# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 46 Fed. Reg. 21758 1981

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Oct 23 13:39:16 2013

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

added to paragraphs (a) through (h), as §52.238 Attainment dates for national follows: standards.

Air quality control region and nonattanment area Pollutants

TSP S02 Primary SoNOn co O Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

San Diego Intrastate: Eastern portion

..................................... (6)

............ (e)

.................... (e)

............ (e)

.................... (e)

............ (a)

........... (i). Western pottion

.................................... (h)

............ (h)

.................... (a)

............ (e)

.................... (h)

............ (i)

.............. (i).

Note.-Description of the boundary dividing the eastern and Westrin portions of the new San Diego Intrastate is set out

at 36 FR 22439-40, November 25, 1971.

i) December 31, 1987.

§§'

52.242, 52.243, 52.244, 52.247, 52.251, 52.257,52.258, 52.259,and 52.266 [Removed]

6. Sections 52.242, 52.243, 52.244, 52.247, 52.251, 52.257, 52.258, 52.259, and 52.266 are removed and reserved.

IFR Dec. 81-11054 Filed 4-13-81; 8:45amj
BILLING CODE 6560-38-M

40 CFR Part 52
[A-9-FRL 1792-31

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Nonattainment Area Plansfor the State of Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice offinal rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On April 10 and 27, and May 7,1979 (44 FR 21307, 24880 and 26763) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notices ofproposed rulemaking for the Mason Valley/ Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area plans (NAPs). On September 9, 1980 (45 FR 59334) EPA published another notice ofproposed rulemaking for these areas since revisions to those NAPs were submitted

on July 24 and September 18, 1979 and March 17, 1980 which causes EPA to reevaluate the NAPs. The September 9, 1980 notice, which supersedes the April notices and supplements the May notice, proposed to conditionally approve the NAPs, since only minor deficiencies remain with respect toPart D ofthe Clean Air Act, "Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas."

Further, since the State has provided

assurances to correct these minor deficiencies, EPA is today taking final action to conditionally approve the NAPs as revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action

removes the prohibition on construction ofmajor new or modified sources in these areas.

This notice provides a brief summary of the proposed rulemaking notice, discusses public comments, and describes EPA's final action on the NAPs.
DATE: Effective Date: This action is effective April 1*4, 1981. ADDRESS: A copy ofthe NAPs mentioned above is located at: The Office ofthe Federal Register, 1100 "L" Street, N.W., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, Attn: Douglas Grano (415) 556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, requires states to revise their SIPs for all areas that have not attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). On December 29, 1978 the Governor submitted revisions to the Nevada SIP consisting ofcontrol strategies and regulations for Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Carson Desert, Lander County, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley. These revisions, which comprise the NAPs, are intended to provide for the attainment of the carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), and total suspended particulate (TSP)NAAQS, in the Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley areas and the TSP NAAQS in the remaining areas.

On April 10 and 27, and May 7, 1979 (44 FR 21307, 24880 and 26763) EPA published notices ofproposed rulemaking for these NAPs in the State ofNevada. Those notices provided a description ofthe NAPs, summarized the applicable Clean Air Act requirements into 14 criteria, compared the NAPs to those criteria, and proposed
to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove portions of the NAPs. On September 9, 1980 EPA published another notice ofproposed rulemaking for these NAPs since revisions to the NAPs were submitted on July 24 and September 18, 1979 and March 17, 1980. The September 9, 1980 notice supersedes the April notices and supplements the May notice. The May 7, 1979 and September 9, 1980 notices should be used as reference in rev'ewing today's action. Inspection/Maintenance Program "Inspection/Maintenance" (I/M) refers to a program whereby motor vehicles receive periodic inspections to

assess the functioning of their exhaust emissions control systems. Vehicles which have excessive emissions must then undergo mandatory maintenance. Generally, I/M programs include passenger cars, although other classes

can be included as well. Operation of noncomplying vehicles is prohibited. This is effectively accomplished by requiring proofof compliance to purchase license plates or to register a vehicle. A windshield sticker system, much like that ofmany safety inspection
programs, can be used if itcan be demonstrated that equal effectiveness will be achieved.

Section 172 ofthe Clean Air Act requires that SIPs for States which include nonattainment areas must meet certain criteria. For areas which demonstrate that they will not be able to attain the ambient air quality standards for ozone or carbon monoxide by 1982; despite the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures,
anr extension beyond 1982 will be granted. In such cases Section 172(b)(11)(B) requires that "the plan provisions shall establish a specific schedule for implementation ofa vehicle emission control inspection and maintenance program

EPA issued guidance on February 24, 1978, on the general criteria for approval ofthe 1979 SIPrevision including I/M, and on July 17, 1978, regarding the * specific criteria for I/M approval. Both ofthese items are part of the SIP " guidance material referred to in the General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking (44 FR 20372). Though the July 17, 1978guidance should be consulted for details, the key I/M elements required for approval of the 1979 SIPrevision are as follows:

(1)LegalAuthority.States or local governments must have adopted the necessary statutes, regulations, 

### 21758

### Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 1 Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

ordinances, etc., to implement and enforce the I/Mprogram. (Section 172(b)(10)).

(2) Commitment.The appropriate governmental unit(s) must be committed to implement and enforce the I/M program. (Section 172(b)(10)).

(3)Resources.The necessary-finances and resources tocarry out the I/M program mustbe identified and committed. (Section 172(b)(7)).

(4) Schedule.A specific schedule to establish the I/M program must be included in the SIP. (Section 172(b)(11)(B)). Interim milestones are specified in the July 17, 1978 memorandum in accordance with the general requirement of40 CFR 51.15(c).

(5)Program Effectiveness.As set forth in the July 17, 1978 guidance memorandum, the I/Mprogram must achieve a 25%reduction in passenger

car exhaust emissions ofhydrocarbons and a 25%reduction for carbon monoxide. This reduction is measured by comparing the levels of emissions projected to December 31, 1987, with and without the I/Mprogram.

This policy is based on Section 172(b)(2) which states that "the plan provisions * * * shall * * -*provide for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures * * * "

Specific detailed requirements of these five provisions are discussed below.

To be acceptable, I/Mlegal authority must be adequate to implement and effectively enforce the program and
must not be conditioned upon further legislative approval or any other substantial contingency. However, the legislation can delegate certain decision making to an appropriate regulatory body. Forexample, a state department ofenvironmental protection or department of transportation may be charged with implementing the program, selecting the type oftest procedure as well as the type of program to be used, and adopting all necessary rules and regulations. I/Mlegal authority mustbe included with any 1979 SIPrevision which requires I/M (i.e.,a plan which establishes afn attainment date beyond December 31, 1982) unless an approved extension to certify legal authority is granted by EPA. The granting ofsuch an extension, however, is an exceptional remedy to be utilized only when a state legislature has had no opportunity to consider enabling legislation. Written evidence is also required to establish that the appropriate governmental bodies are "committed to implement and enforce the appropriate elements ofthe plan" (Section 172(b)(10)). Under Section 172(B)(7), supporting commitments for the necessary financial and manpower

resources are also required.

A specific schedule to establish an I/ M program is required (Section 172(b)(11)(3)). The July 17, 1978 guidance memorandum established as EPA policy the key milestones for the implementation ofthe various I/M programs. These milestones were the general SIPrequirement for compliance modified at 40 CFR 51.15(c). This section requires that increments ofprogress be incorporated for compliance schedules ofover one year in length.

To be acceptable, ani I/Mprogram must achieve the requisite 25% reductions in both hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) exhaust emissions from passenger cars by the end ofcalendar year 1987. The Act mandates "Implementation ofall reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable" (Section 172(b)(2)). At the time of
passage ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, several I/M
programs were already operating, including mandatory programs in New Jersey and Arizona operating at about a 20% stringency. (The stringency ofa program is defined as the initial proportion ofvehicles which would have failed the program's standards ifthe affected fleet had not previously undergone I/M.

Because some motorists tune their vehicles before I/M tests, the actual proportion of vehicles failing is usually a smaller number than the stringency of the program.

Depending on program type (private garage orcentralized inspection) a mandatory I/Mprogram may be implemented as late as December 31, 1982 and the attainment date may be as late as December 31, 1987. Based on the implementation date ofDecember 31, 1982 and a 20% stringency factor, EPA predicts thereduction ofboth CO and HC exhaust emissions by 25%can be achieved by December 31, 1987. Earlier implementation ofI/M will produce greater emission reductions. Thus, because ofthe Act's requirement for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures and because New Jersey and Arizona have effectively demonstrated practical operation ofI/Mprograms with 20% stringency factors, it isEPA policy to

use a 25%emission reduction as the criterion to determine compliance ofthe I/M portion ofthe nonattainment area plan with Section 172(b)(2).

EPA published the 1982 SIP policy (partofwhich pertains to I/M programs)

on January 22, 1981 [46 FR 7182]. As discussedin that policy, States with

areas that have I/Mprograms under development oroperational as part of their 1979 SIPrevisions were only required to submit qualitative descriptions oftheir I/M program elements in the 1979 SIP submittal. The 1982 SIPrevision mustinclude, unless already submitted and approved as part ofa previous SIP submittal, rules and regulations and all other I/M elements which could affect the ability ofthe I/M program to achieve the minimum emission reduction requirements. More specifically, the 1982 submittal must include: (1)inspection testprocedures; (2) emission standards; (3)inspection station licensing requirements; (4) emission analyzer specification and maintenance/calibration requirements; (5)recordkeeping and record submittal requirements; (6) 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 awareness plan; and (10) a mechanics training program ifadditional emission reduction credits are being claimed for mechanics training.

EPA will determine the overall adequacy of the critical elements of each I/M program, and therefore, the approvability ofthe 1982 SIP by comparing those elements toestablished I/M-policy. I/M program elements must be consistent with EPA policy or the State must demonstrate that the program elements are equivalent.

State or local governments that have I/M programs, butplan to increase the coverage and/or stringency of the programs in order to achieve greater reductions and to demonstrate earlier attainment ofthe standards, must submit theprogram modifications in legally enforceable formthrough the 1982 SIP revision process.

In the case ofa partial submittal, EPA's action will be limited to the submitted program elements. Final action on the total I/M program mustbe reserved until all elements are submitted and reviewed in order to

ensure that the program satisfies the requirements in PartD of theClean Air Act.

Nevada'sI/MProgram
On December 29, 1978 the Governor of Nevada submitted Statutes and Regulations which together provide an inspection and maintenance program for portions ofNevada, including the Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows

areas. This legislation and supporting regulations establish in progressive steps a mandatory annual I/Mprogram for all used light-duty vehicles being 

### 21759

### 21760 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

registered orre-registered in counties with more than 100,000 population. The December 29, 1978 submittal ofthe Air Quality Regulations forMobile Equipment provided that, on or after July 1, 1979, such vehicles in Clark and Washoe Counties musthave evidence of compliance with State exhaust emission standards. Newlegislation submitted on July 24, 1979revises that date and provides for such implementation on or after July 1, 1981.

The program requires a motor vehicle

owner to obtain a certificate of compliance with the State emission standards and federal emission control equipment requirements. This certificate mustbe obtained from a State authorized inspector, complying with all Stateregulations concerning testing equipment and procedures. The State regulations establish standards for licensing inspection stations, which may include service stations and fleet stations. The inspection test measures emissions from vehicles at both low and fast idle speeds. The engine is then adjusted to the manufacturer's

- specifications, such as timing and dwell. The emissions are again measured at the
two engine speeds. Ifthe measurements after adjustment .ofthe engine are in compliance, the vehicle is issued a certificate of compliance. The inspection with adjustments usually requires 15 to 20 minut9s ofoperator time.

Theprogram provides forexceptions
to the requirements ofinspection and maintenance. These exceptions include among others, heavy duty motor vehicles, light duty motor vehicles more than 15 years old, and motorcycles. In addition, these requirements do not apply to vehicles changing registration under specific circumstances and vehicles forwhich necessary repair
costs exceed fixed amounts.

Any vehicle not complying with the I/ M requirements is prohibited from operating on public roads through denial ofregistration. No vehicle may be registered ifit violates the I/M requirements. In addition, a violation of
any regulation under the program is punishable as a misdemeanor. The regulations include a program for informing thepublic of the reasons and methods for the emission control inspection. As described below, Nevada's I/Mprogram satisfies the key requirements for appioval previously described.

(1)LegalAuthority.The basis for the State's legal authority is contained in the Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 445 which provides authority and guidance for the StateEnvironmental Commission and the StateDepartment 

### ofMotor Vehicles to establish an I/M program.

(2)Commitment.In a letterfrom the Governor, to EPA, dated December 29, 1978, and in a resolution adopted by the Clark County Board ofCommissioners

on December 5,1978, the State identified its commitments to the implementation and enforcement ofthe Nevada I/M program submitted as partof the Truckee Meadows andLas Vegas Valley nonattainment area plans (NAPs).

(3)Resources.The Statehas identified its commitments forresources submitted

aspart ofthe Truckee Meadows andLas Vegas Valley NAPs.

(4)Schedules.The Nevada statute provides that no vehicle shallbe registered after July 1,1981 without a certificate of compliance with the I/M program. This mandatory start-up date for theinspection program is consistent with EPA policy and is therefore approvable.

(5)Program Effectiveness.Based on
an analysis of Nevada's idle testpass/ fail standards, the program willachieve

a 25%reduction, thus complying with EPA's requirement forminimum emission reductions.

As indicated above and in the May 7, 1979 and September 9,1980 notices, Nevada's I/M program meetsthe 1979 SIPrevision requirements and is therefore approvable.

The following elements ofNevada's I/ M program, as officially submitted, also satisfypart ofthe I/M requirements for the 1982 SIP revision.

(1)InspectionTestProcedures. Section4.1 ofthe Rules describes the testprocedure. The procedure includes

an exhaust testwhich demonstrates that proper maintenance hasbeen performed. This element ofNevada's program is therefore approvable. (2)EmissionStandards.Section 3.8.2 oftheRules prescribes inspection standards for each class ofvehicle subject to testing. This element of Nevada's program is therefore approvable.

(3)InspectionStationLicensing Requirements.Section 3.10 ofRules sets forthprivate inspection facility licensing requirements.

These requirements include: Use ofan approved emission analyzer (Section 3.10.3);



### Employing an inspector who has passed proficiency tests in the following

areas:

-rules and regulations -test procedures -analyzer use and calibration checking, data recording and recordkeeping. (Section 3.10, 3.12) The licensed station must maintain records and submit to unscheduled, unannounced audits. The station must also comply with local and state program regulations.

This element ofNevada's program is therefore approvable.

(4)Emissionanalyzerspecifications andmaintenance/calibration requirements.Section 4.2.1 ofthe Rules lists instrument specifications. Section 4.2.2 cites where a list ofapproved analyzers is on file. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 outline the maintenance and calibration procedures tobe used by the inspection facilities on the approved analyzers. This element ofNevada's program is therefore approvable.

(5) Recordkeepingandrecord submittalrequirements.Section 4.1 of the Rules lists required recordkeeping elements. The authorized station shall maintain and submit the records ofall inspections to the DMV for data evaluation (Section 4.3.6). Both the Department and Commission will interpret and correlate the submitted data to determine the amount of reductions of emissions achieved (Section 4.3.7).

The data collection procedures utilized allow determination ofprogram effectiveness. This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable.

(6) Qualitycontrol,auditand surveillance procedures.Section 4.3 of the Rules states: 1.The Department of MotorVehicles will inspect and certify that authorized stations are properly. equipped andpersonnel are adequately trained in accordance with DMV procedures. The Department ofMotor Vehicles will dynamically calibrate and certify the exhaust gas analyzer at intervals ofnot more than 30 days. 3.All inspection records shall be made available to the Department ofMotor Vehicles and the Environmental Commission or its representatives when conducting a compliance inspection. The licensed station must maintainrecords and submit to unscheduled, unannounced audits. The station must also comply with local and state program regulations. The program therefore contains the appropriate procedures and a monthly audit with a records check, a calibration check, and

a check to assure that procedures are being followed.

-Itis EPA's understanding from the Department ofMotor Vehicles that their inspectors conduct audits which include all elements described in Section 4.3 and that all these items are checked monthly.

### Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Sections 4.9, 4.12, and 4.13 prescribe penalties for offenses by facilities and/

or inspectors. These penalties include suspension or revocation offacility licenses for serious offenses. This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable as long as the Department ofMotor Vehicles continues 

### to follow theprocedures mentioned above.

(7) 

### Procedurestoassurethatnoncomplying vehiclesarenotoperated on thepublicroads.Nevada Revised Statutes 445.670 and445.710 prohibit the registration ofnon-complying vehicles.

This element of theNevada program is therefore approvable.

(8) Any otherofficial programrules, regulations, and procedures.Senate Bill 543 specifies geographic coverage.

The Department ofMotor Vehicles provides a challenge capability for any motorist who questions theresults of inspections conducted at a licensed
garage.

The start-up date is consistent with EPA policy

This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable.

(9)Apublicawareness plan.The State is currently engaged in various public awareness activities to inform the public about the program. A comprehensive public awareness plan must be developed and officially submitted aspart ofthe SIP.

(10)A mechanicstraining programif additional emissionreductioncredits

arebeingclaimed.No credit is being claimed; therefore this element is not applicable.

On December 29, 1978 the Governor of Nevada submitted Statutes and Regulations which together provide for

an inspection and maintenance program forportions ofNevada, including the Las VegasValley and Truckee Meadows

areas. This legislation and supporting regulations established in detail the parameters ofthe inspection and maintenance program.

Nevada included inthis submittal theirdemonstration that theirprogram,
as described, would achieve a 25% reduction (usingMobile I)in both hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide exhaust emissions from light duty gasoline vehicles by 1987. Since that time, theprogram start-up date was changed from July 1979 toJuly 1981. The July 1981 start-up date does not affect the ability ofthe program to achieve the required emission reductions by 1987. Therefore thiselement of the 1982 SIP is approvable.
TSPPlans

EPA proposed to approve thefollowing portions ofthe Mason Valley/ Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert,Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPS forTSP: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision, reasonable further progress, legally adopted measures (except for the Las Vegas Valley NAP), emissions growth, annual reporting, permit program, public and government involvement, and public hearings. These provisions were found to be consistent with Part D ofthe CleanAirAct.

EPA proposed to conditionally approve the following portions of the NAPs mentioned above forTSP: legally adopted measures (forthe Las Vegas. Valley NAP only) and resources. These portions were found to contain minor deficiencies with respect to PartD and

were proposed to be approved with the condition that each deficiency be corrected by a specified deadline.

COand03Plans

EPA proposed to approve the following portions of the Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPS for CO and 03: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision (except for Las Vegas Valley Os), reasonable further progress, legally adopted measures (for Truckee Meadows 03 only,] emissions growth, annual reporting, permit program, public and government involvement, public hearing, and extension requirements forVolatile Organic Compounds, Reasonably Available Control Technology (VOC RACT). Theseprovisions were found to be consistent with Part D ofthe Clean AirAct.

EPA proposed to conditionally approve the following portions of the Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs for CO and O: attainment provision (Las Vegas Valley 03 only), legally adopted measures (except for Truckee Meadows O), resources, and extension requirements (Las Vegas Valley CO only). These portions were found to contain minor deficiencies with respect to Part D and were proposed to be approved with the condition that each deficiency be corrected by a specified deadline. Summary

As noted in the September 9, 1980 notice, approval or conditional approval of all portions of the NAPs is sufficient
to lift the current prohibition on construction of certain major new or modified sources in the affected areas of -Nevada.Thus, that notice proposed to conditionally approve the overall Nevada NAPs and remove the construction prohibition. Public Comments

CommentsSpecificto theNevadaNAP

During the public comment period, EPA received several comments. For the
most part the comments are specific to the Las Vegas Valley NAP. These
comments and EPA's responses follow.

1. EmissionInventory. Comments were received supporting EPA's actipns.

2.Modeling. Comment:Tomlinson and Chalmers, representing Concerned Citizens of Clark County, commented that the

ozone model is not validated and that EPA's evaluation report did not adequatelyjustify use ofthe NAP's

ozone design value.

Response:Although the model is not fully validated,EPA's guidelines on air quality modeling were used and EPA has determined that the ozone modeling

wasperformed satisfactorily forthe 1979 NAP. In addition, EPA reviewed all of the available ozone air quality data for Clark County. In its review,EPA found that data collected by a private * contractor were notused in determining the design value. In discusdions with EPA, the County indicated that thedata

were not used in the NAP since the data

were collected under a questionable quality assurance program and since this data is notpart ofthe official SIP monitoring network. Therefore, EPA found that the NAP's data base was adequate for determining the ozone design value.

Comment:Tomlinson and Chalmers also commented that EPA's evaluation report seems to be generally inadequate with regard to COmodeling.

Response EPA's guidelines on air quality modeling were used in determining that the CO modeling was performed satisfactorily for the NAP.

3. EmissionReductionEstimates. Comments were received supporting EPA's actions.

4.AttainmentProvision. Comment:The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) commented that the Las Vegas Valley is not nonattainment forozone and thus should notbe subject to theproposed rulemaking. They attached a copy of the Nevada 1979 Air Quality Trend Report to support this comment.

Response:TheLas Vegas Valley is designated and should remain nonattainment for ozone (43 FR 9012, March 3, 1978). Contrary to the 1979 Nevada Air Quality Report, Clark County Health District data show three days with violations ofthe ozone standard at the Henderson (Carson Way) station in 1979. Based on this 

### 21761

### 21762 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71' / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

preliminary data, the EPA criteria for redesignation to attainment or unclassifiable have not been met. One (1.0) or less expected exceedances ofthe national standard peryear at each monitor averaged over at least one year (maximum of3 years ifdata is available) isnecessary for such a redesignation. Theprocedure for calculating expected exceedances may be found at 40 CFR 50, Appendix H, promulgated on January 12,1979.

5. ReasonableFurther Progress. Comments were received supporting EPA's actions.

6.LegallyAdoptedMeasures. Comment:The Clark County Department ofComprehensive Planning (DCP) commented that since I/M, traffic flow improvements and masstransit and ride-sharing programs are currently being implemented, they do not feel that additional actions arerequired to fulfill the proposed condition regarding commitments and schedules for transportation control measures.

Response:As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, schedules for analysis and development ofadditional control measures are needed in areas which will not attain the CO NAAQS by 1982. While it may be true that the transportation measures have been implemented for the current year, the plan does not provide written evidence that all implementing agencies have committed to a program of transportation projects which will continue to be implemented as needed
to demonstrate attainment. Such policy level resolutions, including the commitment to seek and provide annual evidence ofcontinuing funding, need to be submitted as a part ofthe NAP. Thus, the condition mustremain.

7.EmissionsGrowth. 8.AnnualReporting. 9.Permit Program. Comments were received supporting EPA's actions regarding these three criteria.

10. Resources. Comment:DCP indicated that the. condition regarding resource commitments would be satisfied in proposed revisions and annual updates which would detail budgeting commitments for future years.

Response:Until these revisions are officially submitted and reviewed, EPA
cannot make any final determination on the adequacy ofthe revisions. Therefore, the condition remains the same.

11. PublicandGovernment Involvement.

12. Public Hearing. Comments were received supporting EPA's actions regarding these two criteria. 13. ExtensionRequirements. Comment:The NDEP stated that
statutes and regulations have been submitted regarding cost-benefit regulations forpower plants.

Response: On October 13, 1980 EPA received a letter from the Governor of Nevada. In that letter he advised EPA of

an SIP revision, regarding power plants; the specific statute andregulation to be transmitted by the NDEP. Until EPA receives the statutes and regulations along with evidence ofnotice and public hearing, no action can be taken on this revision. Thus, the condition remains.

Comment:In response to the May 7, 1979 notice of proposed rulemaking, Clark County and the NDEP commented that the Nevada State Legislature recently amended the State statute regarding the I/Mprogram and delayed implementation of theprogram until July 1, 1981.

Response:This amendment to the State statute is discussed in the September 9,1980 proposed rulemaking notice.As indicated in that notice the delayed implementation does not alter EPA's approval ofthe Nevada I/M
program.

Comment:The NDEPcommented that they disagree with theproposed conditions requiring the State to submit certain planrevisions. They stated that the DCP has submitted revisions to the NAP that demonstrate the NAP has legally enforceable measures to control TSP andhas shown a commitment of

resources to meet basic transportation needs.

Response:EPAhas not received the above mentioned measures or commitment as revisions to the SIP. Therefore, the condition remains.

Comment: DCP also commented that commitments for basic transportation needs (BTN) are subject to budgetary and manpower constraints. However, theirproposed plan revisions contain the County's short range transit program which provides forthe most expeditious implementation program available to the County.

Response:Clark County is required to provide the essential policy level commitment to establish, expand or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs. This commitment is distinguished from budgetary commitments in that specific

resources will need to be shown on an annual basis when Clark County has completed its analysis ofpublic transportation needs (including demand created by any disincentives toprivate
auto use that may be necessary to demonstrate attainment) and subsequently develops the strategy to meet basic transportation needs. The policy resolution currently required represents an acknowledgement ofthe requirements ofSections 110(a)(3)(D) and (c)(5)(B) and a commitment to develop necessary improvements, as indicated by the analysis.

Comment:Tomlinson and Chalmers commented on the failure of the Las Vegas Valley NAP: 1) to define or demonstrate a commitment forpublic transportation to meet basic transportation needs, and 2) to identify, analyze, orcommit to transportation control measures to provide for attainment.In addition, they commented that EPA's proposed condition does not specify any limitsupon the schedules to be submitted.

Response:These two deficiencies

were the subjects ofseveral conditions ofapproval in EPA's Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, wherein EPA required the submittal ofcommitments and schedules by January 1, 1981. These conditions remain in today's final rulemaking. With respect to the limits on schedules for analysis and development ofadditional

measures necessary to demonstrate attainment, all analyses mustbe completed to allow sufficient time for development and initial implementation ofthose measures found to be reasonably available no later than December 31,1982, and for inclusion of those measures in the July 1, 1982 SIP submittal. Measures necessary to meet basic transportation needs mustbe included in the 1982 submittal.

GeneralComments

Comment-Inresponse to EPA'sApril 10 and 27, 1979 notices, several
comments were received during the public comment period.

Response:On September 9, 1980EPA published a notice ofproposed rulemaking for several areas in Nevada. The September 9, 1980 notice supersedes the discussion in the April 10 and 27, 1979notices; therefore, comments on the April notices will notbe addressed. Comment:Tomlinson and Chalmers commented that there is no authorization for conditional approvals and that a conditional approval ofthe Nevada NAP is an abuse of any discretion that might exist.

Response:EPA policy (July 2,1979 Federal Register, 44 FR 38583) provides that when a plan has beenrevised so as to be in substantial compliance with the requirements ofPart D, and the State provides assurances that any remaining minor deficiencies will be *remedied within a short period, imposition ofthe restriction on new sources during that period would not serve the Congressional purpose. Therefore, under

### Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

such circumstances EPA interprets the Clean Air Actto permit theplan to be conditionally approved as satisfying Part D requirements. Therefore, there is

no abuse ofdiscretion.

Comment:Tomlinson and Chalmers also requested an extension ofthe
comment period to submit additional
comments.

Response:EPAbelieves the available period for comments was adequate because:

(1) The NAPs and the IIM program have been available for public inspection and comment since they were the subject ofNotices ofProposed Rulemaking on April 10 and April 27, 1979; and

(2) The issues involvedin the revisions submitted on July 24 and September 18, 1979, and March 17,1980

are limited in scope and are sufficiently clear to allow comments to be developed in the available 30-day period.

Comment:DCP stated that revisions, which are expected to meet the conditions, will soon be adopted by the County. They feltthat adoption and submittal ofthese revisions would fulfill the conditions specified in the notice.

Responses:Until these revisions are officially submitted and reviewed, EPA
cannot make any final determination on the adequacy of these revisions. Therefore, the conditions must remain.

NationalComments

One commenter submitted extensive
comments and requested that they be considered part ofthe record for each state plan. Another commenter, a national environmental group, discussed EPA action on permit fee systems and the composition ofstate boards. Although some of the issues raised are not relevant to provisions in the Nevada NAPs, the November 10, 1980 Federal Register (.44 FR 74480) shouldbe referenced for a discussion ofthese comments and EPA's responses.
EPA Actions

Introduction

It is important forreviewers ofthis notice to understand the overall nature ofNAPs and ofEPA's review and approval role. Central to such an understanding is recognition that action may be taken on a portion ofthe NAPs for a specific pollutant.

Therefore, a portion of the NAPs may be adequate for one pollutant but inadequate for others. It is EPA's policy to take final action on all portions ofthe NAPs for eachpollutant. As a result, this notice contains a series ofactions for each pollutant and for each portion ofthe NAPs rather than a single action. One ofthe following three actions may be taken for each portion ofthe NAPs:

1. Disapproval where the State does
not agree to correct minor deficiencies"

orwhere deficiencies are ofsuch magnitude as to significantly interfere with the basic objective; 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 ofthe deficienc3 is not judged to be major and the State has agreed to take those steps necessary to correct the deficiency.

In this case, it is EPA's intent that the State proceed expeditiously to correct the noted deficiency by certain dates.

EPA's final actions on the Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley NAPs are described below and

are based on the proposed rulemaking notices and the public comments received byEPA. ApprovedPortionsoftheNAPs
I/M

As proposed in theMay 7, 1979 and September 9, 1980 notices, EPA is taking final action under Part D to approve the statutes and rules listed in those notices regarding the Nevada I[M program. The approved statutes and rules form the basis ofNevada's I[M program and satisfy the keyI/M elements required for approval ofthe 1979 SIP revision. EPA is therefore approving the I/M portion ofthe 1979 SIPrevision.

In addition, the statutes andrules also satisfy a number ofthe I/M requirements forapproval ofthe 1982 SIP revision.EPA is taking final action today to approve those completed elements ofNevada's I/M program which satisfy certain requirements for the 1982 SIPrevision, namely: inspection test procedures; emission standards; inspection station licensing requirements; emission analyzer specifications, and maintenance/ calibration requirements; recordkeeping and record submittal requirements; quality control, audit and surveillance procedures; procedures to assure that non-complying vehicles are not operated 6n the public roads; and other official program rules, regulations and procedures as noted above. However, today's action is notintended nor should it be interpreted as final approval of Nevada's total I/M program or the I/M portion ofthe 1982 SIPrevision. Approval oftherevision can only be granted afterthe public awareness element required by the 1982 SIPpolicy (46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981) is submitted and reviewed in order to

assure that Nevada's total IJ/M program and the I/M section ofNevada's SIP satisfy therequirements ofPart D of the Clean AirAct.

The following statutes and regulations, applicable to both the 1979 and 1982 SIPrevisions, are being approved and incorporated into the Nevada SIP.

Nevada Revised Statutes: 445.610, 445.620, 445.625, 445.630, 445.632, 445.634, 445.635, 445.640,445.644, 445.650, 445.660, 445.670, 445.680,445.690, 445.700, 445.705, and 445.710.

Nevada Air Quality Regulations for Mobile Equipment: Article 1-Sections 1.1 to 1.38; Article 2-Sections 2.1 to 2.2; Article 3-Sections 3.1 to 3.14.6, and Article 4--:Sections 4.1 to 4.20.

EPA willtake action to approve theI/ M portion in total upon receipt from the State of an adequate public awareness plan.

The State shouldbe aware that annual reports mustbe made to EPAon the effectiveness ofprogram implementation and enforcement (42 U.S.C. 7410(s)(2)(B), 7414 and 40 CFR 51.321-51.328).

TSP

As proposed in the September 9, 1980 notice, EPA is taking final action under Part D ofthe Clean Air Act to approve the following portions ofthe Nevada NAPs: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision, reasonable further
progress, legally adopted measures (except the Las Vegas Valley NAP), emissions growth, annual reporting, permit program, public and government involvement, and public hearings.

COand03

Asproposed in the September 9, 1980 notice, EPA is taking final action under PartD ofthe Clean AirAct to approve the following portions ofthe Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision (except for Las Vegas Valley O), reasonable further progress, legally adopted measures (forTruckee Meadows 03 only), emissions growth, annual reporting, permit program, public and government involvement, public hearing, and extension requirements for VOC RACT. 

### 21763

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Conditionally ApprovedPortionsofthe NAP

TSP

As discussed inthe September 9, 1980 notice and in the PUBLIC COMMENTS section ofthis notice, the following portions of the Nevada NAPs contain minor deficiencies and the State has provided assurances to correct these deficiencies: legally adopted measures (for the Las Vegas Valley NAP only) and

resources. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve these portions ofthe NAPs.

COandO

As discussed in the September 9, 1980 notice and in the PUBLIC COMMENTS section ofthis notice, the following portions of the Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs contain minor deficiencies and the State has provided

assurances to correct these deficiencies: attainment provision (LasVegas Valley O only), legally adopted measures (except forTruckee Meadows 0,),

resources, and extension requirements (Las Vegas Valley CO only). Therefore, EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve these portions of the NAPs.

The conditions ofapproval and'the associated deadlines are specified below:

Mason Valley/Fernley Area,Lander County, CarsonDesert,Winnemucca Segment, TruckeeMeadowsandLas Vegas ValleyNAPs for TotalSuspended Particulates.

By August 12, 1981, the State must submit an identification and commitment ofresources specifically identifying and budgeting all financial and manpower resources necessary for plan implementation.

TruckeeMeadowsNAP ForCO

By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments for adopted

measures and schedules for the'analysis ofthe othermeasures listed in Section 108(n.

Las Vegas ValleyNAP forCO, 03 and TSP

1.By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a demonstration showing attainment by December 31, 1982 ofthe 0.12 ppm (orthe 0.08 ppm) standard for theozone portion oftheplan.

2. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit the measures referenced in the June 22, 1979 letter from the Clark County Manager for the TSP portion of theplan.

3. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit the adopted measures and schedules for the analysis ofthe other 

### measures listed in Section 108(f) for the COportion ofthe plan.

4. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit regulations for the review and permitting offossil fuel-fired electric
steam generators.

5. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a commitment to establish, expand, orimprove public transportation to meetbasic transportation needs for the COportion of theplan.

6. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments and schedules to analyze further the Section 108(f)

measures not yet included in the CO portion oftheplan and a commitment to initiate implementation ofthose

measures shown to be reasonably available.

Final Action on theNAP
As described in the September 9,1980 notice, only minor deficiencies remain in the Nevada NAPs. Therefore, EPA is taking final action today to conditionally
approve the overall Mason Valley/ Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley NAPs with respect to PartD. As a result, the
current prohibition on construction of certain major new or modified sources in those areas is no longer in effect.

EPA has a responsibility to take final action as soon as possible in order to.lift the construction prohibitions, since the Statehas submitted conditionally approvable NAPs for Mason Valley/ Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegais Valley. Therefore, EPA finds that good cause exists for making this action immediately effective.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean AirAct,judicial review oftoday's action is available onlyby the filing ofa petition forreview in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days oftoday. Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean AirAct, the requirements which are the subject oftoday's notice may notbe challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Conditional ApprovalProcedure
A discussion of conditional approval and its practical effect appears in two supplements to the General Preamble [44 FR 38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67192 (November23, 1979]]. Conditional approval requires the State to submit additional material by the deadlines specified in today's notice. There will be

no extensions granted to the conditional approval deadlines being promulgated 

### today.EPA will follow the procedures described belowwhen determining if the State has satisfied the conditions.

1.Ifthe State submits therequired additional documentation according to schedule, EPA willpublish a notice in the Federal Register announcing receipt of thematerial. The notice ofreceipt will also announce that theconditional approval is continued pending EPA's final action on the submission.

2.EPA willevaluate the State's submittal to determine ifthe conditions

are fully met.AfterEPA's review is completed, a Federal Register notice will be published proposing ortaking final action to either (1)findthe conditions have been met and approve the NAP, or (2)find the conditions have notbeen met, withdraw the conditional approval, and disapprove theNAP. Ifthe NAP is disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions onconstruction wouldbe reimposed.

3.Ifthe State fails to submit the required materials to meet a condition, EPA will publish a FederalRegister notice shortly after the expiration ofthe deadline.The notice will announce that the conditional approval is withdrawn, theNAP is disapproved,,and the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions onconstruction

are in effect.'

Certain deadlines forsatisfying conditions havebeen changed from thoseproposed and are being promulgated today without further notice and comment. EPA finds that for goodcause additional notice and
comment onthese deadlines are unnecessary (See U.S.C. Section 553(b)(B), Administrative Procedure Act).The State is theparty responsible formeeting the deadlines. In addition, the public has had an opportunity to comment generally on theconcept of conditional approval and onwhat deadlines should apply for these conditions (44 FR38583, July 2,'1979 and 45 FR59334, September 9, 1980).
NewSourceReviewRequirements

It should be noted that EPA has published two finalrulemaking notices

on the September 5,1979 proposed amendments to EPA's New Source Review (NSR) regulations and the EmissionOffset Interpretative Ruling. These notices, published onMay 13, 1980 (45FR31307) andAugust 7,1980 (45 FR 52676), 

### amend EPA's Interpretative Ruling and set out new requirements forNSR under Section 173. The State, Clark County, and Washoe County are required to comply with the August 7,1980 requirements byMay 7, 1981. In revising the State and local NSR rules, the State and local agencies must 21764

### Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

address anyrequirements in EPA's amended regulations for NSR (45 FR 31307, May 13, 1980and 45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980) which these rules do not currently satisfy.

VOCRA CTRequirements

The April 4, 1979 General Preamble (44 FR 20376) describes the requirements for agencies to submit 

### VOC RACT regulations for certain sources located in

ozone nonattainment areas. The first set ofRACT regulations were required for

sources covered by the Group ICTG documents published before January 1978. Regulations for sources covered by the Group Idocuments were to have been submitted by January 1, 1979. A second set ofRACT regulations are required for sources covered by the Group II CTG documents, published between January 1978 and January 1979. Regulations for sources covered by the Group II documents were to have been submitted by January 1, 1981 (45 FR 78121, November 5, 1980). Regulations
mustbe submitted in order for the Part D requirements ofthe ozone portions of the Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows NAPs to dontinue to be fully approvable. Further, these requirements have been set forth in 40 CFR 52.1472. Action on the Group II RACT regulations will be handled in a separate Federal Register notice.

40 CFRPart 52Rescissions. As a result ofEPA's final promulgation of conditional approval forthe Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows NAPs, EPA is also taking final action to rescind the following Federally promulgated regulations from 40 CFR Part 52.

52.1478Reviewof New Sourcesand Modifications.The new source review regulation submitted on July 24, 1979 for the Washoe County District Health Department fulfills therequirements of § 51.18(c).

§ 52.1483MaintenanceoftheNational Standards. The NAPs for Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows (Reno) fulfill the requirements of §51.12 (e] and 

### (f).

§ 52.1484 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide.The control strategy demonstration contained in the Las Vegas NAP fulfills the requirements of §51.14 for carbon monoxide.

AttainmentDates.The 1980 edition of 40 CFR Part 52 lists, in the Subpart for Nevada, the applicable deadlines for attaining the NAAQS (attainment dates) required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe. Act. For each nonattainment area where

a NAP provides for attainment by the deadlines required by Section 172(a) of the Act, the new deadlines are substituted on Nevada's attainment date chart in40 CFR Part 52. • The earlier attainment dates will be referenced in a footnote to the chart. Sources subject to plan requirements and deadlines established under Section 110(a)(2)(A) prior to the 1977 Amendments remain obligated to comply with those requirements, as well

as the new Section 172 requirements.

Congress established new attainment dates under Section 172(a) to provide additional time for previously regulated

sources to comply with new, more stringent requirements, and to permit previously uncontrolled sources to comply with the newly applicable emission limitations. These new deadlines were not included to give

sources that failed to comply with pre1977 plan requirements by the earlier deadlines more time to comply with those requirements. As noted by Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing the 1977 Amendments:

Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Act made clear that each source had to meet its emission limits "as expeditiously as practicable," but not later than three years afterapproval ofa plan.Thisprovision was not changed by the 1977 Amendments. Itwould bea perversion ofclear Congressional intentto construe Part D to authorize relaxation or delayof emission limitsforparticular sources. The added time for attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards was provided, if necessary, because ofthe need to tighten emission limits orbringpreviously uncontrolled sources under control. Delays or relaxation ofemission limits were not generally authorized or intended underPart D (123 Cong.Rec.H 11958, daily ed. November 1,1977).

To implement Congress' intention that

sources remain subject to pre-existing plan requirements, sources cannot be granted variances extending compliance dates beyond the attainment dates established prior to the 1977 Amendments. EPA cannot approve such complianbe date extensions, even though a NAP with a later attainment date has been approved. However, a compliance data extension beyond a pre-existing attainment date may be granted ifit will not contribute to a violation of an ambient standard or a PSD increment (44 FR 20373-74, [April 4, 1979]).

In addition, sources subject to preexisting plan requirements may be relieved ofcomplying with such requirements ifa NAP imposes new,
more stringent control requirements that

are incompatible with controls required
to meet the pre-existing regulations. Decisions on the incompatibility of requirements will be made on a case-bycase basis.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5U.S.C. §605(b) Ihereby certify that the attached rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. This action only approves state actions. It imposes

no new requirements. Moreoever, due to the nature ofthe federal-state relationship, federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofthe state action would serve no practical purpose and could well be improper.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
mustjudge whether a regulation is "major" and therefore subject to the requirement ofa Regulatory Impact Analysis. This regulation is not major because it only approves State actions. It imposes no new regulatory requirements.

This regulation was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA and any EPA response are available for public inspection at EPA Region IX, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, 215 Fremont Street, SanFrancisco, CA 94105. (Sections 110, 129, 171to 178, and 301(a) of the CleanAir Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. §7410, 7429,7501 to 7508, and 7601 (a)])

Dated: April 8, 1981.
Walter C.Barber, ActingAdministrator.

Note.-Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada was approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register onJuly 1,1980.

Subpart DD ofPait 52 ofChapter I, Tille40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows: Subpart DD-Nevada

1. Section 52.1470(c) is amended by revising the introductory text of subparagraph 114) and adding subparagraphs (14)(iii), (14)(iv), (14)(v), (16), (17) and (18) as follows:
§52.1470 Identification of plan.

(c) * * * (14) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on December 29, 1978, by the Governor.

*, * * * *

(iii) Nonattainment area plans for Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley.

(iv)Nevada Revised Statutes, Engine Emission Controls: 445.610, 445.620, 445.625, 445.630, 445.640,445.650, 445.660, 445.670, 445.680, 445.690,445.700, 445.705, and 445.710.

(v) Nevada Air Quality Regulations for Mobile Equipment: Article 1- Sections 1.1 to 1.38; Article 2-Sections 

### 21765

### Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

2.1 to 2.2; Article 3-Sections 3.1 to 3.14.6; and Article 4-Sections 4.1 to 4.20.

(16) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on July 24, 1979, by the Governor.

(i) Amend/nents to the Nevada Air Quality Regulations: Article IDefinition: No. 2-LAER.

(ii) Amendments to the Clark County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations: Section 15-Source Registration, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, 15.11, and 15.12; Section 50-Storage ofPetroleum Products; Section 51-Petroleum Product Loading into Tank Trucks, and Trailers; and Section 52-Handling ofGasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks.

(iii) Amendments to the Washoe County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations: Definitions, Sections 010.011, 010.014, 010.028, 010.057, 010.059, 010.071, 010.072, 010.091, 010.106, 010.107B, 010.108, 010.116, 010.117, 010.136, 010.148, 010.149, 010.151, 010.166, 010.197, and010.1751; Source Registration and Operation, Sections 030.000, 030.005, 030.010, 030.015, 030.025, 030.030, 030.110, 030.115 (1 and 5)B, 030.120, 030.1201, 030.205, 030.210, 030.215, 030.245, and030.250; Section 040.070--Storage ofPetroleum Products; Section 040.075-Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers; Section 040.080-Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers into Storage Tanks; Section 040.085- Organic Solvents; and Section 040.090- Cut-Back Asphalt.

(iv) Paving schedules for the following Nonattainment Area Plans: Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, and Lander County.

(v) Amendments to the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area Plan: Two memoranda ofunderstanding between Clark County, the Health District, and the Transportation Policy Committee.

(vi) Nevada Revised Statutes, Engine Emission Control: 445.632, 445.634, 445.635, and 445.644.

(17) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on September 18, 1979, by the Governor.

(i)Amendments to the Clark County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations: Section 1- Definitions (except 1.14, 1.15, 1.79, and 1.94);,Section 15.14-Source Registration Requirements for Areas Exceeding Air Quality Standards; and Section 60- Evaporation and Leakage.

(18) Amendments to the Nevada Air Quality Regulations submitted on March 17, 1980, by the Governor.

(i)Article 13.1.3-Point Sources and Registration Certificates.

2. Section 52.1472 is revised to read as follows: §52.1472 Approval status.

(a) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Nevada's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

(b) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves the plan with respect to Part D, Title I of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, forthe nonattainment areas listed in this paragraph.

(1)Mason Valley/Fernley Area for TSP. (2) Lower Reese River Valley/Clovers Area for TSP.

(3)Carson Desert for TSP. (4) Winnemucca Segment for TSP. (5) Truckee Meadows for TSP and CO. (6) Las Vegas Valley for TSP and CO. (c) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves the plan with respect to Part D, Title I of the Clean Air Act, as amended in the 1977, for the nonattainment areas listed in this paragraph. In addition, continued satisfaction of the requirements ofPart D for the ozone portion ofthe State Implementation Plan (SIP] depends on the adoption and submittal by January 1, 1981 ofreasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for

sources covered by Control Technique Guidelines (CTG's) published between January 1978 and January 1979.

(1) Truckee Meadows for 03. (2) Las Vegas Valley for O. 3. Subpart DD ofPart 52 is amended by adding §52.1474, reading as follows:
§52.1474 Part 0 conditionalapproval. (a) The following portions of the Nevada SIP contain deficiencies with respect to Part D ofthe Clean Air Act which must be corrected within the time limit indicated.

(1)The Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley portions ofthe Nevada SIP are approved

as satisfying Part D requirements for total suspended particulate provided the following conditions are met: (i) By August 12, 1981, the State must 

### submit an identification and commitment ofresources specifically Identifying and budgeting all financial and manpower resources necessary for plan implementation for all theplans listed above. (ii)By August'12, 1981, the State must submit the measures referenced in the June 22, 1979 letter from the Clark County Manager for the Las Vegas -Valley plan only. (2)TheTruckee Meadows portion of theNevada SIP is approved as satisfyingPart D requirements for carbon monoxide provided the following condition is met: (i)By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments for adopted

measures and schedules for the analysis ofthe other measures listed inSection 108(f).

(3)The Las Vegas Valley portion of the Nevada SIP is approved as satisfyingPart D requirements for carbon monoxide and ozone provided thefollowing conditions are met:

(i)By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a demonstration showing attainment by December 31, 1982 ofthe 0.12 ppm (or the 0.08 ppm standard for the ozone portion ofthe plan.

-



### (ii) By August 12, 1981, the State must .submit the adopted measures and schedules for the analysis of the other

measures listed in Section 108(f) forthe COportion oftheplan.

.(iii)By August 12, 1981, the State must submit regulations for thereview and permitting offossil fuel-fired electric steam generators.

(iv)By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a commitment to establish, expand, or improvepublic transportation to meet basic transportation needs for theCO portion ofthe plan.

(v)By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments and schedules to analyze further the Section 108(f)

measures not yet included in the CO portion ofthe plan and a commitment to initiate implementation of those

measures shown to be reasonably available.
§52.1478 [Reserved]



### 4. Section 52.1478 is removed and reserved.

5.The table andthe "note" in §52.1480 are revised. Anew note and footnotes "e" and 'T' are added. Footnotes "a" through "d" are unchanged. §52.1480 Attainment Dates forNational Standards. 

### 21766

### Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Pollutants Air quality control region and TSP SO, nonattainment area NO Co o Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

Las Vegas Intrastate

.... .......... e

. a

......... a

. ............ a........ c

. I

................ . Northwest Nevada Intrastate:

......................................... ernley Area
........................................ ............... e ....................... c............... .c

....................... c............... c............... d. ruckee Meadows:

............................. a ............... e ....................... c............... c...................... c............... e............... f. Mason Valley

..................................... e

............... e
....................... c

............... c

....................... c

............... c

............... C. Remainder of Intrastate

................... July July 1977. c

............... c

....................... c

............... c

.............. C. 1975. Nevada Intrastate: Carson Desert

......................... a

....................... b

............... b

....................... c

............... c
............... c. Winnemucca Segment

..................... e
............... e

..................... 3. b

............... b

....................... c
............... ,c

............... c. Lower Reese Qiver Valley

............... e

............... e

....................... b

............... b.

...................... c

............... c

............... c. Clovers Area

..................................... e

............... e

...................... b

............... b

....................... c

.............. t c

............... c. Remainder of Intrastate

................... July July 1977 b

............... b

....................... c

............... c

............... c. 1975.

NOTE.-Dates or footnotes which are Italicized are prescribed by the Administrator because the plan does not provide a specificdate or the date provided is not acceptable.

NOTE.-Sources subject to plan requirements and attainment dates established under ection 110(a)(2)(A) prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments remain obligated to comply with those requirements by the earlier deadlines. The earlier attainment dates are set out at 40 CFR 52.1480 (1980).

(a) December 31, 1982. (f)December 31, 1987.

6. Section 52.1481 is revised to read as follows:
§52.1481 Extensions.

(a) The Administrator hereby extends
toJuly 31, 1977, the attainment date for the primary standards ofsulfur oxides in the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. In the event that the

source subject to §52.1475(d) is granted permission to comply with §,52.1475(e) the attainment date for theprimary standards for sulfur oxides in the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region shall be extended only to January 1, 1977.

(b)TheAdministrator hereby extends
to December 31, 1982 certain attainment dates for the National standards for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (0:), and total suspended particulates (TSP) in the following areas:

(1)Truckee Meadows for CO and TSP. (2) Las Vegas Valley forO and TSP. (3)Mason Valley/Fernley Area for TSP.

(4) Lower Reese River Valley/Clovers Area for TSP.

(5)Carson Desert for TSP. (6) Winnemucca Segment for TSP. (c) The Administrator hereby extends
to December 31, 1987 certain attainment dates for the national standards for CO and O,in the following areas;

(1) Truckee Meadows forO. (2) Las Vegas Valley for CO.



### §§52.1483 and 52.1484 [Reserved]

7. Sections 52.1483 and 52.1484 are removed and reserved.

IFR Doc. 81-11319 Filed4-13-81: 8:45aml

ILLING CODE 6560-36-M 40 CFR Part 52 [A-5-FRL 1789-8] Ohio;Approval and Promulgation of AirQuality Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA approves two revisions
to the Ohio State Implementation Plan for sulfur dioxide for the Interlake Incorporated Toledo Plant and the Koppers Company Incorporated Toledo CokePlant which are located in Lucas County, Ohio. The combined revision will result in a net decrease in the allowable emissions and will therefore result in an improvement in the air quality in Lucas County, Ohio. EFFECTIVE DATE: 

### May 14, 1981. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Marcantonio, AirPrograms Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886- 6088. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

### May 31, 1977 (42FR 27588) EPA promulgated final regulations establishing a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the control ofsulfur dioxide (SO2)for the majority of sources in Lucas County,. Ohio. This final rule amends that SIP as it applies to the Interlake Incorporated (Interlake) Toledo Plant and the Koppers Company Incorporated (Koppers) Toledo Coke Plant in Lucas County, Ohio.

Interlake submitted a request for a SIP revision on May 29, 1979based on operational changes at the facility. At the time the SIPfor this facility was promulgated by EPA (May 31, 1977, 42 FR 27588), Interlake owned and operated a coke battery, a blast furnace,

a pig iron casting facility, a steam generator, and an electric power generator. Interlake has since sold the coke battery to Koppers and terminated operations at all other facilities except for the electric power generating facility which consists ofthree 66.9 MW (228.3 MMBTU/hr) boilers. In the May 31, 1977 regulation, these three boilers were given a total allowable SO2 emission
rate of31.1 kg/hr (68.5 lbs/hr). This SIP revision willreduce the allowable S02 emission rate for Interlake to 13.6 kg/hr (30.0 lbs/hr). The remaining 17.5 kg/hr 

### (38.5 lbs/hr) of S02 emission offsets are to be given to Koppers.

Koppers submitted a request for a SIP revision on June 29, 1979. To obtain permits for two new boilers, Koppers

was required to obtain SO2 emission offsets since the source is located in a nonattainment area. ThePrevention of Significant Deterioration regulations are not applicable because both sources are locatec,/in a nonattainment area. In addition to the offsets received from Interloke, Koppers reduced the emission limitation on its coke battery (purchased from interlake) fr6m 2.0kg/ton (metric) to 1.69 kg/ton (metric) (4.00 to 3.38 lbs

SO per ton) of actual process wdight input. A summary ofthe previous and revised emissions is shown below. Koppers/Interlake Emissions

[Kilograms per hour (pounds per hour)]

Source Previous SO, Revised SO: emissions emissions

Intedake B006-8

..................... 31.1(68.5) 13.6(30.0) Intertake coke battery

............. 87.4(192.7)

......................... Koppers B001-2

.................................................... 11.5(25.4) Koppers coke battery

............................................ 73.8(162.8)

Total emissions

.................... 118.5(261.2) 98.9(218.2)

Further discussion of the modeling analysis for the two SIPrevisions can be found in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on September 9, 1980 (45FR 59339) and in the Technical Support Document which is available in ,pocket#5A-80-1.

The Agency reviewed the two SIP submittals and on September 9, 1980, EPAproposed approval ofthese revisions (45 FR 59399). During the public comment period, two commenters submitted comments. One commenter

was in full support of theproposed revisions since they should result in an improvement in the air quality in Lucas County. The other commenter raised several issues which are discussed below.

Issue:The commenter claimed that

use of RAM-urban to predict annual average concentrations in the Koppers

### 21767