FeeaIeitrIIo.4,N. 2 hrdyJl ,18 Rule anIeultos81 designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander who is empowered to forbid and control movement ofvessels in the area before, during, and after the
events for such time as he finds it necessary for the safe and orderly conduct ofthe events.

(c) A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the areas under the direction ofthe U.S. Coast GuardPatrol Commander shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders ofthe 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 7:00p.m. on July 18, 1982. 

### (Sec. 1,35Stat.69 as amended, Sec.6(b)ll), 80 Stat.937; 46U.S.C. 454; 49 U.S.C. 1655(b)(1); 33CFR 100.35; 49 CFR 1.46(b))

Dated:.June 18,1982. Henry H.Bell, Rear Admiral,U.S. CoastGuardCommander, NinthCoastGuard District.

[FR Doc. 82-17941 Filed 6-30-82; 8:45aml
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 offinal rulemaking.
SUMMARY: On September 5 and 15, 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notices ofproposed 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 ofthe NAPs for Fresno and Ventura Counties and for the Sacramento Metropolitan area (Sacramento, Yolo, and Solano Counties and a portion ofPlacer County). DATE: This action is effective July 1, 1982. ADDRESS: A copy of the NAPs is located at: The Office ofthe 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 ofa 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 ofproposed 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 EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA)

On October 20, 1980, the State submitted the following portions of 

### CEQA in response to a proposed condition ofapproval:

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 AirAct. 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 SourceReviewRules
On March 17, 1980the 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 ofVentura County's Southern Zone which are used in implementation ofthe 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 ofRule 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 ofPM. The title change in Rule 26.2 clarifies that major

sources ofPM will in fact be included in the permitting process.

EPA finds that these revisions represent a clarification ofthe rules and do not change their substance. Since an opportunity to comment on the ruleshas 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 OrganicCompound(VOC) Rules

The following ruleshave 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 ofOrganic

Liquids," submitted May 13, 1980, Placer County (MountainCounties 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 (MountainCounties 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 ofGasoline

into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks," submitted October 23, 1981, and Ventura Rule 71.2, "Storage ofOrganic

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 ofthe rules described above as Group ICTG category rules and had found that each ofthem fulfills therequirement for RACT forthe corresponding source category. Further, all ofthe rules listed above are consistent with Section 110 of the Clean AirAct since they provide emission limits necessary to insure attainment ofthe NAAQS.

The Fresno Rule410 also addresses requirements forFixed and Floating RoofTanks, a Group II CTG category, as does Ventura Rule 71.2, "Storage of Organic Liquids," submitted January 28, 1981. Adequacy ofthese rules to fulfill Group IIRACT requirements is addressed in a separate notice published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1981 (46FR 38725). While EPA believes that these two rules now satisfy therequirements forfixed rooftanks (a Group ICTG source category), final approval ofthese two rules willbe 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 ofthe September 5,1980 Notice. Ventura County Rule 70(E) submitted on October 23, 1981 also contains onlyminor 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 ofemulsified asphalts, (2)limiting the exemption for stockpiling to only the winter months, and (3)restructuring the rule to clarify the applicability ofthe rule to cutback asphalt users. These amendments were designed to satisfy each ofthe deficiencies noted in the September 5, 1980notice, and therefore, the proposed conditions forRule 2.13(h)(b) have been satisfied. EPA has determined that "good cause" (see Administrative Procedure Act, 5U.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, 1980Notice. As noted in EPA's evaluation ofthe model rule, the requirements of the model rule were sufficient to allow EPA torescind 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).
OtherNAPRevisions

Fresno County On October 9, 1980, the ARB submitted the following document in order to satisfy a proposed condition of approval concerning Fresno County:

AirQualityPlanningAddendumCouncilofFresnoCountyGovernments 1979-84 Overall WorkProgram. 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 ofapproval. EPA's evaluation ofthese items follows:

1.EmissionInventory,1976. 2.AirQualityPlan Technical Appendix,January1979. EPA proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofrevised 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 ofapproval published in the September 5notice. EPA's evaluation ofthese items follows:

1.AppendixB-81, Empirical Kinetic ModelingApproach:Ozone Formation, Transport,andConcentration Relationshipsin Ventura County; UpdateofEmissionReductionRequired forAttainmentofOzoneNAA QS. EPA proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofdocumentation 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 toMike 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 item6.)

6. Attachment V-Transportation Control Measures.

EPAproposed as a condition of approval the submittal of(a) currently programmed transportation control

measures (TCMs) and (b) schedules and commitments forthese 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 ofTCMs. EPA's review of items4, 5, and 6, found the necessary identification and commitments. Therefore, the condition ofapproval is met.

7.Ventura Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix Q,Plan forAttainment ofStandards for TotalSuspended Particulates in VenturaCounty:Interim Report,July, 1980.

EPA proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofdocumentation to support theparticulate matterdesign value. EPA has reviewed the above document and theinformation provided in item 2above 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 ofrevised 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 itemupdates 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 ofTSP Standards.

EPA proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofneeded 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, 5U.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 ofthe above (twelve) items without providing further notice and opportunity to comment. EPA has already provided opportunity to comment on the substance ofthese 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 ofFresno County Governments, the County of Fresno Department ofHealth, the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission, the County of Sacramento Air Pollution Control District, and the County ofVentura Air Pollution Control District. A document containing the summarization ofcomments and the EPA response to each, entitled "EPA Public Comment Technical Support Document," is available for public inspection as a part ofDocument 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 otherDocument 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 ofproposed 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 ofa NAP for a specific pollutant or rule. Therefore, a portion ofa 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 ofthe Act. It isEPA's policy to take final action on all portions ofa NAP for each pollutant.

Therefore, this notice contains a series of actions for each pollutant and for each portion ofthe NAP rather than

a single action. One ofthe following three actions may be taken for each portion ofa NAP:

1.Disapproval where deficiencies are of such magnitude as to significantly 

### interfere with the basic objective ofthe NAP; or

2.Approval where the portion ofthe NAP under consideration meets all requirements; or

3.Approval with conditions where deficiencies exist, but where the effect ofthe deficiency is notjudged 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) ofthe Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals 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. ApprovedPortionsoftheNAPs



### EPA is taking action under Section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct 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 PartDof theAct to approve the following VOC rules since they fully satisfy the requirements forRACT 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.

Asproposed in the September 5 notices and discussed in the Public Comment Technical Support Document, and the SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS section ofthis notice,EPA is takingfinal action under Section 172 to approve the following portions oftheFresno, 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 ApprovedPortionsofthe
NAPs

As discussed in the proposal notices, the Public Comment Technical Support Document, and the SUPPLEMENTAL REVISIONS section of thisnotice, the following portions ofthe 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 ofthe NAP.

To satisfy the conditions ofapproval, 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 SIPrevision.

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 ofthe reductions which would be achieved through the implemention ofthe CTG recommendations.

Yolo-Solano CountyAPCD

Rule 2.24, "Solvent Cleaning Operations (Degreasing)"

VenturaCountyAPCD

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 PortionsoftheNAPs
Since the State has not provided the necessary legal authority, the I/M portion ofthese NAPs for CO and/or 03 is disapproved.
FinalOverall Action on theNAPsfor Fresno,SacramentoandVentura 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 takingfinal action to conditionally approve thisportion of the NAPs. As a result, the prohibition on construction ofmajor or new or modified sources is no longer in effect in Fresno and Ventura Counties forPM. Further,the prohibition is not in effect forPM sources in the Sacramento Metropolitan area since the area is nonattainment onlyfor the welfare related secondary standard.

Due to the I/M disapproval, today's actions also result in an overall disapproval ofthe Fresno, Sacramento and Ventura NAPs for COand O..This retains the current prohibition on construction ofmajor new or modified VOC and (except inVentura County)t *COsources 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 therequirements of PartDofthe Clean AirAct, EPA has a responsibility to take final action as
soon as possible in order to liftthe construction prohibition. Since the State has submitted a conditionally approvable NAP forPM forthe counties discussed in this notice,EPA finds that good cause exists formaking 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" SIPrequirements until a source
comes into compliance with thenew requirements. For further information,

see EPA'sGeneral Preamble.

As a result ofapproval ofcertain portions ofthe NAPs, EPA is taking final action to rescind the following analogous portions of40 CFR Part 52 for the counties indicated: §52.246 Control ofdrycleaning solventlosses(Placer County) 

### §52.252 Control ofdegreasing operations (Placer County) §52.253 Metalsurfacecoatingthinner andreducer(Placer County) §52.254 Organic solvent usage(Placer County) §52.255 Gasolinetransfervapor control(Fresno, Placer, Sacramento, Ventura, and Yolo-Solano Counties) §52.256 Controlofevaporative losses from the fillingofvehiculartanks (Sacramento County) In addition, §52.253 and §52.254 are rescinded as applicable to the coating of

'Ventura County is attainment forCO. 

### 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 ofthe 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 ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for review.

Under the Clean Air Act, any petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals forthe appropriate circuit by August 30, 1982. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.

Incorporation by reference ofthe 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 Part52

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead, Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons. 

### (Secs. 110, 129,171-178, and 301(a), CleanAir 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 ofPart 52 ofChapter I,Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal 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 SanJoaquin ValleyAirBasin ControlStrategy(Chapter 16 ofthe .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 SanJoaquin ValleyAirBasin ControlStrategyidentified by Tables 16-la, lb and 1c (Summary ofPlan Compliance with the Clean AirAct 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 ofthe Comprehensive Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards]. Those portions ofthe South Central Coast Air Basin Control Strategy identified by Tables 17-1 and 17-2 "Location ofPlan Elements Which Meet Clean Air Act Requirements" together with the rules identified below comprise the submitted nonattainment area plan. Theremaining 

### 28620

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 28620 1982

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

portions are forinformational 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 ofthe 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)AirQualityPlanningAddendumCouncilofFresnoCounty Governments 1979-84 OverallWork Program.

(ii) EmissionInventory,1976 for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

(iii)AirQualityPlanTechnical 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)AppendixB-81,Empirical Kinetic ModelingApproach:OzoneFormation, Transport,andConcentration Relationshipsin VenturaCounty; UpdateofEmissionReductionRequired forAttainmentof OzoneNAA 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 forAttainment ofStandards for TotalSuspended Particulates In Ventura County:Interim Report,July, 1980.

(iii) Attachment IV-Population Forecasts. (iv)Attachment VI-Implementation of Emission Reductions Required for Attainment ofTSP 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 for03. (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 forTSP. (6) * * * (ii) Ventura County forTSP.

(4) Section 52.232 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(111 as follows: 

### §52.232 Part Dconditionalapproval.

(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 (120days after publication of this notice) the NSR rules mustbe revised to meet therequirements in EPA's amended regulations for NSR under Section 173 ofthe Clean AirAct (May 13, 1980 (45 FR 31307)) August 7, 1980 (45 FR52676), 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 theregulations will result in VOC emission reductions which are within five percent of the reductions which would be achieved through theimplementation of the CTG recommendations:
Yolo-Solano CountyAPCD

Rule 2.24, 

### "Solvent Cleaning Operations (Degreasing)".

VenturaCountyAPCD

Rule 74.3, "Fabric and Film Coating". 

### (iii) Forozone and CO forthe Sacramento Metropolitan and Fresno areas:

(A) By October 29, 1982, submit 

### commitments and implementation schedules for the fivetransportation 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 Ddisapproval.



### (a)* * * (3)The portions of theSanJoaquin ValleyAirBasin ControlStrategywhich 

### 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 ofthe South Central CoastAirBasin ControlStrategywhich pertain to an I/M program in Ventura County.

(5) The portions of the Sacramento ValleyAirBasin ControlStrategywhich 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 ofdry 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 Controlof 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 coatingthinner and reducer.

* * * * *



### (bi * * * (1) In the following portions ofthe 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 isrescinded 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 solventusage.



## (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 forthe 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 transfervapor 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, datedJuly 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 ofevaporative losses from the fillingof vehiculartanks.

* * * * *



## (b) * * * (3) In the following portion ofthe 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