ng such extensions were to submit a second SIp revision that provides for attainment by the approved attainment date and complies with all of the Part D requirements (Section 172(c)). These second SIP revisions had to be submitted by July 1.1982 (Section 129(c) (uncodifed), Pub. L. 95-95). On January 22,1981 (48 FR 7182), EPA published final eriteria for reviewing these revisions. These criteria suppiement the "General Pre&mble" for SIP revisions for nonattainment areas, which was pub)ished on Apri14,1979 (44 FR 20372).'

The State of Miseouri submitted an initial SIP revision for the St. Louis ozone and CO nonattainment areas in July 1979. The State requested that EPA extend the attainment date for the standards in this area until December 31,1987. BPA approved this request and conditionally approved the initial plan revision on Aprll 9,1980 (45 FR 24140). (EPA gave final approval to this initial plan revision on June 10,1982 (47 FR 25143) after the conditions had been fulfilled.) This draft is the subject of today's notice. Oa December 28,1982, Missouri submitted its f•

ina11982 plan. BPA is currently reviewing Missouri's fmal submittaL The final submittal may address some of the major iseues raised in today's notice. Once EPA completes its review, EPA will either publish a notice of fmal rulemaking on the revisions discussed in today'e notiee or will Fublish a revised notice of proposed rulemaking if the 8na1 submittal differe significantly from the draft submittal.

EPA'e review of the State's draft submittal is divided into three main discussions.
A. the ozone SIP,

B. the carbon monoxide SIP, and
C. the additional requirements set out in EPA guidance, including conformity of federal actions, consultation with State and local officiale, and the effect

aseessment.

A. The Ozone SIP

Ozone is formed from various precursors, prImarlly oxides of nitrogen and a ciass of hydrocarbons called "reactive volatile organic compounda" (VOCe). VOC emissions are controlled to reduce ozone concentrations.
The St. Louie nonattainment area includes the City of St. Louie and St. Charles, FrankWt, Jefferson and St. Louia Counties in Miasouri and Madison, Monroe and St. Clair Counties in Illinois. (Today's notice addresses only the Mieaouri plan: EPA wtll publish a separate notice on the IWnole SIP.) , The ozone modeling analysi's for the nonattainment area claims that a?A.9 percent emission reduction will be needed to eliminate violations of the ozone standard. The draft Missouri 1982 SIP combines a mix of stationary and

'EPA publiahed four idditlonal notices eupplementing the general preamble in 1979: July Z 1979 (44 Pa se683), Augu,t ze.ls7s (44 Fa bo971). September 17.1979 (44 FR 537e1). and November 23. 1979 (40 FR e7162).

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 5085 1983