+(,121/,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 adopt a specifioTDS

quench water or make-up water

requirement and a method for

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 a reasonably

available control technology standard.

USEPA will approve the proposed

emission limitation if the 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 if during 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 of Rule

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 of 5-10 pounds/hour

during times of continuous scarfing; or,

3. A concentration per continuous

hour, of 0.005-0.010 gr/dscf. ,

- An acceptable Part D 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- such rules

will be adopted.

Part "10 Testing

The Michigan rules do not specify

when the testing periods for iron and

steel indusGy facilities begin and

terminate. Test methods should be

clarified so that the testing of the

fugitive emissions from blast furnaces

should occur during the cast. The

starting and ending period should be

specified for basic oxygen furnaces (for

both primary and secondary emissions

generating operations), electric arc

furnaces and for each of the three

emission processes at sinter plants.

USEPA proposes to approve these rules

if during the comment period the State

makes these clarifications or in the

alternative conditionally approve them

if the State commits during the comment

period to a schedule by which these

clarifications will be made.

Under Executive Order 12044 (43 FR

12661), USEPA is required to judge

whether a regulation is "significant",

and therefore, subject to certain

procedural requirements of the Order or

whether it may 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 the procedural

requirements of Executive 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.

[FR Doc. 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 of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY. On April 10 and 27, 1979 (44,

FR 21307 and 24880) the Environmental

lProtection Agency (EPA) published

Notices of Proposed 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 have been

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 of Health's Air Pollution

Control Regulations, and other

documentation which supports the

control strategies in the NAPs. The

intended effect of these revisions is to

correct certain deficiencies in the

previously submitted NAPs, which had

been identified in the April 10 and 27,

1979 notices.

The EPA invites 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 of Part

D of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be 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 of the 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 for public inspection during

normal business hours at the EPA

Region IX Office at the above address

and at the following 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 (EPA Library), 401 "M"

Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

In addition, copies of the applicable

NAPs are available at the following

locations:

Lyon County Commission, Drawer G,

I Yerington, NV 89447.

City of Yerington, Box 479, Yerington,

NV 89447.

Lander County Commission,

Courthouse, Austin, NV 89502.

City of Fallen, 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 of the Clean Air Act, as amended

in 1977, "Plan Requirements for

Nonattainment Areas."

EPA's review indicates that the

revisions for the Mason Valley/Fernley

Area, Lander County, Carson Desert,

59334

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59334 1980
Federal 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 of the 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 of the Truckee Meadows (TM)

and Las Vegas Valley (LVV) NAPs

contain minor deficiencies with respect

to Part D: legally adopted measures for

carbon monoxide (TM and LVV),

extension requirements for carbon

monoxide (LVV), attainment provision,

extension requirements, and legally

adopted measures, for ozone (LVV), and

legally adopted measures for particulate

matter (LVV). These portions of the

NAPs are proposed to be approved and

incorporated into the SIP with the

condition that the deficiencies be

corrected by a specified deadline.

Therefore, EPA is 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 of the Clean Air

AcL

Upon final rulemaking action,

conditional approval would be sufficient

to lift the current prohibition on

construction of certain new or modified

sources in these nonattainment areas.

This prohibition is required by the Clean

Air Act and is discussed in detail in the

July 2, 1979 Federal Register (44 FR

38471).

Background

New provisions of the Clean Air Act,

amended in August 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 (44 FR 20372), EPA

published a General 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 (44 FR 38583, 50371,

53761 and 67182). The General Preamble

supplements this notice by identifying

the major considerations that will guide

EPA's evaluation of the revisions

submitted.

The following table shows the areas,

plans, and nonattainment designation

for those portions of the State of Nevada

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

Carson Dee.. Carson Deee.. . .... _•_X

Wnrewuoca serient Wrwxca $07Wen X

On December 29,1978, the Governor

of Nevada submitted NAPs for the

Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander

County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca

Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las

Vegas Valley to EPA as revisions to the

SIP. In addition, the Governor submitted

statutes and regulations which together

provide an inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program for portions of Nevada.

EPA evaluated the submitted plans and

the I/M program with respect to the

Clean Air Act requirements and

published notices of proposed

rulemaking in the Federal Register on

April 10, April 27, and May 7,1979.

Those notices provide descriptions of

the December 29,1978 SIP revisions,

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 of Proposed 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 of understanding

between Clark County, the Health

District, and the Transportation Policy

Committee; and (7) Senate Bill 543 and

Assembly Bill 281 which amend Nevada

Revised Statutes 445.632, 445.634,

445,635, and 445.644. In order to expedite

EPA's review of the NAPs, this notice

addresses only the portions of the State

and County regulations mentioned

above which appear to relate to

applicable Part D requirements, and thus

support the NAPs, such as violatile

organic compound and new source

review rules. The regulations revisions

and the appropriate submittal dates are

listed below.

Nevada Air Quality Regulations

July 24, 1979

Article 1-Definitions (Nos. 1 and 2)

Article 3-Registration Certificates and

Operating Permits

Article 13.1.3--Point Sources and Registration

Certificates

March 171960

Article 13.1.3-Point Sources and Registration

Certificates

Nevada Revised Statutes

July 24 1979

445.632

445.634

445.635

445.644

Clark County Health District Air Pollution

Control Regulations

July24, 1979

Section 1-Definitions

Section 15--Source Registration

Section 50-Storage of Petroleum Products

Section 51-Petroleum Product Loading into

Tank Trucks and Trailers

Section 5Z-Handling of Gasoline 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 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 176 / -Tuesday, September 9, 1980 / Proposed Rules

Washue County District Board of Health Air

Pollution Control Regulations

luly 24, 1979,

Sections 010.011 to 010.1751, Definitions

Sections 030.000 to 030.3108, Source

Registration and Operation Section 040.070, Storage of Petroleum

Produdts -

Section 040.075, Gasolinp Loading into Tank . 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 for Nonattainment

Area Plans. The citations which follow

referring to portions of the Clean Air

Act provide the bases for these

requirements.

1. An accurate inventory of existing.

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 of the standards (172(a)).

5. Provisions for reasonable further

progress as defined in section 171 of the

Act (172(b)(3)).

6. Adoption in legally enforceable

form of all measures necessary to

provide for attainment or, in certain

circumstances where adoption by 1979

is not possible, a schedule for

development, adoption, submittal and

implementation of these 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 for major 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 of public, 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 that provide for attainment

of the primary standard later than 1982:

a. A permit program for major new or

modified sources requiring an.

evaluation of alternative sites and

consideration of environmental and

social costs (172tb)(11)(A)).

b. A provision for implementation of

all reasonably available control

measures for mobile and transportation

sources (172(a)(2)).

c. A commitment to establish,

expand, or improve public

transportation to meet basic

transportation needs (110)(a)(3)(D) and

(110)(c)(5)(B). , d. In addition to the above, for major

urbanized areas, a specific schedule and

legal authority for implementation of a

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

of legally enforceable regulations to

reflect the-application of reasonably

available control technology (RACT) to

those volatile organic compound (VOC)

stationary sources for which EPA has

published a Control Techniques

Guideline by January 1978, and a

commitment to adopt RACT regulations

for additional sources to be covered by future guidelines (172(a)(2]). For rural

areas, and urban areas that demonstrate

attainment by 1982, only large sources

(more than 100 tons/year emissions)

must be so regulated.

Disctissfon

The paragraph numbers below

correspond to the Part D plan

requirements described in the preceding

section, Criteria for Approval. In this

section, the word "plan(s)" means the

overall NAP or portions of the NAP,

specific to certain ar~a(s) and

pollutant(s). EPA policy for approval of ozone

nonattainment area plans submitted as

1979 SIP revisions differentiates

between rural and urban nonattainment

areas. EPA's policy, including the

definition of rural areas, is discussed in

the General Preamble. Based on the

definition of rural areas andthe policy,

Truckee Meadows is considered a rural

area. As referenced in the General

Preamble;EPA's minimum requirements

for an approvable 1979 rural ozone plan

do not provide that all of the Criteria for

Approval listed above be fully met. This

distinction does not affect the analysis

of the 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 of the plans that are

approvable or conditionally approvable.

Where a plan deficiency-is identified,

recommendations for revision of the

plan are specified. Based on this

analysis EPA proposes to approve

conditionally each of the plans overall

with respect to Part D.

1. Emission Inventory

EPA's review of the emission

inventories for particulate 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 of the plans.

2. Modeling

Carbon Monoxide and Particulate

Matter. EPA's review of the analyses of

the necessary level of control to attain

the standards indicates that, for

purposes of the 1979 SIP revision, 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 for the Las Vegas

Valley has been validated in response to

EPA's, comments in the April 27, 1970

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Thereforej EPA proposes to approve the

TSP and CO modeling portions of the

plans.

Ozone. As referenced in the General

Preamble, EPA policy does not require a

specific demonstration of attainment for

rural ozone nonattainment areas.

Therefore, no ozone modeling is

required for the Truckee Meadows

ozone NAP. An accurate identification

of the necessary level of control 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

the plans.

3. Emission Reduction Estimates

EPA proposes to approve the emission

reduction estimates in each of the plans.

4. Attainment Provision

Particulate Matter. EPA proposes to

approve in each plan the attainment

provision for the total suspended

particulate (TSP) primary standards.

EPA also proposes to grant the State's

request for an extension to July 1, 1980,

for submittal of plans showing attainment of the secondary standards

for TSP, as discussed in the April 10,

and 27,1979 notices.

Carbon Monoxide. For Las Vegas

Valley, the State requested an extension

of the attainment date beyond 1902, and

committed to submitting a revised NAP

by July 1982 that provides for

expeditious attainment. Based on the

information submitted, EPA proposes to

grant this entension pursuant to the

provisions of Section 172(a)(2) and EPA

proposes to approve the submitted

59336

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

demonstration of attpinment as

satisfactory for the 1979 SIP revision.

For Truckee Meadows, the plan

demonstrates attainment by 1982 and

EPA proposes to approve this portion of

the Truckee Meadows CO plan.

Ozone. Both the Las Vegas Valley

NAP and the Truckee Meadows NAP

request an extension beyond 1982 to

attain the photochemical oxidant

standard of 0,08 ppm, which has since

been revised by promulgation of the

present standard for ozone of 0.12 ppm

(see 44 FR 8202, February 8,1979). The

control strategy demonstration

submitted by the State is inadequate

since attainment cif previous standard of

0.08 ppm is not shown by 1987. Unless

the Las Vegas Valley is reclassified to

attainment or unclassified (as requested

by the 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 may choose to continue to attempt

to show attainment with the previous

0.08 ppm standard. Also, the granting of

an attainment date extension to 1982

must be justified using the 0.12 ppm

ozone standards as the benchmark,

regardless of the final ozone level

desirecL Therefore, this portion of the

Las Vegas Valley ozone NAP is

proposed to be approved with the

following conditions: (1) that the State

submit by January 1, 1981 a

demonstration showing attainment of

either the 0.12 ppm standard or the 0.08

ppm standard; (2) if an attainment date

extension is still desired, either

demonstration must show that

attainment of the 0.12 ppm standard by

December 31,1982 is impossible despite

implementation of all reasonably

available measures. These conditions do

not apply to the Truckee Meadows NAP

since, as explained above, ozone NAPs

for rural areas need not include a

specific demonstration of attainment

Therefore. EPA proposes to approve this

portion of the Truckee Meadows ozone

plan.

5. Reasonable Further Progress

As referenced in the General

Preamble, rurual ozone nonattainment

area plans need not contain a specific

demonstration of reasonable 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 other plans appears to be consistent

with the requirements of Section

172(b)(3), and the definition of

reasonable further progress in Section

171(1). This showing mast be supported

by the implementation of a process for

monitoring and verification of

transportation related emission

reductions. EPA proposes to apporve

this portion of all the plans.

6. Legally-Adopted Measures

Partculate Matter. EPA's Notices of

Proposed Rulemaking of April 10 and 27,

1979, indicated that all participate

matter NAPs except for the Truckee

Meadows NAP, lack sufficient evidence

of commitments to scedules for study.

adoption, or implementation of control

measures. The State's July 24,1979 SIP

revision included the necessary

commitments to fugitive dust control

measures, and schedules for Mason

Valley/Fernley Area, Carson DeserL

Winnemucca Segment, and Lander

County.

A letter dated June 22,1979, from the

Clark County Manager to EPA, Region

IX, indicated that the adopted measures

and schedules identified in the Las

Vegas Valley NAP had been

supplemented by the following

measures:

(a) A Clark County ordinance

requiring paving of certain roads to

subdivisions;

(b) A demonstration project involving

road stabilization by the Regional Street

and Highway Commission;

(c) A demonstration project involving

short-term stabilization of a cleared

area in downtown Las Vegas; and

(d) A demonstration project for

reducing fugitive dust emissions from

construction activities.

In addition, the July 24,1979 SIP

revision included more stringent fugitive

dust regulations (amendments to

Sections 9 and 41 of the Clark County

Air Pollution Control Regulations).

These added measures for evaluation

and control of nontraditional 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 of the 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 the June 22,

1979 letter from the Clark County

Manager. Carbon Monoxide. Neither the Las

Vegas Valley CO plan nor the Truckee

Meadows CO plan satisfy the

requirements of Section 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 to implement and

(where appropriate) enforce the

necessary transportation control

measures, nor have they adequately

identified the specific measures to be

implemented and established

implementation schedules with

milestone dates for planning.

programming, implementing, operating.

enforcing, and monitoring each

transportation control measure

consistent with a demonstration of

reasonable further progress. This

portion of the Las Vegas Valley and

Truckee Meadows CO plans is proposed

to be approved with the condition that

the State submit by January 1.1981, such

commitments for adopted measures and

schedules for the analysis of the other

measures listed in Section 106(1) of the

Act.

Ozona EPA policy requires that

minimum levels of control technology be

provided in the nonattainment area

plans. The NAPs must include adopted,

legally-enforceable regulations reflecting

the application of reasonably available

control technology [RACT) to volatile

organic compound sources covered in

control techniques guidelines (CTGs]

issued by January 1978. In addition, the

plans must contain commitments to

adopt RACT regulations for sources in

categories to be addressed by future

CTGs. For rural ozone nonattainment

areas such as Truckee Meadows, the

RACT requirements apply only to major

sources (i.e.. those with more than 100

tons/year of potential emission).

The Las Vegas Valley:NAP indicates

that, of the eleven source categories for

which adopted RACT regulations are

required, only seven categories exist

within the nonattainment area. These

categories are service stations (Stage L

gasoline vapor recovery], gasoline bulk

plants, gasoline bulk terminals, fixedroof tanks, solvent metal cleaning

(degreasing), cutback asphalt, and

surface coating at large appliance

manufacturers. On July 24 and

September 18,1979, the State submitted

as official SIP revisions Clark County

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 for RAC. These modified

regulations and administrative

provisions correct defects in earlier

versions reviewed by EPA in the April

27 proposed rulemaking. The regulations

are now fully approvable and satisfy the

Part D requirement for RAC. The Las

Vegas NAP also contaifis the required

commitments to adopt RACT

regulations for future CTG categories.

While the Las Vegas Valley ozone

plan satisfies stationary source RACT

requirements, EPA proposes the same

conditions for approval of this portion of

the ozone plan as are indicated above

II I I III I li I

59337

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59337 1980
Federal,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 of the other Section 108(fo

measures.

The Truckee Meadows NAP now

includes adopted regulations for all six

categories-of RACT 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 D requirements for

RACT, based on information in the

CTGs.

The Truckee Meadows NAP also

contains the required commitement to

adopt RACT regulations for future CTG

categories. Therefore, EPA proposes to

approve this portion of the Truckee

Meadows ozone NAP.

7. Emissions Growth

Each NAP indicates that there will be

,no emissions growth from major new

stationary sources, since new or

modified sources will be 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 of reasonable

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 of the plans.

9. Permit Program

The Nevada State New Source

Review (NSR) regulations apply to all

major ne,; or modified 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 of the

Clark County Health District Air

Polution Control Regulations and the

ashoe County District Board of Health

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 of Section 173 through the

provision from emissions offsets, lowest

achievable emissions rate, and the

certification of compliance of all major

sources within the 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 of the 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 for plan

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 of summaries of

public comments received on plan

impact analyses, all NAPs now meet the

requirements of Section 172(b)(9). EPA

proposes to approve this portion of the

plans.

12. Public Hearings

EPA proposes to approve this portion

of the plan, since all plans and

regulations were adopted by the State

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.

13. Extension Requirements

As referenced in the General

Preamble (44 FR 20372), the 1979 ozone

NAPs for rural nonattainment areas

need not contain a specific , demonstration of attainment. Therefore,

the extension requirements of criterion

13 do not apply to Truckee Meadows.

Since the State has requested an

extension of the attainment date beyond

December, 1982, for ozone and CO for

Las Vegas Valley, the Las Vegas Valley

NAP must meet 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

source review permit program, a

procedure and requirement for an

analysis of alternative sites, sizes,

processes, and controls, which

demonstrates that the benefits of a

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 for review

and permitting of fossil 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 a Notice of Proposed

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 on July 29, 1979 by the

Governor. These revisions delay

implementation of the 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 of the 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 of the

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) of the Act) that may be necessary

to provide for attainment of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards no later

than December 31, 1987. The Plan does

contain a preliminary analysis of some

transportation control measures;

however, the plan does not provide

detailed schedules for analysis of those

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 1980
Federal 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 of those

measures shown to be reasonably

available.

To assure that the requirements of

Section 176c and 176d are met EPA

policy requires that the plan contain

procedures for the determination of

conformity with the SIP of any project,

program, or plan over which the

metropolitan planning organization has

approval authority, and that the plan

contain procedures to ensure that

priority is given to the implementation of

those portions of any plan or program

with air quality related transportation

consequences that contribute to the

attainment and maintenance of the

primary NAAQS. Specifically, these

procedures should address the granting

of priority to projects in the

Transportation Improvement Program

which contribute to the attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA policy

requires that these procedures be

submitted in the 1980 Annual Report.

14. Extension Requirements for VOC

RACT

As discussed in the ozone section of

Criterion 6, the RACT requirements are

satisfied for the Las Vegas Valley and

Truckee Meadows. Therefore. EPA

proposes to approve this portion of the

plans.

Public Comments

Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act

as amended, and 40 CFR Part 51, the

Administrator is required to approve or

disapprove revisions to the SIP

submitted by the State. The Regional

Administrator hereby issues this notice

setting forth the SIP revisions described

above as proposed 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 of conditional approval.

Comments received within 30 days

after publication-of this notice will be

considered. Comments received will be

available for public inspection at the

EPA Region IX Office and at the

locations listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this notice.

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 Part D of the Clean

Air Act, and 40 CFR Part 51,

Requirements for Preparation. Adoption,

and Submittal of State Implementation

Plans.

EPA believes the available period for

comments is adequate because:

(1) The NAPs and the I/M program

have been available for public

inspection and comment since they were

the subject of Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking on April 10, April 27, and

May 7,1979;

(2) The issues involved in 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; and

(3) EPA has a responsibility under the

Act to take final action as soon as

possible after July 1, 1979 on that portion

of the SIP that addresses the

requirements of Part D.

EPA has 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

Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. if 7410,

7429,7501 to 7508, and 7601(a))]

Dated: June 20.1980.

Paul Do Falco, Jr.,

RegionolA dminisirolor.

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 for sulfur dioxide

as it applies to the Interlake

Incorporated Toledo Plant and The

Koppers Company Incorporated Toledo

Coke Plant which are located in Lucas

County, Ohio. The proposed approval is

based upon an overall emission

reduction of 43.5 lbs/hr of sulfur dioxide

from Koppers. The purpose of this 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

public hearing on this revision must be

received no later than September 24,

190.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for

a hearing should be 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] for this

revision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours at

the above address and at the Central

Docket Section, West Tower Lobby,

Gallery 1, U.S. EPA. 401 K. Street, S.W.,

Washington D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Marcantonio, Air Programs

Branch. U.S. EPA, Region V, 230 South

Dearborn Street, Chicago. Illinois 60604,

(312) 88&-39.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOM On May

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 of sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the

majority of sources in Lucas County,

Ohio. This proposed rule would amend

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 has requested a site specific

SIP revision for its Toledo Plant.

Interlake owns three boilers at this

facility each rated at 228.3 million BTUs

per hour for a total of 684.9 million BTTfs

per hour. The present allowable SO,

emission rate is 0.10 pounds of SOz per

million BTU actual heat input for fossil

fuel-fired steam-generating units,

pursuant to 40 CFR Section

52.1881(b)(39](xi](A). Therefore, when

operating at maximum capacity, the

three boilers are allowed to emit 68.5

pounds of SOx per hour. At the time the

SIP was promulgated by U.S. EPA.

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 generator facility which consists

of the three boilers.

Interlake has stated that it 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 to Koppers for

its use. Thus, 30.0 pounds allowable per

hour would be retained by Interlake for

59339

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 59339 1980