FeeaIeitrIIo.4,N. 2 hrdyJl ,18 Rule anIeultos81

designated Coast Guard Patrol

Commander who is empowered to

forbid and control movement of vessels

in the area before, during, and after the

events for such time as he finds it

necessary for the safe and orderly

conduct of the events.

(c) A succession of sharp, short

signals by whistle or horn from vessels

patrolling the areas under the direction

of the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol

Commander shall serve as a signal to

stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and

shall comply with the orders of the

Patrol Vessel; failure to do so may result

in expulsion from the area, citation for

failure to comply, or both.

(d) This section 100.35-0905 will

become effective at 11:00 a.m. (local

time) on July 17, 1982 and will no longer

be effective after 7:00 p.m. on July 18,

1982.

(Sec. 1, 35 Stat. 69 as amended, Sec. 6(b)ll),

80 Stat. 937; 46 U.S.C. 454; 49 U.S.C.

1655(b)(1); 33 CFR 100.35; 49 CFR 1.46(b))

Dated:.June 18, 1982.

Henry H. Bell,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Ninth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 82-17941 Filed 6-30-82; 8:45 aml

BILLING CO6E 4910-14-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL-2071-31

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California

Nonattainment Area Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On September 5 and 15, 1980,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) published notices of proposed

rulemaking concerning the San Joaquin

Valley, Sacramento Valley, and South

Central Coast Air Basin nonattainment

area plans (NAPs) for ozone, carbon

monoxide (CO), and particulate matter

(PM).

Today's notice takes final action t6

approve, conditionally approve, and

disapprove portions of the NAPs for

Fresno and Ventura Counties and for

the Sacramento Metropolitan area

(Sacramento, Yolo, and Solano Counties

and a portion of Placer County).

DATE: This action is effective July 1,

1982.

ADDRESS: A copy of the NAPs is located

at: The Office of the Federal Register,

1100 "L" Street, N.W., Room 8401,

Washington, D.C. 20408. Public

Information Reference Unit,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Attn: Douglas Grano (415) 974-8222,

Director, Air Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, 215

Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 13, 1977, January 2,

October 15 and 18, November 13,

December 17 and 24, 1979, and February

25, May I and June 2, 1980, the

California Air Resources Board (ARB)

submitted revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

consisting of a control strategy and

regulations for the San Joaquin Valley,

Sacramento Valley, and South Central

Coast Air Basins. These revisions,

which comprise the NAPs, are intended

to provide for attainment of the ozone,

CO, and PM National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in these

Air Basins.

On September 5 and 15, 1980, EPA

published notices of proposed

rulemaking for the San Joaquin Valley

(45 FR 58897), Sacramento Valley (45 FR

58883), and South Central Coast (45 FR

58912) Air Basin NAPs for ozone, CO,

and PM. These notices should be used

as references in reviewing today's

notice.

Supplemental Revisions

After EPA's review, which appears in

the September 5 and 15, 1980 notices, the

State submitted revisions to the NAPs

as discussed below.

California Environmental Quality Act

(CE QA)

On October 20, 1980, the State

submitted the following portions of

CEQA in response to a proposed

condition of approval:

Sections 2100; 21001; 21002; 21002.1,

21061; 21063; 21065; 21080.1; 21080.4(a);

21080.5 (a], (b), (c) and (d); 21081; 21082;

21100; 21104; 21151; 21153; and 21160.

EPA has determined that these

portions of the CEQA satisfy the

requirements of Section 172(b)(11)(A) of

the Clean Air Act. The CEQA provisions

were incorporated into the California

State Implementation Plan in a final

rulemaking notice for the South Coast

Air Basin NAP published on January 21,

1981 (46 FR 5965).

New Source Review Rules

On March 17, 1980 the State submitted

an amendment to Ventura County Rule

26, New Source Review, as a SIP *

revision. The revision only modifies

paragraph 26.3(a)(4) in order to delineate

the boundaries of Ventura County's

Southern Zone which are used in

implementation of the rule.

On March 23, 1981, the State

submitted amended Ventura County

Rule 26.2, "New or Modified Stationary

Sources-Unallocated Pollutants", as a

SIP revision. The content of Rule 26.2

remains the same. However, the title has

been changed in order to avoid

confusion as to which pollutants are

addressed in this rule. On September 5,

1980, EPA proposed that the rule be

amended to require offsets for new or

modified major sources of PM. The title

change in Rule 26.2 clarifies that major

sources of PM will in fact be included in

the permitting process.

EPA finds that these revisions

represent a clarification of the rules and

do not change their substance. Since an

opportunity to comment on the rules has

already been given in the proposal

notice, further comment is not

considered necessary for this minor

change and thus EPA finds that "good

cause" exists to immediately approve

these rules.

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

Rules

The following rules have been

received and evaluated against the

requirements for reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for Group I

control technique guidelines (CTG)

categories:

Fresno Rule 410, "Storage of Organic

Liquids," submitted May 13, 1980,

Placer County (Mountain Counties Air

Basin portion) Rule 213, "Gasoline

Transfer into Stationary Storage

Containers," submitted May 28, 1981,

Placer County (Mountain Counties Air

Basin portion) Rule 216, "Degreasing

Operations," submitted May 28, 1981,

Placer County (Mountain Counties Air

Basin portion) Rule 223, "Can

Coating," submitted May 28, 1981,

Sacramento Rule 13, "Gasoline Transfer

into Stationary Storage Containers,"

submitted December 15, 1980,

Sacramento Rule 18, "Can Coating,"

submitted June 24, 1980,

Sacramento Rule 20, "Degreasing

Operations," submitted October 23,

1981,

Yolo-Solano Rule 2.13(h)(6), "Organic

Solvents," submitted March 30, 1981

(cutback asphalts),

Vetura Rule 70, "Transfer of Gasoline

into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks,"

submitted October 23, 1981, and

Ventura Rule 71.2, "Storage of Organic

Liquids," submitted January 28, 1981.

47, No. 127 / Thursday, July 1, 1982 Federal Register / Vol. / Rules and Regulations 28617

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28617 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 127 / Thursday, July 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

EPA has evaluated all of the rules

described above as Group I CTG

category rules and had found that each

of them fulfills the requirement for

RACT for the corresponding source

category. Further, all of the rules listed

above are consistent with Section 110 of

the Clean Air Act since they provide

emission limits necessary to insure

attainment of the NAAQS.

The Fresno Rule 410 also addresses

requirements for Fixed and Floating Roof Tanks, a Group II CTG category, as

does Ventura Rule 71.2, "Storage of

Organic Liquids," submitted January 28,

1981. Adequacy of these rules to fulfill

Group II RACT requirements is

addressed in a separate notice

published in the Federal Register on July

29, 1981 (46 FR 38725). While EPA

believes that these two rules now satisfy the requirements for fixed roof tanks (a

Group I CTG source category), final

approval of these two rules will be

based on the July 29, 1981 proposal.

Revised Sacramento County APCD

Rules 13 and 20 contain only minor

amendments as compared with Rules 13

and 20 evaluated as part of the

September 5, 1980 Notice. Ventura

County Rule 70(E) submitted on October

23, 1981 also contains only minor

amendments as compared to Rule 70

discussed in the September 5, 1980

notice. Yolo-Solano Rule 2.13(h)(6) has

been amended by (1) establishing a limit

of 1% on the VOC content of emulsified

asphalts, (2) limiting the exemption for

stockpiling to only the winter months,

and (3) restructuring the rule to clarify

the applicability of the rule to cutback

asphalt users. These amendments were

designed to satisfy each of the

deficiencies noted in the September 5,

1980 notice, and therefore, the proposed

conditions for Rule 2.13(h)(b) have been

satisfied. EPA has determined that "good cause" (see Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)) exists to

approve the above items without

providing further notice and opportunity

to comment since the revisions

represent only minor amendments or

merely satisfy certain conditions of

approval.

EPA has also determined that the

Placer County (Mountain Counties

portion) Rules 213, 216, and 223 and

Sacramento County Rule 18 are similar

and equivalent to the model rules

evaluated as part of the September 5,

1980 Notice. As noted in EPA's

evaluation of the model rule, the

requirements of the model rule were

sufficient to allow EPA to rescind the

Federal Regulation 40 CFR 52.255,

"Gasoline transfer vapor control". EPA

is therefore rescinding the Federal

Regulation as applicable to Placer

County. Because these rules are similar

and equivalent, EPA also finds that for

good cause an additional notice and

comment on these Rules is unnecessary

(See U.S.C. Section 553(b)(B),

Administrative Procedure Act).

Other NAP Revisions

Fresno County

On October 9, 1980, the ARB

submitted the following document in

order to satisfy a proposed condition of

approval concerning Fresno County:

Air Quality Planning AddendumCouncil of Fresno County Governments

1979-84 Overall Work Program. EPA

has reviewed the above document and

agrees that it contains adequate

commitments and schedules for study of

transportation control measures.

Sacramento Metropolitan Area

On October 9, 1980, the ARB

submitted two items in order to satisfy

proposed conditions of approval. EPA's

evaluation of these items follows:

1. Emission Inventory, 1976.

2. Air Quality Plan Technical

Appendix, January 1979.

EPA proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of revised CO

and hydrocarbon (HC) emission

inventories which include emissions for

the total nonattainment area and

supporting documentation for emission

factors and projections. EPA has

reviewed the above two items and

determined that the condition of

approval should be deleted.

Ventura County

On April 1, and July 16, 1981, the ARB

submitted nine items in order to satisfy

proposed conditions of approval

published in the September 5 notice.

EPA's evaluation of these items follows:

1. Appendix B-81, Empirical Kinetic

Modeling Approach: Ozone Formation,

Transport, and Concentration

Relationships in Ventura County;

Update of Emission Reduction Required

for Attainment of Ozone NAA QS.

EPA proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of documentation

to support the ozone design value. EPA

has reviewed the above item and

determined that the deficiency has been

corrected.

2. Letter: Jan Bush to Mike Redemer,

January 23, 1981. (See discussion under

item 6.)

3. Letter and enclosures: Janet Lyders

to Mike Scheible, February 6, 1981. (See

discussion under item 7.)

4. Letter and enclosures: Jan Bush to

William Lockett, December 15, 1980.

(See discussion under item 6.)

5. Letter and enclosures: Jan Bush to

William C. Lockett, October 23, 1980.

(See discussion under item 6.)

6. Attachment V-Transportation

Control Measures.

EPA proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of (a) currently

programmed transportation control

measures (TCMs) and (b) schedules and

commitments for these measures. EPA

has reviewed the above document,

together with items 4 and 5, and

determined that the condition of

approval is satisfied.

EPA also proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of an

identification and commitment to the

resources needed for implementation of

the plan and for analysis and adoption

of TCMs. EPA's review of items 4, 5, and

6, found the necessary identification and

commitments. Therefore, the condition

of approval is met.

7. Ventura Air Quality Management

Plan, Appendix Q, Plan for Attainment

of Standards for Total Suspended

Particulates in Ventura County: Interim

Report, July, 1980.

EPA proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of documentation

to support the particulate matter design

value. EPA has reviewed the above

document and the information provided

in item 2 above and determined that

they adequately explain why certain

data were not used. The proposed EPA

condition of approval is therefore

deleted.

EPA also proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of revised

emission reduction estimates per control

tactic for particulate matter. EPA has

determined that the above document

satisfies this condition of approval.

8. Attachment IV-Population

Forecasts. This item updates population

growth forecasts contained in Ventura

County's AQMP and proposed for

approval September 5, 1980. Since only

minor changes are made, this item is

approvable.

9. Attachment VI-Implementation of

Emission Reductions Required for

Attainment of TSP Standards.

EPA proposed as a condition of

approval the submittal of needed tasks

and a schedule to define nontraditional

particulate sources, to characterize

secondary particulate sources, and to

develop, adopt, submit, and implement

control measures. EPA has reviewed the

above document and determined that

the needed tasks and schedules are

provided. Therefore, the condition is

satisfied.

EPA has determined that "good

cause" exists (see Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)) to

28618

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28618 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 127 / Thursday, July 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

approve all of the above (twelve) items

without providing further notice and

opportunity to comment. EPA has

already provided opportunity to

comment on the substance of these

items which were addressed in the

September 5, 1980 proposal notice.

Additional comment would serve no

practical purpose since these revisions

merely satisfy certain conditions of

approval.

Public Comments

During the public comment period,

EPA received comments from the Air

Resources Board, the Council of Fresno

County Governments, the County of

Fresno Department of Health, the

Sacramento Regional Area Planning

Commission, the County of Sacramento

Air Pollution Control District, and the

County of Ventura Air Pollution Control

District. A document containing the

summarization of comments and the

EPA response to each, entitled "EPA

Public Comment Technical Support

Document," is available for public

inspection as a part of Document Files

NAP-CA-04, 16, and 30 at the EPA

library in Washington, D.C., at the EPA

Region 9 office in San Francisco, CA and

at the other Document locations listed in

the September 5, 1980 notices.

EPA Actions

Introduction

The criteria used in EPA's review are

detailed in the General Preamble and

four supplements referenced in the

notice of proposed rulemaking.

While EPA's evaluation of the NAP

for ozone includes use of "Control

Technique Guidelines" ("CTG's")

documents as a "presumptive norm," the

states may adjust the recommended

controls or develop requirements which

are not based on the CTG's, provided

that they submit information supporting

their decisions.

It should be noted that action may be

taken on a portion of a NAP for a

specific pollutant or rule. Therefore, a

portion of a NAP may be adequate for

one pollutant but inadequate for others.

Further, a rule may be adequate under

Section 110, but inadequate under

Section 172 or 173 of the Act. It is EPA's

policy to take final action on all portions

of a NAP for each pollutant.

Therefore, this notice contains a

series of actions for each pollutant and

for each portion of the NAP rather than

a single action. One of the following

three actions may be taken for each

portion of a NAP:

1. Disapproval where deficiencies are

of such magnitude as to significantly

interfere with the basic objective of the

NAP; or

2. Approval where the portion of the

NAP under consideration meets all

requirements; or

3. Approval with conditions where

deficiencies exist, but where the effect

of the deficiency is not judged to be

major and where the State has agreed to

take those steps necessary to correct the

deficiency. In this case, it is EPA's

understanding that the State will

proceed expeditiously to correct the.

noted deficiency by certain dates.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by (60 days from today). Under

section 307(b)(2), this action may not be

challeneged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements.

EPA's final actions described below

are based on the proposed rulemaking

notice, supplemental revisions

submitted by the State, and public

comments received by EPA.

Approved Portions of the NAPs

EPA is taking action under Section 110

of the Clean Air Act to approve the

following rules since they provide

emission limits necessary to insure

attainment of the NAAQS: Fresno

County rules 409, 409.1, 409.3, 409.4.

409.5, and 411; Placer County rules 212,

213, 215 to 219, and 223; Sacramento

County rules 6, 11, 12 and 16 to 20;

Ventura County rules 2, 70, 71, 71.1, 71.3,

74.3, 74.4, 74.6, 74.7 and 74.8; and YoloSolano rules 2.13(h)(6), 2.14, 2.21, 2.21.1,

2.24, and 2.25.

In addition, EPA is taking action

under Part D of the Act to approve the

following VOC rules since they fully

satisfy the requirements for RACT for

Group I CTG source categories: Fresno

County rules 409.3, 409.4, 411, and 412;

Placer County rules 212 (11/13/79

version) 213, 215, 216, and 223;

Sacramento County rules 11, 12, 13, 17,

18, and 20; Yolo-Solano County rules

2.13(h)(6), 2.21, 2.21.1 and 2.25; and

Ventura County rules 70, 71, 71.1, 71.3,

and 74.8.

As proposed in the September 5

notices and discussed in the Public

Comment Technical Support Document,

and the SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS

section of this notice, EPA is taking final

action under Section 172 to approve the

following portions of the Fresno,

Sacramento Metropolitan, and Ventura

NAPs for CO, O and PM: emission

inventory, moldeling, emission reduction

estimates, attainment provision, RFP,

legally adopted measures (Ventura

only), emissions growth, annual

reporting, resources, public and

government involvement, public hearing

and extension requirements.

Conditionally Approved Portions of the

NAPs

As discussed in the proposal notices,

the Public Comment Technical Support

Document, and the SUPPLEMENTAL

REVISIONS section of this notice, the

following portions of the NAPs contain

minor deficiencies with respect to

Sections 172 and 17§: legally adopted

measures (Sacramento Metropolitan and

Fresno areas only), permit program and

extension requirements for VOC.

Since the State and the lead planning

agencies have assured EPA that they

will submit the material to correct the

minor deficiencies, EPA takes final

action to conditionally approve these

portions of the NAP.

To satisfy the conditions of approval,

the State must submit the following

material by the indicated dates:

1. By October 29, 1982 the NSR rules

must be revised to meet the

requirements in EPA's amended

regulations for NSR under Section 173 of

the Clean Air Act (May 13, 1980, 45 FR

31307), August 7, 1980, 45 FR 52676) and

October 14, 1981 (46 FR 50766) and

submitted as a SIP revision.

2. By October 29, 1982, the State must

provide either (1) an adequate

demonstration that the following

regulations represent RACT, (2) amend

the regulations so that they are

consistent with the CTG, or (3)

demonstrate that the regulations will

result in VOC emission-reductions

which are within five percent of the

reductions which would be achieved

through the implemention of the CTG

recommendations.

Yolo-Solano County APCD

Rule 2.24, "Solvent Cleaning

Operations (Degreasing)"

Ventura County APCD

Rule 74.3, "Fabric and Film Coating"

3. By (120 days after publication of

this notice), submit commitments and

implementation schedules for the five

transportation control measures

included in the Sacramento

Metropolitan and Fresno area plans.

Disapproved Portions of the NAPs

Since the State has not provided the

necessary legal authority, the I/M

portion of these NAPs for CO and/or 03

is disapproved.

Final Overall Action on the NAPs for

Fresno, Sacramento and Ventura

Since the Fresno and Ventura NAPs

for PM contain only minor deficiencies

28619

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28619 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 127 / Thursday, July 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

and since the State has provided

assurances to correct these deficiencies,

EPA is taking final action to

conditionally approve this portion of the

NAPs. As a result, the prohibition on

construction of major or new or

modified sources is no longer in effect in

Fresno and Ventura Counties for PM.

Further, the prohibition is not in effect

for PM sources in the Sacramento

Metropolitan area since the area is

nonattainment only for the welfare

related secondary standard.

Due to the I/M disapproval, today's

actions also result in an overall

disapproval of the Fresno, Sacramento

and Ventura NAPs for CO and O.. This

retains the current prohibition on

construction of major new or modified

VOC and (except in Ventura County)t

*CO sources in these three

nonattainment areas.

Regulatory Process

In those areas for which the State of

California has submitted approvable or

conditionally approvable NAPs in

accordance with the requirements of

Part D of the Clean Air Act, EPA has a

responsibility to take final action as

soon as possible in order to lift the

construction prohibition. Since the State

has submitted a conditionally

approvable NAP for PM for the counties

discussed in this notice, EPA finds that

good cause exists for making this action

immediately effective.

The new SIP requirements approved

or conditionally approved by today's

notice are an addition to the existing SIP

and do not supersede or replace the "old" SIP requirements until a source

comes into compliance with the new

requirements. For further information,

see EPA's General Preamble.

As a result of approval of certain

portions of the NAPs, EPA is taking final

action to rescind the following

analogous portions of 40 CFR Part 52 for

the counties indicated:

§ 52.246 Control of dry cleaning

solvent losses (Placer County) § 52.252 Control of degreasing

operations (Placer County) § 52.253 Metal surface coating thinner

and reducer (Placer County)

§ 52.254 Organic solvent usage (Placer

County)

§ 52.255 Gasoline transfer vapor control (Fresno, Placer, Sacramento,

Ventura, and Yolo-Solano Counties)

§ 52.256 Control of evaporative losses

from the filling of vehicular tanks

(Sacramento County)

In addition, § 52.253 and § 52.254 are

rescinded as applicable to the coating of

'Ventura County is attainment for CO.

metal parts and products for sources in

full compliance with Fresno County Rule

409.4 or Yolo-Solano County Rule 2.25.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must judge whether a rulemaking action

is "major". Further, under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA must

assess the effect of the rulemaking

action on "small entitites". This

regulation is not "major" because it

approves state and local actions and

imposes no new requirements. I hereby

certify that the action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

required by Executive Order 12291, this

regulation was submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review.

Under the Clean Air Act, any petitions

for judicial review of this action must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

August 30, 1982. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements.

Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State

of California was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July

1, 1981.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur

oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons.

(Secs. 110, 129,171-178, and 301(a), Clean Air

Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7410, 7429, 7501 to

7508, and 7601(a)]).

Dated: June 14,1982.

Anne M. Gorsuch,

Administrator.

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(47)(ii)(B), (50)(ix),

(52}(xiii) (B] and (xv), (54)(i)(B), (iv] and

(v), 56(ii), (58)(iv), (71), (74)(iii), 77(ii)(B), {79)(iii), (82)(1), (85)(iii), (89}{ii), (91),

(92)(ii), (95)(ii), (97), and (103) (iv) and

(v) as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) • , . (47) * *

{ii) * * *

(B) New or amended Rule 409.1.

(50 * * *

(ix) Ventura County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rules 71 and

71.3.

* * * * *

(52) * * *

(xiii) * * *

(B) New or amended Rules'215 and

219.

* * * * *

(xv) Fresno County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rules 210.1

[except paragraphs (3)(D) and (5)(B)(8)],

210.2, 409.5, 409, 409.3, 409.4, and 411. * * . * * *

(54) * * *

i) * * *

(B) New or amended Rule 71.1.

(iv) * * *

(B) New or amended Rules 2.21, 2.21.1,

2.24 and 2.25.

(v) Sacramento County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 17. * * * * *

(56) * * *

(ii) Ventura County APCD.

(A) Amended Rule 26.3.

(58) * * *

(iv) Ventura County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 74.3. * * ,* * *

(71) The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Control Strategy (Chapter 16 of the

.Comprehensive Revisions to the State of

California Implementation Plan for the

Attainment and Maintenance of

Ambient Air Quality Siandards)

submitted on October 11, 1979, by the

Governor's designee. Those portions ofthe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Control Strategy identified by Tables

16-la, lb and 1c (Summary of Plan

Compliance with the Clean Air Act

Requirements) comprise the submitted

plan. The remaining portions are for

informational purposes only.

(74) * * *

(iii) Ventura County APCD.

(A) New Rule 70 (except paragraph E).

(77) * * *

(ii) The South Central Coast Air Basin

Control Strategy [Chapter 17 of the

Comprehensive Revision to the State of

California Implementation Plan for the

Attainment and Maintenance of

Ambient Air Quality Standards]. Those

portions of the South Central Coast Air

Basin Control Strategy identified by

Tables 17-1 and 17-2 "Location of Plan

Elements Which Meet Clean Air Act

Requirements" together with the rules

identified below comprise the submitted

nonattainment area plan. The remaining

28620

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28620 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 127 / Thursday, July 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

portions are for informational purposes

only.

(A) ***

(B) Ventura County APCD Rules 26

(except 26.2, 26.3 and 26.4), 74.4, 74.7,

and 74.8.

(79) * *

(iii) Ventura County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 2. * * * * *

(82) * * *

(i) Ventura County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 74.6. * * * * *

(85) * ,

(iii) Sacramento County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 13. * * * *

(89) * * *

(ii) Yolo-Solano County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 2.13(h)(6).

(91) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on November 13,

1979, by the Governor's designee.

(i) The Sacramento Valley Air Basin

Control Strategy (Chapter 13 of the

Comprehensive Revisions to the State of

California Implementation Plan for the

Attainment and Maintenance of

Ambient Air Quality Standards): those

portions pertaining to the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area including the

following rules:

(A) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Air Basin portion) Rules 212,

217, and 218.

(B) Sacramento County APCD Rules 6,

11, 12, 16, 19, and 56 (except paragraph

(5)(a)(8)).

(C) Yolo-Solano County APCD Rules

2.14 and 3.4 [except paragraph (5)(a)(8)].

(92) * * *

(ii) Placer County (Mountain Counties

Air Basin portion).

(A) New or amended Rules 213, 216,

and 223. * * * * *

(95) * * *

(ii) Ventura County APCD.

(A) Amended Rule 26.2.

[97) Revised regulations for the

following APCDs submitted on June 24,

1980, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Sacramento County APCD.

(A) New or amended Rule 18.

(103) * * *

(iv) Ventura County APCD.

(A) Amended Rule 70(E).

(v) Sacramento County APCD.

(A) Amended Rule 20.

(109) Three items submitted for Fresno

County and the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area by the Governor's

designee on October 9, 1980:

(i) Air Quality Planning AddendumCouncil of Fresno County Governments

1979-84 Overall Work Program.

(ii) Emission Inventory, 1976 for the

Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

(iii) Air Quality Plan Technical

Appendix, January 1979 for the

Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

(110) Five items submitted for Ventura

County by the Governor's designee on

April 1, 1980:

(i) Appendix B-81, Empirical Kinetic

Modeling Approach: Ozone Formation,

Transport, and Concentration

Relationships in Ventura County;

Update of Emission Reduction Required

for Attainment of Ozone NAA QS.

(ii) Letter: Jan Bush to Mike Redemer,

January 23, 1981.

(iii) Letter and enclosures: Janet

Lyders to Mike Scheible, February 6,

1981.

(iv) Letter and enclosures: Jan Bush to

William Lockett, December 15, 1980.

(v) Letter and enclosures: Jan Bush to

William Lockett, October 23, 1980. * * * * *

(111) Four items submitted for Ventura

County by the Governor's designee on

July 16, 1981:

(i) Attachment V-Transportation

Control Measures.

(ii) Ventura Air Quality Management

Plan, Appendix 0, Plan for Attainment

of Standards for Total Suspended

Particulates In Ventura County: Interim

Report, July, 1980.

(iii) Attachment IV-Population

Forecasts.

(iv) Attachment VI-Implementation

of Emission Reductions Required for

Attainment of TSP Standards.

2. Section 52.222 is amended by

adding paragraphs (d)(3)(ii), (4)(ii) and

(5) as follows:

§ 52.222 Extensions.

(d) * * * (3) * * *

(ii) Ventura County for 03. (4) * * *

(ii) Fresno County for 03 and CO.

(A) Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area

for CO.

(5) Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

(i) Sacramento Metropolitan Area for

03.

(ii) Sacramento County for CO. * * * * *

3. Section 52.223 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(5)(viii) and (6)(ii)

as follows:

§ 52.223 Approval status.

(b) * * * (5) * * *

(viii) Fresno County for TSP.

(6) * * *

(ii) Ventura County for TSP.

(4) Section 52.232 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(111 as follows:

§ 52.232 Part D conditional approval.

(a) * * *

(11) Fresno County, Sacramento

Metropolitan, and Ventura County

nonattainment areas.

(i) For ozone, CO (except Ventura

County) and PM (except Sacramento

County):

(A) By (120 days after publication of

this notice) the NSR rules must be

revised to meet the requirements in

EPA's amended regulations for NSR

under Section 173 of the Clean Air Act

(May 13, 1980 (45 FR 31307)) August 7,

1980 (45 FR 52676), and October 14, 1981

(46 FR 50766).

(ii) For ozone: By (120 days after

publication of this notice), the State

must provide either (1) an adequate

demonstration that the following

regulations represent RACT, (2) amend

the regulations so that they are

consistent with the CTG, or (3)

demonstrate that the regulations will

result in VOC emission reductions

which are within five percent of the

reductions which would be achieved

through the implementation of the CTG

recommendations:

Yolo-Solano County APCD

Rule 2.24, "Solvent Cleaning Operations

(Degreasing)".

Ventura County APCD

Rule 74.3, "Fabric and Film Coating". (iii) For ozone and CO for the Sacramento

Metropolitan and Fresno areas: (A) By October 29, 1982, submit

commitments and implementation schedules

for the five transportation control measures

included in the plans.

5. Section 52.233 is amended by

rescinding paragraphs (b), (d)(4), (18),

and (28), (e), (f)(1)(i) (b) and (d), and

(g)(1) (iv), (xvi) and (xxvi). * * * * *

6. Section 52.237 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(3), (4) and (5) as

follows:

§ 52.237 Part D disapproval.

(a) * * *

(3) The portions of the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin Control Strategy which

28621

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28621 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 127 / Thursday, July 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

pertain to an I/M program in Fresno

County.

(4) The portions of the South Central

Coast Air Basin Control Strategy which

pertain to an I/M program in Ventura

County.

(5) The portions of the Sacramento

Valley Air Basin Control Strategy which

pertain to an I/M program in the

Sacramento Metropolitan area. * * * * *

7. In § 52.238, the entries for Fresno

County in the San Joaquin Valley

Intrastate, the Sacramento Valley

Intrastate, and Ventura County in the

South Central Coast Intrastate are

revised as follows:

§ 52.238 Attainment dates for national

standards.

Pollutants

Air quality control region and TSP SO, nonattainment area NO C

Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

San Joaquin Valley Intrastate

a. Fresno County:

Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area . . h ............... h ....................... d ............... a ....................... ............... I ................ .

Remainder ............................................. h ............... h ....................... d ............... e ....................... e ............... e ............... i.

Sacramento Valley Intrastate

Sacramento Metropolitan Area ........... d ............... a ....................... d ............... e ....................... e ............... e .............. I.

Sacramento County ............................. d ............... h ....................... d ............... e ....................... e ............... I ................ .

Yolo-Solano County (section) ............. d ............... e ....................... d ............... e ....................... ............... a e ............... i.

Mountain Counties Intrastate

Sacramento Metropolitan Area ; ............... ....................... d ................ .... ............. . e ............... .

Placer (portion).

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate

Ventura County (mainland portion):

North of Southern Los Padres h ............... h ....................... d ............... e ....................... e ............... e ............... i.

N.F. boundary.

South of Southern Los Padres h ............... h ....................... d.......... a ............... e ............... i.

N.F. boundary.

8. Section 52.246 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) as follows:

§ 52.246 Control of dry cleaning solvent

vapor losses. * * * * *

(b) * * (1) * * *

(ii) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Air Basin portion). * * * * *

9. Section 52.252 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) as follows:

§ 52.252 Control of degreasing

operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * * (1) * * *

(ii) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Air Basin portion). * * * * *

10. Section 52.253 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) and by adding

paragraph (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) and

(b)(3)(viii) to read as follows:

§ 52.253 Metal surface coating thinner and

reducer.

* * * * *

(bi * * *

(1) In the following portions of the

Sacramento Valley Intrastate Region,

this section is either fully rescinded or

partially rescinded subject to the

conditions specified as follows: * * * * *

(ii) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Air Basin portion).

(iii) This section is rescinded for metal

parts and products coaters which are

subject to and in full compliance with

Yolo-Solano County Rule 2.25 submitted

on February 25, 1980. * * * * *

(3) * * *

(viii) This section is rescinded for

metal parts and products coaters which

are subject to and in full compliance

with Fresno County Rule 409.4

submitted on October 15, 1979. * * * * *

11. Section 52.254 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) and by

adding paragraph (a)(3)(iv) to read as

follows:

§ 52.254 Organic solvent usage.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) This section is rescinded entirely

for metal parts and products coaters

which are subject to and in full

compliance with Rule 409.4 for the

Fresno County APCD, Rule 410.4 for the

Kings County APCD, Rule 410.4 for the

Madera County APCD, Rule 409.4 for the

Merced County APCD, Rule 409.4 for the

San Joaquin County APCD, Rule 409.4

for the Stanislaus County APCD, and

Rule 410.4 for the Tulare County APCD. * * * * *

(3) * * *

(iv) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Air Basin portion). * * * * *

12. Section 52.255 is amended by

revising paragraph (b), by reserving

paragraphs (b)(1) (i) and (iv), (b)(2), and

(b)(3) (ii)-(viii), and by adding

paragraphs (b)(3) (x)-(xii) to read as

follows:

§ 52.255 Gasoline transfer vapor control. * * * * *

(b) This section is applicable in the

Metropolitan Los Angeles and

Sacramento Valley Intrastate Air

Quality Control Regions, as described in

40 CFR Part 81, dated July 1, 1979, with

the following exceptions:

(1) * * *

(i) [Reserved] * * * * 

(iv) [Reserved] * * * * *

(2) (Reserved]

(3) * * *

i) * * *

(ii)-(viii) [Reserved] 

(ix) * * *

(x) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Air Basin portion).

(xi) Sacramento County APCD.

(xii) Yolo-Solano County APCD.

(xiii) Ventura County APCD. * * * * *

13. Section 52.256 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 52.256 Control of evaporative losses

from the filling of vehicular tanks. * * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) In the following portion of the

Sacramento Valley Intrastate Region,

this section is rescinded.

(i) Sacramento County APCD. * * * * *

[FR Doc. 82-17780 Filed 0-30-82; 8:45 am]

OILUNG CODE 6560-50-M

28622

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28622 1982