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 

214*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 

Nonattainment Area on 1979 Plana Pollutants R,eaeived by FRA ona 

San >:'rands~ao Bay Area •3-19-82 03, 00 7-14-82 

Air Basin ,c (47 FR 11866) 

Fresno Co. b 7-1-82 03►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 Basinb, 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 03 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 1983 
Federal '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, 

following 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 NOx 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 1983 
Federal 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 over 

twenty 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 training. ' 

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.byEPA'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 1983 
5~D80 Federel Register / Vol. 48, No. 24 / Thursday, February 8, 1983 / Propoaed Rules _ _ 

(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 Support 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 plan. 

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 adop 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 rogress 

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, February3,1983 / 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 Support 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 Osplan 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 Osstandard. 

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 reduced 

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. The 

control 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 plan 

as 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/03 ): 

-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 rulemaking. 

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 the 

ozone 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