# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 59334 1980

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)
Tue Mar 19 16:33:57 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. 45, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rules

Michigan could adopta specifioTDS quench water ormake-up water requirement and a methodfor determining such TDSlevels,,on a daily basis. USEPA's technical information indicates that quench water with 1000- 1325 milligrams per-liter (mg/i) TDSin the quench water or 500-600 mg/1 in the make-up water represents areasonably available control technology standard. USEPA will approve the proposed emission limitation ifthe State develops and submits an acceptable test method for quench towers,during the comment period. In the alternative USEPA will conditionally approve the overall Part D plan ifduring the comment period Michigan commits to adopt and submit regulations consistent with the above discussion. Scarring

In its April 25,1979 submittal, the State did not propose a specific emission limitation to control scarfing emissions. The Michigan plan controls scarfing emissions by Table 32 ofRule 336.1331 which limits particulate emissions from most scarfers to 50-70 lbs./hr.Data collected by USEPA and contained in the rulemaking docket on this notice demonstrates that the following standards can be achieved utilizing RACT:

1.A concentration, during scarfing, of
0.010-0.030 gr/dscf;

2. A mass rate of5-10 pounds/hour during times ofcontinuous scarfing; or,

3.A concentration per continuous hour, of0.005-0.010 gr/dscf. ,

-An acceptable PartD plan must' ultimately include rules requiring RACT for scarfing emissions. EPA will conditionally approve the overall Part D plan for iron and steel sources if Michigan commits during the comment period to a schedule on which-suchrules will be adopted.

Part "10 Testing

TheMichigan rules do notspecify when the testing periods for iron and steel indusGy facilities begin and terminate. Test methods should be clarified so that the testing ofthe fugitive emissions from blast furnaces should occur during the cast. The starting and ending period should be specified forbasic oxygenfurnaces (for both primary and secondary emissions generating operations), electric arc furnaces and for each ofthe three emission processes at sinter plants. USEPAproposes to approve these rules ifduring the comment period the State makes these clarifications or in the alternative conditionally approve them ifthe State commits during the comment period to a schedule by which these clarifications will be made.

Under Executive Order 12044 (43FR 12661), USEPA is required to judge whether a regulation is "significant", and therefore, subject to certain procedural requirements ofthe Order or whether itmay follow other specialized development procedures. USEPA labels these other regulations "specialized". I have reviewed these proposed regulations pursuant to the guidance and USEPA's response to-Executive Order 12044 "Improving Environmental Regulations". signed March 29, 1979, by the Administrator and I have" determined that they are specialized regulations not-subject to theprocedural requirements ofExecutive Order 12044.

(Sections 110(a) and 172 of the Clean Air Act, as antended (42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a), 7502).)

John McGuire, Regional Administraor.

[FRDoc. 80-27592 Filed 9-8-80; &45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-01-M

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL 1599-4]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY. OnApril 10 and 27, 1979 (44, FR 21307 and 24880) the Environmental lProtection Agency (EPA)published Notices ofProposed Rulemakingfor the followingnonattainment area plans (NAPs): Mason Valley/F~mley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment;Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley. Revisions to these NAPs havebeen submitted to EPA by the Governor. The revisions consist of amendments to Nevada's Air Quality Regulations, Clark County Health District's Air Pollution Control Regulations, Washoe County District Board ofHealth's Air Pollution Control Regulations, and other documentation which supports the control strategies in the NAPs. The intended effect ofthese revisions is to correct certain deficiencies in the previously submittedNAPs, whichhad been identified in the April 10 and 27, 1979 notices.

The EPAinvites public comments on these revisions, the identified issues, suggested corrections, and associated proposed deadlines and whether the overall plans or certain portions of the plans should be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved, especially , with respect to the requirements ofPart D ofthe Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments mustbe received on

or before October 9, 1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Regional Administrator, Attn:Air and Hazardous Materials Division. Air Technical Branch, Regulatory Section (A--4). Environmental Protection Agency, 215 Fremont Street. San Francisco, CA
94105.

Copies ofthe proposed revisions, the NAPs, and EPA's associated Evaluation Reports are contained in document files NAP-NV-1, 3,4, 5,6, and 7 and are

..available forpublic inspection during normal business hours at theEPA Region IX Office at the above address and at thefollowing locations:
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, 201 South Fall Street, Carson City, NV 89101. Public Information Reference Unit,

Room 2404 (EPALibrary), 401 "M" Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
In addition, copies ofthe applicable NAPs are available at the following locations: Lyon County Commission, Drawer G, I Yerington, NV 89447. City ofYerington, Box 479, Yerington,

NV 89447. Lander County Commission,

Courthouse,Austin, NV 89502. City ofFallen, 55 West Williams, Fallen,

NV 89406. Humboldt County Board of

Commissioners, P.O. Box 352, Winnemucca, NV 89445. Washoe Council of Governments, 241

Ridge Street, Reno, NV 89502. Clark County Department of

Comprehensive Planning, Environmental Protection Division, 200 East Carson Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Douglas Crane, Chief, Regulatory Section, Air Technical Branch, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 56&-2938,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Action

The revisions have been evaluated for conformance with the requirements of Part D ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, "Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas."

EPA'sreview indicates that the revisions for the Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, 59334

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59334 1980Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rules

Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley NAPs

are consistent with the Part D requirements and that the deficiencies identified in the April 10 and 27,1979 notices have been cornected, with certain minor exceptions as noted below. EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate into the State Implementation Plan (SIP] those portions ofthe NAPs that have been corrected.

The resources portion of all the NAPs contains a minor deficiency with respect to Part D. In addition, the following portions ofthe Truckee Meadows (TM) and Las Vegas Valley (LVV) NAPs contain minor deficiencies with respect toPart D: legally adopted measures for carbon monoxide (TMand LVV), extension requirements forcarbon monoxide (LVV), attainment provision, extension requirements, and legally adopted measures, for ozone (LVV), and legally adopted measures for particulate
matter (LVV). These portions ofthe NAPs are proposed to be approved and incorporated into the SIP with the condition that the deficiencies be corrected by a specified deadline.

Therefore, EPAis revising the April 10 and 27,1979 proposed rulemaking actions regarding the NAPs and, in this notice, proposes to conditionally
approve the Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley NAPs with respect to Part D ofthe Clean Air AcL

Upon final rulemaking action, conditional approval would be sufficient
to lift the current prohibition on construction ofcertain new or modified

sources inthese nonattainment areas. This prohibition isrequired by the Clean Air Act and is discussed in detail in the July 2, 1979 Federal Register (44FR 38471). Background

New provisions of the Clean Air Act, amended inAugust 1977, Public Law No. 95-95, require states to revise their SIPs for all areas that do not attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

On April 4,1979 (44FR 20372), EPA published aGeneral Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas. In addition, EPA published Supplements to the General Preamble on July 2,August 28, September 17, and November 23, 1979 (44FR 38583, 50371, 53761 and 67182). The General Preamble supplements this notice by identifying the major considerations that will guide EPA's evaluation ofthe revisions submitted. The following table shows the areas, plans, and nonattainment designation for those portions ofthe State ofNevada covered in the notice:

Pcutart

Are Plan Careon TotW Ozone rnca suped peicuate

Las Vegas Vsky Las Vegas Vale- x x X Truckee Meadows Truck" Meadows

- x X Mason Vakey Mson VeyiFen*y u X Ferrey

__ Mason VakjyIFrnep w, X Lowe Seese Rr Vaky Ldw County X Clovers LM.*d Coury X CarsonDee.. Carson Deee..

. .... _•_X Wnrewuoca serient Wrwxca $07Wen X

On December 29,1978, the Governor ofNevada submitted NAPs for the Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley toEPA as revisions to the SIP.In addition, the Governor submitted
statutes and regulations which together provide an inspection and maintenance (I/M)program forportions ofNevada. EPA evaluated the submitted plans and the I/M program with respect to the Clean Air Act requirements and published notices ofproposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on April 10, April 27, and May 7,1979. Those notices provide descriptions of the December 29,1978 SIPrevisions, summarize the Clean Air Act requirements, compare the revisions to those requirements, identify deficiencies, and suggest corrections. Those notices should be consulted for
necessary background information concerning today's proposed rulemaking action.

Description ofProposed Revisions

This notice includes NAP related SIP revisions submitted by the Governor prior to April 1,1980. The revisions submitted on July 24, and September 18. 1979 and March 17,1980 include: (1) amendments to Nevada's Air Quality Regulations; (2) amendments to Clark County Health District's Air Pollution Control Regulations; (3)amendments to the Washoe County District Board of Health's Air Pollution Control Regulations; (4)paving schedules for the Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Carson Desert, and Winnemucca Segment; (5)a resolution concerning Lander County- (6)
two memoranda ofunderstanding between Clark County, the Health District, and the Transportation Policy Committee; and (7) Senate Bill 543 and Assembly Bill281 which amend Nevada Revised Statutes 445.632, 445.634, 445,635, and 445.644. In order to expedite EPA'sreview ofthe NAPs, thisnotice addresses only theportions ofthe State and Countyregulations mentioned above which appear to relate to applicable PartD requirements, and thus support the NAPs, such asviolatile organic compound and new source review rules. The regulations revisions and the appropriate submittal dates are listed below.

Nevada Air Quality Regulations

July24, 1979 Article 1-Definitions (Nos. 1and2) Article 3-Registration Certificates and

Operating Permits Article 13.1.3--Point Sources and Registration

Certificates

March171960 Article 13.1.3-Point Sources and Registration

Certificates

Nevada Revised Statutes
July24 1979
445.632 445.634 445.635 445.644

ClarkCounty Health District AirPollution Control Regulations
July24,1979 Section 1-Definitions Section 15--Source Registration Section 50-Storage ofPetroleum Products Section 51-Petroleum Product Loading into

Tank Trucks and Trailers Section 5Z-Handling ofGasoline at Service

Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks
September 18. 1979
Sectlon 1-Definitions Section 15.13.13-Public Participation Section 60-Evaporation and Leakage 59335

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59335 1980Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 176 

## /-Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rules

Washue County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations luly24, 1979,
Sections 010.011 to010.1751, Definitions Sections 030.000 to030.3108, Source

Registration and Operation Section 040.070, Storage ofPetroleum

Produdts

- Section 040.075, Gasolinp Loading intoTank

. Trucks and Trailers Section 040.080, Gasoline Unloading from.

Tank Trucks and Trailers into Storage Tanks Section 040.085. Organic Solvents Section 040.090 Cut-Back Asphalt
Criteria for Approval

The following list summarizes the basic requirements forNonattainment Area Plans. The citations which follow referring toportions ofthe Clean Air Act provide the bases for these requirements.

1. An accurate inventory ofexisting. emissions (172(b)(4)).

2. A modeling analysis indicating the level of control needed to attain by 1982 (172(a)).

3. Emission reduction estimates for each adopted control measure (172(a)).

4. A provision for expeditious attainment ofthe standards (172(a)).

5.Provisions for reasonable further
progress as defined in section 171 ofthe Act (172(b)(3)).

6.Adoption in legally enforceable form ofall measures necessary to provide for attainment or, in certain circumstances where adoption by 1979 isnot possible, a schedule for development, adoption, submittal and implementation ofthese measures (172(b)(2), (8) and (10)).

7. An identificatfon of'an emissions growth increment (172(b)(5)).

8. Provisions for annual reporting with respect to items (5) and (6) above (172(b)_ (3) and (4)).

9. A permit program formajor new or modified sources (172(b](6).and 173].

10. An identification of and commitment to the resources necessary to carry out the plan (172(b)(7)).

11. Evidence ofpublic, local government, and state involvement and consultation (172(b)(9)).

12. Evidence that the proposed SIP revisions were adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing (172(b)(1)).

13. For carbon monoxide and ozone SIP revisions thatprovide for attainment of the primary standard later than 1982:

a. A permit program for major new or modified sources requiring an. evaluation ofalternative sites and consideration ofenvironmental and social costs (172tb)(11)(A)).

b. A provision forimplementation of all reasonably available control measures for mobile and transportation

sources (172(a)(2)).

c. A commitment to establish, expand, orimprove public transportation to meetbasic transportation needs (110)(a)(3)(D) and (110)(c)(5)(B). ,

d. In addition to the above, formajor urbanized areas, a specific schedule and legal authority for implementation ofa vehicle emission control inspection and maintenance program (172(b)(11](B)].

14. For ozone nonattainment areas requiring an extension beyond 1982, the revision must also provide for adoption oflegally enforceable regulations to reflectthe-application ofreasonably available control technology (RACT) to those volatile organic compound (VOC) stationary sources for which EPAhas published a Control Techniques Guideline byJanuary 1978, and a commitment to adopt RACT regulations foradditional sources tobe covered by future guidelines (172(a)(2]). For rural

areas, and urban areas that demonstrate attainment by 1982, only large sources (morethan 100 tons/year emissions)
mustbe so regulated.

Disctissfon

The paragraph numbers below correspond to the PartD plan requirements described in the preceding section, Criteria forApproval. Inthis section, the word "plan(s)" means the overall NAP orportions ofthe NAP, specific to certain ar~a(s) and pollutant(s).

EPA policy for approval ofozone nonattainment area plans submitted as 1979 SIP revisions differentiates between rural and urban nonattainment

areas. EPA's policy, including the definition ofrural areas, is discussed in the General Preamble. Based on the definition ofrural areas andthe policy, Truckee Meadows is considered a rural

area. Asreferenced in the General Preamble;EPA's minimum requirements for an approvable 1979 rural ozoneplan do notprovide that all ofthe Criteria for Approval listed above be fully met.This distinction does not affect the analysis ofthe other plans contained in this Notice.

Each criterion is discussed in depth below.As noted in the SUMMARY section, EPA reviewed the plans for conformance with these requirements and,in this section, identifies the portions ofthe plans that are approvable or conditionally approvable. Where a plan deficiency-is identified, recommendations forrevision of the plan are specified. Based on this analysis EPA proposes to approve conditionally each ofthe plans overall with respect to Part D. 1. EmissionInventory
EPA'sreview ofthe emission inventories forparticulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and nitrogen oxides finds them to be reasonably accurate, comprehensive, and current. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe plans.

2. Modeling

CarbonMonoxideandParticulate Matter. EPA's review ofthe analyses of the necessary level of control to attain the standards indicates that, for
purposes ofthe 1979 SIPrevision, the modeling analysis for all areas adequately determined the emission reductions required to attain the carbon monoxide (CO) and total suspended particulate (TSP] standards. The carbon monoxide model used forthe Las Vegas Valley has been validated in response to EPA's, comments in the April 27, 1970 Notice ofProposed Rulemaking. Thereforej EPA proposes to approve the TSP and CO modeling portions ofthe plans.

Ozone.As referenced in the General Preamble, EPApolicy does not require a specific demonstration ofattainment for rural ozone nonattainment areas. Therefore, no ozone modeling is required for the Truckee Meadows

ozone NAP. An accurate identification ofthe necessary level ofcontrol to attain the ozone standards in urban

areas such as Las Vegas is required, The modeling contained in the Las Vegas Valley ozone NAP is sufficient for the 1979 SIP revision and EPA proposes to approve the ozone modeling portion of theplans.

3. EmissionReductionEstimates

EPA proposes to approve the emission reduction estimates in each oftheplans.

4.AttainmentProvision

Particulate Matter. EPA proposes to approve in eachplan the attainment provision for the total suspended particulate (TSP)primary standards. EPA also proposes to grant the State's request for an extension toJuly 1,1980, for submittal ofplans showing attainment ofthe secondary standards for TSP, as discussed in the April 10, and 27,1979 notices.

Carbon Monoxide. For Las Vegas Valley, the Staterequested an extension of the attainment date beyond 1902, and committed to submitting a revised NAP byJuly 1982 that provides for expeditious attainment. Based on the information submitted, EPA proposes to grant this entensionpursuant to the provisions of Section 172(a)(2) and EPA
proposes to approve the submitted 59336

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59336 1980Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rules

demonstration of attpinment as satisfactory for the 1979 SIPrevision. For Truckee Meadows, theplan demonstrates attainment by 1982 and EPA proposes to approve this portion of the Truckee Meadows COplan.

Ozone.Both the Las Vegas Valley NAP and the Truckee Meadows NAP request an extension beyond 1982 to attain the photochemical oxidant standard of0,08ppm, which has since been revised bypromulgation ofthe present standard forozone of0.12 ppm (see44 FR 8202,February 8,1979). The control strategy demonstration submitted bythe State is inadequate since attainment cifprevious standard of 0.08 ppmis not shown by 1987. Unless the Las Vegas Valley is reclassified to attainment orunclassified (as requested bythe State), the NAP for this area must be revised to provide expeditious attainment of, as a minimum, the 0.12
ppm national standard for ozone. The State maychoose to continue to attempt to show attainment with the previous 0.08 ppm standard. Also, the granting of

an attainment date extension to 1982
mustbejustified using the0.12 ppm

ozone standards as the benchmark, regardless ofthe final ozone level desirecL Therefore, thisportion ofthe Las Vegas Valley ozone NAP is proposed to be approved with the following conditions: (1) that the State submit byJanuary 1, 1981 a demonstration showing attainment of either the 0.12 ppm standard or the 0.08
ppm standard; (2) ifan attainment date extension is still desired, either demonstration must show that attainment ofthe 0.12 ppm standard by December 31,1982 is impossible despite implementation ofall reasonably available measures. These conditions do
not apply to the Truckee Meadows NAP since, as explained above, ozone NAPs forrural areas neednot include a specific demonstration ofattainment Therefore.EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe Truckee Meadows ozone plan.

5.ReasonableFurther Progress
As referenced in the General Preamble, rurual ozone nonattainment

area plans need not contain a specific demonstration ofreasonable further
progress. Thus such a demonstration need not be made for the Truckee Meadows ozone plan. The showing of estimated emission reductions in all of the otherplans appears to be consistent with therequirements ofSection 172(b)(3), and the definition of reasonable further progress in Section 171(1). This showing mast be supported bythe implementation ofa process for monitoring and verification of transportation related emission reductions. EPA proposes to apporve this portion ofall theplans.

6.Legally-AdoptedMeasures

Partculate Matter. EPA's Notices of Proposed Rulemaking ofApril 10 and 27, 1979, indicated that allparticipate

matterNAPs except for the Truckee Meadows NAP, lack sufficient evidence ofcommitments to scedules for study. adoption, orimplementation ofcontrol

measures. The State'sJuly 24,1979 SIP revision included the necessary commitments to fugitive dust control

measures, and schedules for Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Carson DeserL Winnemucca Segment, andLander County.

A letter datedJune 22,1979, fromthe Clark County Manager to EPA, Region IX, indicated that the adopted measures and schedules identified in the Las Vegas Valley NAP hadbeen supplemented by the following

measures: (a)A Clark County ordinance requiring paving ofcertainroads to subdivisions;

(b) A demonstration project involving road stabilization by the Regional Street and Highway Commission;

(c) A demonstration project involving short-term stabilization ofa cleared

area in downtown Las Vegas; and

(d)A demonstration projectfor reducing fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.

In addition, the July 24,1979 SIP revision included more stringent fugitive dustregulations (amendments to Sections 9 and 41 ofthe Clark County Air Pollution ControlRegulations). These addedmeasures for evaluation and control ofnontraditional emissions, together with commitments and enforceable procedures in the original NAP, constitute an acceptable program for the attainment of total suspended particulate primary standards. This portion ofthe Las Vegas Valley particulate matter NAP is proposed to be approved with the condition that the State officially submit by January 1, 

### 1981 the measures referenced in theJune 22, 1979 letter from the Clark County Manager.

Carbon Monoxide.Neither theLas Vegas Valley COplan nor the Truckee Meadows COplan satisfy the requirements ofSection 172(b)(10), since the plans do not include sufficient written evidence that all the agencies identified as responsible for transportation related measures have formally committed toimplement and (where appropriate) enforce the
necessary transportation control

measures, norhave they adequately identified the specific measures to be implemented and established implementation schedules with milestone dates forplanning. programming, implementing, operating. enforcing, and monitoring each transportation control measure consistent with a demonstration of reasonable furtherprogress. This portion ofthe Las VegasValley and Truckee Meadows COplans is proposed
to be approved with the condition that the State submit byJanuary 1.1981, such commitments for adopted measures and schedules for the analysis ofthe other

measures listedin Section 106(1) of the Act.

OzonaEPA policy requires that minimum levels ofcontrol technology be provided in the nonattainment area plans. TheNAPs must include adopted, legally-enforceable regulations reflecting the application ofreasonably available control technology [RACT) to volatile organic compound sources coveredin control techniques guidelines (CTGs] issuedby January 1978. Inaddition, the plans mustcontain commitments to adopt RACT regulations for sources in categories to be addressed by future CTGs. Forrural ozone nonattainment

areas such as TruckeeMeadows, the RACT requirements apply only to major

sources (i.e.. those withmore than 100 tons/year ofpotential emission).

The LasVegas Valley:NAP indicates that,ofthe eleven source categories for which adopted RACT regulations are required, onlyseven categories exist within the nonattainment area. These categories are service stations (Stage L gasoline vaporrecovery], gasoline bulk plants, gasoline bulk terminals,fixedrooftanks, solvent metal cleaning (degreasing), cutback asphalt, and surface coating at large appliance manufacturers. OnJuly 24 and September 18,1979, the State submitted

as official SIPrevisions ClarkCounty Regulations (Sections 1, 50, 5I, 52, 60] providing controls for these sources which, based on information contained in the C7Gs, are sufficient to filMILthe requirements forRAC. These modified regulations and administrative provisions correct defects in earlier versions reviewed byEPA intheApril 27proposed rulemaking.The regulations

are nowfully approvable and satisfy the PartD requirement forRAC. The Las VegasNAP also contaifis therequired commitments to adoptRACT regulations for future CTGcategories.

While theLas VegasValley ozone plan satisfies stationary sourceRACT requirements, EPA proposes the same conditions forapproval ofthis portion of the ozone plan as are indicated above II

I I III I li I 59337

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59337 1980Federal,Register / Vol. 45, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rule4

for the CO plan,namely, that the State submit by January 1,1981, commitments for adopted measures and schedules, for the analysis ofthe other Section 108(fo

measures.

The Truckee Meadows NAP now includes adopted regulations for all six categories-ofRACT sources existing within the nonattainment area: service stations (Stage I,gasoline vapor ' recovery], gasoline bulk plants, gasoline bulk terminals, fixed-roof tanks, solvent metal cleaning (degreasing), and cutback asphalt. These regulations (Sections 010, 040] are fully ppprovable

as amended in the July 24,1979 revision and satisfy Part Drequirements for RACT, based on information in the CTGs.

The Truckee Meadows NAP also contains the required commitement to adoptRACT regulations forfuture CTG categories. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe Truckee Meadows ozone NAP.

7.EmissionsGrowth

Each NAP indicates that there will be ,no emissions growth from major new stationary sources, since new or modified sources willbe subject to permit conditions requiring full offsets of emissions. Permit regulations containing these offset provisions have been submitted for the State, Las Vegas Valley (Clark County), and Truckee Meadows (Washoe County). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion of the plans.

8.AnnuaI Repoting

The Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Vallay NAPs contain acommitment to submit annual reports ofreasonable further progress and updated emissions inventories. Such annual reports are required for each nonattainment area. The annual report submitted by the State is expected to include the other nonattainment areas covered by this notice. Therefore, EPA propos6s to approve this portion ofthe plans.

9.PermitProgram

The Nevada State New Source Review (NSR)regulations apply to all major ne,; ormodified sources throughtout the State, except for Clark and Washoe Counties. Within Clark and Washoe Counties, the State has permitting authority over fossil fuel-fired electric steam generators; all other

sources in these two counties are subject to the permit requirements ofthe Clark County Health District Air Polution Control Regulations and the ashoe County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations Amendments to the NSR regulations for the State (Article 13), Clark County (Section 15), and Washoe County (Section 030) were submitted on July 24, 1979, September 18, 1979, and March 17, 1980. These regulations now satisfy the requirements ofSection 173 through the provision from emissions offsets, lowest achievable emissions rate, and the certification ofcompliance of all major

sources withinthe State owned, operated, or controlled by the applicant. EPA interprets the offset provisions in these regulations to require submittal of external offsets as SIP revisions, and solicits comments on this interpretation. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe plans.

10.Resources

While each NAP contains some identification and commitment of
resourcep, none of the NAPs specifically identifies and budgets all financial and
manpower resources.necessary forplan implementation. This portion of the NAPs is proposed to be approved with the condition that the State submit these essential resource commitments by January 1,1981.

11. Public and Government Involvement I Following submittal ofsummaries of public comments received on plan impact analyses, all NAPs now meet the requirements ofSection 172(b)(9). EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe plans.

12.Public Hearings
EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe plan, since all plans and regulations were adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing.

13.ExtensionRequirements

As referenced in the General Preamble (44FR 20372), the 1979 ozone NAPs forrural nonattainment areas need not contain a specific , demonstration ofattainment. Therefore, the extension requirements ofcriterion 13 do not apply to Truckee Meadows. Since the State has requested an extension ofthe attainment date beyond December, 1982, for ozone and CO for Las Vegas Valley, the Las Vegas Valley NAP mustmeet the reqirements of Sections 172(b)(11), 110(a)(3)(D), and 110(c)(5)(B).

,

Under Section 172(b)(11)(A), both Clark County and State regulations must include, in conjunction with the new

sourcereview permit program, a procedure and requirement for an analysis ofalternative sites, sizes,
processes, and controls, which demonstrates that the benefits ofa major emitting facility outweigh environmental costs. While Clark County regulations were submitted satisfying the permitting process requirements of Section 172(b)(I1)(A), the State must also submit regulations containing these provisions forreview and permitting offossil fuel-fired electric steam generators in Las Vegas Valley. This portion of the Las Vegas Valley CO and ozone NAP is proposed
to be approved with the condition that the State submit these permit program elements by January 1,1981.

As indicated in aNotice ofProposed Rulemaking (44 FR 26763, May 7, 1979) dealing with the State's vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program, the requirements of Section 172(b)(11)(B) concerning I/M are fully satisfied. This finding is not altered by yecent changes in the I/M program submitted onJuly 29, 1979 by the Governor. These revisions delay implementation ofthe I/M program, add additional requirements or improve the enforceability of the regulations. EPA Is proposing to approve these revisions. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe CO and ozone plan for Las Vegas Valley. Sections 110(a)(3)(D) and 110(c)(5)B) require that the Las Vegas Valley NAP contain commitments by agencies with legal authority to establish, expand, or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs. These basic transportation needs must be met as expeditiously as.practicable using Federal grants and State and local funds
to implement public transportation
programs. All such commitments with respect to public transportation needs

are not included in the plan, EPA proposes to approve this portion ofthe Las Vegas Valley CO and ozone plan with the condition that the State submit these commitments by January 1,1981.

Section 172(b)(11)(C) requires that the plan identify other measures (included but not limited to those listed in Section 108(f) ofthe Act) thatmay benecessary toprovide for attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards no later than December 31, 1987. The Plan does contain a preliminary analysis ofsome transportation control measures; however, the plan does not provide detailed schedules for analysis ofthose

measures reserved for further study nor does the plan contain commitments to implement those measures shown to be reasonably available. EPA proposes to approve this portion of the Las Vegas Valley NAP for CO and ozone with the condition that the State submit by January 1,1981: (1)commitments and schedules to analyze further the Section 59338

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59338 1980Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rules

108[f] transportation control measures not yet included in the plan, as applied
to the total transportation system of the nonattainment area; (2) a commitment to initiate implementation ofthose

measures shown to be reasonably available.

To assure that therequirements of Section 176c and176d are met EPA policyrequires that the plan contain procedures for the determination of conformity with the SIP ofanyproject,
program, orplan overwhich the metropolitan planning organization has approval authority, and that the plan contain procedures to ensure that priority is givento the implementation of those portions ofanyplan orprogram with air quality related transportation
consequences that contribute to the attainment and maintenance ofthe primary NAAQS. Specifically, these procedures should address the granting ofpriorityto projects in the Transportation Improvement Program which contribute to the attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. EPA policy requires that these procedures be submitted in the 1980 Annual Report.

14.ExtensionRequirements for VOC RACT

As discussed in the ozone section of Criterion 6, the RACT requirements are satisfied for theLas Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows. Therefore. EPA
proposes to approve thisportion ofthe plans.

Public Comments

Under section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act

as amended, and40 CFR Part 51, the Administrator is required to approve or disapprove revisions to the SIP submitted bythe State.The Regional Administrator hereby issues thisnotice setting forth the SIPrevisions described above asproposed rulemaking and advises the public that interested
persons may participate by submitting written comments to the Region IX Office.

The EPA Region IX Office specifically invites public comment on whether to conditionally approve the items identified in this notice as deficiencies. EPA is further interested in receiving
comment on the specified deadlines for the State to submit the corrections, in the event ofconditional approval.

Comments received within 30 days after publication-of this notice will be considered. Comments received will be available forpublic inspection at the EPA Region IX Office and at the locations listed in the ADDRESSES section ofthisnotice.

The Administrator's decision to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed revisions will be based on the comments received and

on a determination whether the revisions meet the requirerpents of section 110(a)[2) and PartD ofthe Clean AirAct, and 40 CFR Part 51, Requirements for Preparation. Adoption, and Submittal ofState Implementation Plans.

EPA believes the available periodfor
comments is adequate because:

(1) The NAPs and the I/Mprogram have been available forpublic inspection and comment since they were the subject ofNotices ofProposed Rulemaking onApril 10, April 27, and May 7,1979;

(2) The issues involved inthe revisions submitted onJuly 24 and September 18,1979, and March 17,1980

arelimited in scope and are sufficiently clear to allow comments tobe developed in the available 30-day period; and

(3)EPA has a responsibility under the Act to take final action as soon as possible afterJuly 1, 1979 on that portion of the SIP that addresses the requirements ofPart D.

EPAhas determined that this action is "specialized" and therefore, not subject
to the procedural requirements of Executive Order 12044. (Secs. 110,129,171 to 178 and 301(a) of the CleanAir Act as amended (42U.S.C. if 7410, 7429,7501 to 7508, and7601(a))]

Dated: June 20.1980. Paul Do Falco, Jr., RegionolAdminisirolor.

BILING CODE 648O11-M

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-1600-21
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:. U.S. EPA proposes to approve two revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan forsulfur dioxide

as it applies to the Interlake Incorporated Toledo Plant and The Koppers Company Incorporated Toledo Coke Plant which are located inLucas County, Ohio. The proposed approval is based upon an overall emission reduction of43.5 lbs/hr ofsulfur dioxide from Koppers. The purpose ofthis notice is to invite public comment on U.S. EPA's priposed revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before October 9,1980. Requests for a publichearing onthis revision must be received no later than September 24, 190.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for

a hearing shouldbe submitted toGary Gulezian, Chief,Regulatory Analysis Section, Air Programs Branch. U.S. EPA, Region V.230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago. Illinois 60604.

The docket (#5A-80-1] forthis revision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours at the above address and at the Central Docket Section,West TowerLobby, Gallery 1, U.S. EPA.401 K. Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20460.

FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Marcantonio, Air Programs Branch. U.S. EPA, Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago. Illinois 60604, (312) 88&-39.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOM OnMay 31,1977 (42 FR 27588,40 CFR Section 52.1881) U.S. EPA promulgated final regulations establishing a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the control ofsulfur dioxide (SO2 ) forthe majority ofsources in Lucas County, Ohio.This proposed rule would amend that SIP as it applies to the Interlake Incorporated (interlake) Toledo Plant andThe Koppers Company Incorporated (Koppers)Toledo Coke Plant inLucas County, Ohio.

Interlake has requested a site specific SIP revision for its Toledo Plant. Interlake owns three boilers atthis facility eachrated at 228.3 millionBTUs
perhour for a total of684.9 millionBTTfs
perhour. The present allowable SO, emission rate is 0.10 pounds ofSOz per million BTU actual heat input forfossil fuel-fired steam-generating units, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 52.1881(b)(39](xi](A). Therefore, when operating at maximum capacity, the threeboilers are allowed to emit 68.5 pounds ofSOx perhour.Atthe time the SIP waspromulgated by U.S.EPA. Interlake owned and operated a coke battery, ablast furnace, a pigiron casting facility, a steam generator and

an electric power generator. Interlake has since sold the cokebattery to Koppers and terminated operations at all otherfacilities except for the electric
power generator facility which consists of the three boilers.

Interlake has stated thatit will reduce the SO emissions from these three units by operating at a lower load (i.e., 300 million BTU/hr maximum heat input combined). This would reduce the SOz emissions to 30.0 pounds/hour.Interlake has requested that 38.5 pounds per hour allowable be transferred toKoppers for its use. Thus,30.0 pounds allowable per hourwouldbe retained byInterlake for 59339

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59339 1980