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

new item (viii) a new subitem 3., to read * * * 

### asfollows: (e)* * *

(1) * * *

Bacitracin methylene Combinations i dco rsm n disadlicylate in grams grmbnampton in Sra

per ton. grams perton sors

(v) 50

............................ , Broiler chickens; as an aid in the preven- . .................. 046573 ion of necrotic enteritis caused or complicated by Clostidium spp. or other organisrns susceptible to bacitracin.

(viii) 100 to 200

. ... ... .. . 3.Broiler chichens; as an aid in the control

..................... 046573 of necrotic enteritis caused or complicated by Clostidiumspp. orotherorganisms susceptible to bacitracin.

Effective date.April 14, 1981. (Sec. 512(i), 82 Stat. 347 (21U.S.C. 360b(i)))
Dated: April 2, 1981. Robert A. Baldwin, AssociateDirector forScientific Evaluation.
IFR Doc. 81-10531 Filed 4-13-81; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4110-03-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[A-9-FRL 1788-11
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; San Diego Air Basin Nonattainment Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice offinal rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 1979 (44 FR 57109), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)published a notice of proposed rule-making for the San Diego Air Basin nonattainment area plan (NAP)for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (Os), total suspended particulate matter (TSP), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). Today's notice addresses all ofthe San Diego NAP except the inspection/ maintenance portion, which willbe addressed in a future Federal Register notice.

Through revisions submitted to supplement the NAP,the Statehas corrected the TSP and NO2 major deficiencies described in the October 4 notice.

Therefore, today's final action results in an overall conditional approval for TSP and NO2.These actions remove the prohibition on construction ofmajor

new or modified TSP and NO2 sources. However, the construction prohibition continues to apply to major new and modified ozone and carbon monoxide

sources.

This notice provides a brief summary oftheproposed rulemaking notice, 

### describes therecent revisions which supplement the NAP, discusses public comments, and describes EPA's final actions on theNAP. DATES:This action is effective April 14, 1981.

ADDRESS: 

### A copy oftoday'srevisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)is located at: The Office ofthe Federal Register, 1100 LStreetNW., Room 8401, Washington, D.C.20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### Louise P.Glersch, Director,Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 215Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn.: Douglas Grano, (415)556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### Background

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, requires,statesto revise their SIPs for all areas that have notattained the National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS). On July 5,1979, theExecutive Officer oftheCalifornia AirResources Board (ARB), the Governor's official designee, submitted theSanDiegoAir Basin Control Strategyas a revision to 

### theCalifornia SIP.In addition,prior to July 5,1979, several amendments to the SanDiego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules andRegulations

were submitted. These revisions, which comprise the San Diego AirBasin NAP,

are intended to provide forthe attainment of the CO, 

### 0 TSP, and NO2 

### NAAQS inSan Diego County. §558.76 Bacltracin methylene disalcylate. On October 4, 1979 (44 FR 57109), EPA published a notice ofproposed rulemaking on the San Diego AirBasin NAP. That notice provided a description of the NAP, summarized the applicable Clean Air Act requirements into 14 criteria, compared to NAP to those criteria, and, as described below, proposed to approve, conditionally approve, ordisapprove portions of the NAP. The October 4, 1979 notice should beused as a reference in reviewing today's actions.

EPA proposed to disapprove the following poPtions ofthe NAP: legally adopted measures/schedules; permit
program; extension requirements; and extension requirements for VOC RACT. EPAproposed to disapprove these portions because the lack ofan I/M program, an NSR rule, and rules reflecting RACT for certain VOC

sources constituted major deficiencies with respect toPart D of the Clean Air Act, "Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas." As discussed in the October 4, 1979 notice, the NAP as a whole cannot be approved or conditionally approved with respect to Part D with these major deficiencies. Thus,that notice proposed to disapprove the overall San Diego Air Basin NAP and continue the construction prohibition.

EPA alsoproposed to approve and incorporate into the SIPthe following portions ofthe NAP,regardless ofthe ultimate approvability ofthe overall NAP: emission inventory for hydrocarbons (HC), CO and NO2; modeling forCO; reasonable further progress (RFP); emission growth; and public hearing. These portions ofthe NAP were found to be consistent with PartD.

Finally, EPA proposed that the following portions ofthe NAP could be conditionally approved ifmajor deficiencies in the NAP were corrected: emission inventory for particulates; attainment provision; modeling forOs, TSP, and NO2;legally adopted measures/schedules; emission reduction estimates; annualreporting; permit program; resources; public and governmental involvement; extension requirements; and extension requirements for VOC RACT.These portions were found to contain minor deficiencies with respect to Part D. EPA also proposed conditions ofapproval for these portions.

After thepublication ofthe October 4, 1979 notice,EPA received the necessary NSR rules as SIP revisions from the State and numerous public comments, which are discussed in today's notice. In addition, the Statehas submitted VOC 

### 21749

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21749 1981

### 21750 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 

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

rules as SIPrevisions-which appears to correct the VOC major deficiency. Those VOC rules are addressed in the February 4, 1981 proposed rulemaking notice. However, the California State Legislature to this date has failed to correct the I/M major deficiency. Supplemental Revisions

Subsequent to the publication ofthe October 4, 1979 notice, the State submitted revisions which supplement portions ofthe NAP. These revisions are discussed below.

New SourceReview (NSR)

The October 4, 1979 notice cited the lack ofan adopted, legally enforceable NSR rule as a major deficiency which must be corrected before EPA could approve or conditionally approve the CO, 03, TSP, orNO2 plants.I However, the State submitted a draft NSR rule and requested EPA to review thisrule. EPA reviewed the draft NSR rule and concluded that it contained onlyminor deficiencies with respect to Part D requirements. EPA proposed that the permit program portion ofthe NAP could be conditionally approved ifthe State submitted an adopted NSR rule similar and equivalent to the draft rule.

OnFebruary 13, 1980, the State submitted the following adopted NSR rules for the San Diego CountyAPCD: Rule 20.1 Definitions, Emission

Calculations, Emission Offsets and Banking, Exemptions, and Other Requirements Rule 20.2 Standards for Authority to

Construct-Best Available Air Pollution Control Technology Rule 20.3 Standards forAuthority to

Construct-Air QualityAnalysis Rule 20.4 Standards forAuthority to

Construct-Major Stationary Sources Rule 20.5 Power Plants Rule 20.6 Standards forPermit to Operate-

AirQuality Analysis Rule 20.7 Standards for Authority to

Construct-Significant Deterioration Section 173 ofthe Clean Air Act contains the requirements for approval of a permit program. EPAestablished guidance based on Section 173 in: (1) EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (January 16, 1979Federal Register, 44 FR 3274) and (2) EPA's proposed amendments to regulations for NSR and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (September 5, 1979 Federal Register, 44 FR 51924).

San Diego's NSR ruleswere reviewed against the requirements stated in Section 173 ofthe Act and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling ofJanuary

I Inthis notice,the word "plants)" means the overallNAPor portionsoftheNAP specific to certainpollutant(s). 16, 1979. They were also compared with the State's draft NSR rule.EPA has determined that the submitted rules are similar to the draft rule in that the definitions and requirements are substantially the same, and are equivalent to the draft rule in that they

are at least as effective in meeting the requirements ofSection 173. In addition, the submitted rules willbe in effect for only a short time since the State is required to meet new EPArequirements for NSR by May 7, 1981, as is discussed below.

EPA has also determined, however, that the submitted rulescontain some minordeficiencies with respect to Section 173, including exemptions for certain sources inconsistent with EPA's requirements, and a definition of "stationary source" less stringent than is required. These and other minor deficiencies are described in EPA's EvaluationReportAddendum,which is contained in document file NAP-CA-19 and is available at the EPARegion IX Office, the ARB, the San Diego County APCD, the Comprehensive Planning Organization, and theEPA Library in Washington D.C.

It should be noted that EPA has published two finalrulemaking notices

on the September 5, 1979 proposed amendments to EPA's NSR regulations and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling. These notices, published on May 13, 1980 (45 FR31307) and August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676), amend EPA's Interpretative Ruling and set out new EPArequirements for NSR under Section 173. The State is required to comply with the August 7, 1980 requirements byMay 7, 1981. Inrevising the San Diego County APCD's NSR rules, the State/APCD must address (1) any new requirements in EPA's amended regulations forNSR (May 13, 1980, 45 FR 31307; and August 7, 1980,45 FR 52676) which the APCD rules do not currently satisfy and (2) the deficiencies cited in EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum which still apply despite EPA's new NSR requirements. Stationary Source VOCRACT Regulations

The October 4, 1979notice cited the lack ofadopted, legally enforceable rulesreflecting RACT for seven VOC

source categories forwhich EPA had published a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document as a major deficiency which must be corrected before EPA could approve or conditionally approve the 0, plan. On October 15 and 25, 1979, the State submitted the following San Diego County APCD rules for these 7 VOC

source categories: October15,1979
Rule 67.6 Solvent Cleaning Operations Rule 07.7 Cutback andEmulsified Asphalts
October 25,1979 Rule 67.3 CoatingofMetal Parts Products Rule 67.4 Can and CoilCoating Operations Rule 67.5 Paper and FabricCoating

Operations

EPAwill propose action and invite public comment on the submitted rules listed above in a separate Federal Register notice.

The October 4,1979 notice also proposed to approve or conditionally approve five rules (Rules 61.0, 61.1, 61.2, 61.3 and 61.7) for VOC sources addressed bythe other four Group I CTG source categories applicable in the San Diego AirBasin. However, the State submitted the following San Diego County APCD rules on July 25 and December 15, 1980, which revise and supersede all ofthe originally proposed rules except Rule 61.7:
Rule 61.0 Definitions Rule 61.1 Receiving andStoring Volatile

Organic Compounds at Bulk Plants and Bulk Terminals Rule 61.1 Transferof Volatile Organic

Compounds intoMobile Transport Tanks Rule 61.3 Transfer.ofVolatile Organic

Compounds intoStationary Storage Containers Rule 61.4 Transfer ofVolatile Organic

Compounds into Vehicle Fuel Tanks Again,EPA will propose action and invite public comment on these rules in

a separate Federal Register notice.

EPA Is taking final action in today's notice (see the EPA ACTIONS section)

on rules which were submitted prior to and discussed in the October 4, 1979 notice and which have notbeen superseded, namely Rules 2(t), 61.5, and 61.7. California EnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA)

The October 4, 1979 notice proposed

as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofthose portions of CEQA that relate to

an a'nalysis ofalternatives which demonstrate that benefits outweigh' environmental costs when granting an NSR permit to a major emitting facility. Such an analysis is required by Section 172(b)(11)(A) ofthe CleanAir Act,'the lack ofwhich constitutes a minor deficiency.

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

. Sections 2100; 21001; 21002; 21002.1; 21061; 21063; 21065; 21080.1; 21080.4(a); 21080.5 (a), (b), (c) and (d); 21081; 21082; 21100; 21104; 21151;21153; and 21160.

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21750 1981F.dral Re~ister / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 215

These portions ofCEQA require all "State agencies, boards, and commissions" to certify the-completion of an environmental impact report (EIR).

on any project "which may have a significant effect on the environment." The EIR shall include "a detailed statement" setting forth, among other things, "alternatives to the proposed action." In order to approve a project under CEQA, the agency must find either (1) that changes have been required in the project "which mitigate

orvoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report"

or (2)that "[S]pecific economic, social,

or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures orproject alternatives identified in the environmental impact report."

EPA has determined that the submittal ofthese portions ofCEQA
corrects the cited minor deficiency. Further, EPA incorporated these portions ofCEQA into the California SIP in the recently published notice offinal rulemaking for the South Coast Air Basin NAP.

Public Comments

CommentsSpecific to theSan DiegoAir Basin NAP

D'uring the public comment period, EPA received several comments. The following discussion, structured upon the 14 criteria for approval identified in the October 4, 1979 notice, describes the relevant commentsand EPA's responses. Comments concerning inspection/maintenance will be addressed in a future notice.
(1)EmissionInventory

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofa refined emission inventory for particulates, identifying and quantifying subcategories ofthe fugitive dust category. The San Diego County APCD commented that these fugitive dust subcategories are adequately identified and quantified in the NAP technical support documents and that an extension ofthe submittal deadline isneeded for ARB to formally submit this data to EPA. Also, the San Diego County APCD and the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO)commented that the emission inventory would berevised to reflect: only the nonattainment'area portion of the County.

Response:EPA will revise the deadline for State submittal ofthe refined particulate emission inventory to December 31, 1981;. (2)AttainmentProvision

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofemission projections for particulates, NO,,HC, and CO for the statutory attainment dates.The APCD commented that these will be provided
to ARB for submittal to EPA and requested an extension ofthe deadline.

Response:EPA will revise the deadline for the State's submittal of the required emission projections to July 13, 1981.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice noted that the State should submit a commitment'to an emission reduction target.(ERT) for the transportation
sector in the 1980 annual report. CPO commented that Work Element 205.02 of the CPO fiscal year 1980 Overall Work Program calls for the development of transportation ERTs for four alternative scenarios to be used in developing alternative strategies for the 1982 SIP revision.

Response:The use ofalternative targets is acceptable for planning purposes. However, in order to demonstrate attainment and to facilitate
necessary planning for other source sectors, one target must be acknowledged as a goal for reducing emissions in the transportation sector. Therefore, one target for the transportation sector shouldbe adopted by a resolution and included in the 1981 annual report.

Comment:The APCD commented that ERTs for transportation should take into
account the effectiveness of technological controls and the need to demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS.

Response:EPA agrees. Targets should reflect the reductions in emissions
necessary to demonstrate attainment, taking into account the air quality impacts ofanticipated growth and development, emission reductions achieved through existing programs (such as the federal motor vehicle emission standards program), and local decisions regarding theresponsibilities ofeach source sector (i.e., transportation, stationary, mobile, and

area sources) to assume appropriate portions;ofthe needed reductions.

Comment:The October 4, 1979:notice proposed aS a condition ofapproval the submittal of a commitment and a schedule to study nontraditional TSP control measures and a commitment to implement those measures found tobe reasonable. ARB commented that in adopting other NAPs, they established a statewide policy and commitment to adopt those controls necessary toproject attainment of the TSP NAAQS by December 31;1982, and that the APCD's submittal of study schedules wouldthen complete the above condition. ARB requested an extension ofthe deadline to facilitate this submittal.

Response:The San Diego Air Basin NAP, as presently submitted, does not address nontraditional TSP source control measures, despite ARB's policy
statements in other NAPs. The San Diego NAP must contain a commitment and a schedule to study nontraditional TSP source control measures forthe San Diego Air Basin, and a commitment to implement those measures necessary to provide for attainment. EPA will revise the deadline for State submittal of the commitments and schedule to July 13, 1981.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition of approval a reanalysis ofthe NO. attainment demonstration. The APCD and ARB commented that a preliminary analysis ofN0 2 ambient monitoring data correcting calibration errors suggests that the San Diego Air Basin may qualify for NO 2attainment status. Ifthe analysis confirms that the NO2 standard has been met,redesignation to attainment willbe requested. Ifthe analysis shows otherwise, additional time will be needed to revise the attainment demonstration.

Response:EPA willrevise the deadline for state submittal ofeither a reanalysis ofthe NO 2 attainment demonstration, or an N0 2analysis which can support an EPA attainment redesignation toJuly 13, 1981.
(3)Modeling/LevelofControl

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofdocumentation of the Oa design value and the ratio ofnonmethane hydrocarbons to nitrogen oxides used in the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA) 0, analysis. The APCD and CPO commented that the EKMA analysis, performed by the ARB, is unsuitable for the San Diego Air Basin.The APCD further commented that ARB would have to provide the required documentation, as the APCD performed

a rollback analysis in the locally adopted NAP.ARB commented generally that they do not have the

resources to return to the 

### 1979 NAPs to
correct all minor problems and simultaneously develop complete and effective SIP revisions for 1982.

Response:EPA recognizes that the EKMA analysis contained in the NAP
may not accurately. estimate the emission reductions needed to attain the O3 standard and that further air quality Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 

### 21751

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21751 1981

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

analyses must be conducted. Moreover, the APCD and ARB are currently developing a more sophisticated O modeling analysis for inclusion in the 1982 SIP revision. Therefore, EPA has determined that the 03 modeling analysis submitted with the San Diego NAP is acceptable forthe purpose of 1979 SIPrevision, since the State's

resources would be better utilized in developing a more refined modeling analysis on which to base changes in the 03 control strategy in the upcoming 1982 SIPrevision. Thus, EPA is deleting the submittal of03 modeling documentation for the 1979 SIP revision

as a condition ofapproval.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofmodeling results which estimate the emission reductions necessary to provide for attainment of the NO 2standard by December 31, 1982. The APCD and ARB commented that the NO2attainment status question created by the monitoring calibration errors mentioned above will result either in an attainment redesignation request orin additional time needed toperform an NO2 modeling analysis.

Reponse:As with the NO2 attainment demonstration approval condition, EPA will revise the deadline forthe State's submittal ofeither NO 2modeling results,

or an NO 2analysis which can support

an EPA attainment redesignation to July 13, 1981.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofdocumentation ofthe TSP design value, and modeling results which estimate the emission reductions necessary to provide for attainment of the TSP standard. ARB commented that itwould be extremely difficult to submit

a modeling analysis which takes nontraditional TSP sources into account by the proposed December 1980 deadline. ARB requested that the submittal deadline be revised to December 31, 1981.

Response:EPA will revise the deadline for submittal ofthe TSPdesign value documentation and modeling results to December 31, 1981 as requested. It should be noted that in commenting on proposed rulemaking notices for other California TSP nonattainment areas, ARB requested the

same December 31, 1981 deadline in order tomaintain coordination in the State's TSP work. (4) LegallyAdoptedMeasures/ Schedules

Comment:In response to EPA's citing the lack oflegally enforceable regulations for seven volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories, the APCD and ARB commented thatlocally adopted rules forthese VOC sources have been orwill be submitted to EPA.

Response:The State submitted the required VOC rules on October 15 and 25, 1979. EPAwill propose action and invite public comment on these rules in

a separate Federal Register notice.

Comment:The October 4, 1979notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal oflegally enforceable commitments and implementation schedules forthe necessary TCMs (at a minimum, the seven TCMs identified in the NAP as reasonably available). CPO commented that they will Provide the necessary commitments to ARBfor submittal to EPA and requested an extension ofthe submittal deadline. The APCD commented that EPA should consider local adoption ofmodel ordinances developed by CPOas evidence of commitments to implement

or enforce NAP control measures.

Response.:Local adoption ofmodel ordinances could provide evidence of commitments to implement control

measures ifsupported by the necessary commitments of staffand financial

resources for implementation and/or enforcement. The adequacy of such adopted model ordinances willbe determined at the time oftheir submittal toEPA by the State.EPA will revise the deadling for State submittal ofthe TCM commitments and implementation schedules to July 13, 1981.

Comment:ARB commented that EPA should specify requirements for acceptable commitments from transportation planning agencies to implement the necessary TCMs.

Response:EPA requirements for implementation commitments have been discussed in previous meetings with ARB, CPO, and the San Diego County APCD. At a minimum, these commitments shall consist of resolutions, letters or other devices adopted by the policy bodies ofeach agency orentity responsible for implementing the control measures. Included in these devices must be:

(a) an acknowledgment ofthe agency's role in implementing specific NAP related control strategies;

(b) an identification ofspecific agency tasks to be carried out in fulfillment of that role; and

(c) specified implementation dates and, where appropriate, completion dates foreach of the identified tasks. Scheduling mustbe consistent with requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP).

Implementation commitments must be further supported by explicit budgetary commitments, to be discussed below under criterion 10, "Resources." Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofa commitment in legally enforceable form to implement all control measures necessary for attainment ofthe NO2standard by the statutory date.The APCD and ARB commented that ifthe current analysis ofNO 2 ambient data shows San Diego County not to be in attainment, additional time beyond the proposed submittal deadline willbe needed.

Response:As with the NO2 attainment demonstration and modeling conditions ofapproval, EPA willrevise the deadline for the State's submittal of either a commitment to implement all necessary NO 2 control measures, or an NO2 

### analysis which can support an EPA attainment redesignation to July 13, 1981.
(5) EmissionReductionEstimates

Comments:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofannual emission reduction estimates per control tactic per pollutant. Both the APCD and CPO commented that they will provide such estimates for stationary and transportation control measures to ARB for submittal to EPA and requested an extension ofthe submittal deadline.

Response:EPA willrevise the deadline for State submittal ofemission reduction estimates per control tactic to (90days after publication of this notice). (6)ReasonableFurther Progress

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice noted that a TCM monitoring program must be in place and included in the 1980 annual report. CPO commented that Work Element 205.06 of the CPO FY-80 Overall Work Program calls for development ofa transportation monitoring program. CPO further commented that similar monitoring programs should be developed for non- transportation control tactics, ora clear demonstration be made that the existing monitoring programs are adequate. The APCD commented that its existing stationary source monitoring program through the EPA Compliance Data System is sufficient and there is no need to require additional stationary source monitoring.

Response:EPA concurs with the APCD in that existing stationary source monitoring in San Diego County is adequate. The 1981 annual report must include the results of a fully implemented TCM monitoring program. (7) EmissionsGroWth

No comments were received. 

### 21752

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21752 1981

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

(8)AnnualReporting

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal of a commitment to annual reporting. The APCD, ARE, and.CPO commented that they have already committed to submit annual reports through EPA grants and thus requested that the above condition be deleted.

Response:EPA concurs and is deleting the commitment to annual reporting as a condition ofapproval. (9)Permit Program
Comment:In response to EPA's citing in the October 4, 1979notice the lack of

an adopted and legally enforceable NSR rule, the APCD and ARBcommented that adopted NSR rulesfor San Diego County would be submitted.

Response:The State submitted the SanDiego County NSR rules on February 13, 1980. EPA's review ofthese rules can be found in the Supplemental Revisions section ofthis notice and in EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum.
(10)Resources

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofthe financial and personnel

resource commitments necessary to implement the NAP. The APCD and CPO commented that they will submit budget and manpower figures forthe
current fiscal year, as well as proposed budget and manpower estimates for the
nextfiscal year, in the 1980 and subsequent annual reports. ARB commented that it is infeasible for California agencies to make multi-year budget commitments and that the most feasible approach would be to submit annual budget documentation as part of each annual report.

Response:EPA recognizes the limitations involved here and agrees that an appropriate approach is to submit annual localbudget commitments. Therefore, the identification ofnecessary resource commitments to implement the NAP
mustbe submitted by the State to EPA when the localbudgets are adopted. The NAP must include a commitment to provide this information annually. (11) PublicandGovernment Involvement

Comment:The October 4, 1979notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofan analysis ofthe health effects oftheNAPprovisions. The APCD commented that an adequate discussion ofthe health effects ofthe NAP provisions exists in the NAP support documents and that an extension of the deadline is needed for 

### ARB to formally submit this discussion
to EPA.

Response:EPA willrevise the deadline for State submittal of the analysis ofthe health effects ofthe NAP
toJuly 13, 1981. (12)PublicHearing

No comments were submitted. (13) ExtensionRequirements
Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition of approval the submittal ofthoseportions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that relate to an analysis of alternatives which demonstrates that benefits outweigh environmental costs when granting an NSR permit to a major emitting facility. The APCD commented that the alternative site analysis provision in their NSR rules is adequate
to fulfill the above condition, thus satisfying the requirements ofSection 172(b](11)XA) ofthe Clean Air Act.

Response:As noted in EPA's EvaluationReport Addendum, the San Diego County NSR rules [i.e., Rule 20.4(g)] do not fully satisfy Section 172(b)(11)(A) ofthe Actand the rules shouldbe revised to do so. However, in
response to theproposed condition of approval cited above, the State submitted the relevant portions of CEQA on October 20, 1980. As discussed in Supplemental Revisions, the CEQA submittal satisfies the proposed condition ofapproval and therefore it was deleted in today's notice.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition of approval the submittal of commitments to establish, expand, orimprove public transportation to meet basic transportation needs. CPO commented that theyproduced a &faft report, concluding that the existing transit service meetsbasic transportation needs. CPO also commented that Work Element 202.06 of the CPO FY-80 Overall Work Program includes a task
to analyze the development of modifications to the existing public transportation system to meet existing and projected needs. CPO and ARB further commented that EPAneeds to provide guidance to define "basic transportation needs" and the acceptability of commitments to meet such needs, and both requested an extension ofthe submittal deadline.

Response: Guidance onbasic transportation needs has now been developed by EPA

- Headquarters in consultation with the Department ofTransportation (DOT), and was published as proposed policy in the Federal Register on September 18, 1980 (45FR 62170). Also, as has been discussed previously with all lead agencies and states requesting extensions for either CO or 03 nonattainment areas in Region IX, policy level commitments should be provided by the lead agency, acknowledging theexplicit requirements ofSections 110(a)C3)(D) and 110(c)(5)(B) oftheAct, and committing to develop plans and programs to meet those requirements, such as those currently being analyzed by CPO. EPAwill revise the deadline for State submittal ofthe commitments to meetbasic transportation needs to July 13, 1981.

Comment:CPO commented that efforts to enhance air quality and

conserve energy through increased transit are hampered bythe unavailability oftransit coaches and by

- partially contradictory Federal objectives of improving air quality and providing increased mobility for the physically and economically disadvantaged.

Response:While theunavailability of transit coaches is an important shortterm limitation, expansion ofexisting bus fleets is only one element ofwhat should be a coordinated transportation
program aimed at maximizing mobility while minimizing energy consumption and airpollution.

Also, while certain Federal objectives
may compete forthe same limited
resources, EPA disagrees with the notion that Federal air quality objectives and objectives ofincreased mobility for the physically and economically disadvantaged are contradictory.EPA feels that any definition of "basic transportation needs" must necessarily provide for services to the economically disadvantaged and to those persons with special mobility problems (i.e., the physically handicapped).

EPA alsorecognizes that once a determination ofnecessary improvements to meet basic transportation needs has been made, short-term financing limitations may create some immediate conflicts between transit expansion for air quality purposes and modification to fulfill the needs of the elderly and physically handicapped. However, EPA feels that these goals can be addressed with a balanced transit alternative which proves sufficiently responsive to both areas.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofa schedule to analyze alternative packages of TCMs,including (but not limited) to those measures listed in Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act. The notice furtherproposed 

### 21753

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21753 1981

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

that these alternative packages include the three Section 108(f)[1(A) measures which were not addressed in the NAP. CPOcommented that they intend to develop and analyze alternative packages ofTCMs, and will transmit a schedule for this analysis to ARB for submittal toEPA. CPO also commented that they will analyze one ofthe TCMs
not addressed in the NAP (extended idling controls], but noted the other two TCMs (fleet vehicle controls, and alternative engines and fuels) can best be analyzed by EPA and/or ARB. CPO requested guidance on the level and scope ofanalysis required at the local/ regional level for the latter two TCMs. In addition, ARB commented generally that EPA shouldprovide additional time forARB review ofthe locally developed actions, in recognition ofthe complex two-tiered process ofplan development and implementation in California.

Response:Although fleet vehicle controls and alternative engines and fuels can best be analyzed by EPAand ARB, there are many ways in which these control measures can be carried out at the local level.Examples include
programs and incentives to consolidate fleet vehicle trips, and incentives for fleet owners touse alternative engines and/or fuels (e.g., electric, propane, diesel, or conversion of the fleet to newer,more efficient vehicles). CPO needs to examine the feasibility and potential effectiveness ofsuch alternatives in cooperation with other local agencies. As for theproposed condition ofapproval, EPAwill revise the deadline for State submittal ofa schedule to analyze alternative packages ofTCMs to July 13, 1981.

Comment:The October 4, 1979 notice noted that the State should submit in the 1980 annual report procedures for determining conformity with the SIP of
any project, program, or plan overwhich CPO has approval authority. CPOand ARB commented that EPA needs to provide guidelinesto State and local agencies for developing such procedures. CPO also commented that conformity determination procedures

are currently being developed under Work Element 202.06 ofthe CPOFY-80 Overall Work Program, but that these procedures should be submitted to EPA

some time after local receipt of the EPA guidance.

Response:On June 12, 1980, EPA and DOT issuedjoint national policy for state-and local agencies to use in developing conformity evaluation and determination procedures. Additional regional guidance is currently being prepared by the EPA Region IX Office to supplement the national policy. However, EPA recommends that CPO's development ofimproved procedures not wait for issuance ofthe additional guidance.
(14) ExtensionRequirements for VOC RACT
Comment:As noted above under Criterion 4, "LegallyAdopted Measures/Schedules,,"theAPCD and ARB commented that the required VOC rules identified in the October 4, 1979 notice as missing have been or willbe submitted to EPA. I

Response:The State submitted the required VOC rules on October 15 and 25, 1979. EPA willpropose action and invite public comment on these rules in

a separate Federal Register notice.

Comment:The October 4, 1979notice proposed as a condition ofapproval the submittal ofa fixed-roof storage tank rule which represents RACT or a demonstration that the fixed-roof storage tank rule submitted on May 23, 1979 (Rule 61.3) represents RACT. The APCD commented that theywill submit documentation demonstrating VOC emission reductions under the rule submitted on May 23, 1979 to be within 5%ofthe reductions achievable through RACT.ARB commented that they received amended rules for consideration from the APCD and would forward the amended rules to EPA when their review had been completed.

Response:ARB submitted amendments to Rules 61.0 through 61.4

as SIPrevisions on July 25 and December 15, 1980. EPA willpropose action and invite public comment on these rules in a separate Federal Register notice. The adequacy of amended Rule 61.3 as itrelates to RACT is discussed in that notice.

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 of state boards. Although some ofthe issues raised are not relevant to provisions in the San Diego Air Basin NAP, the November 10, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 74480] should be referenced for a discussion of these comments and EPA's responses. EPA Actions

Introduction
It is important for reviewers 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 of the NAP for a specific pollutant. Therefore, a portion ofthe NAP may be adequate for

one pollutant butinadequate for others. EPA is taking final action on all portions ofthe San Diego NAP for each pollutant except the inspection/maintenance portion.As a result, this notice contains

a series ofactions for each portion of the NAP for each pollutant rather than a single action. One ofthe following three actions may be taken for each portion of the NAP:

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

or where deficiencies are ofsuch magnitude as to significantly interfere with the basic objective: or

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

3.Approval with conditions where deficiencies exist,but where the effect ofthe deficiency is not judged to be major and the Statehas agreed to take those steps necessary to correct the deficiency. Inthis case, it is EPA's intent that the State proceed expeditiously to correct the noted deficiency by certain dates.

EPA's final actions on each portion of the NAP for each pollutant is based on the proposed rulemaking notice, supplemental revisions submitted bythe State, and public comments received by EPA. Each action is described below. ApprovedPortions oftheNAP

As proposed in the October 4, 1979 notice, EPA is taking final action to approve the following portions of the NAP,regardless ofthe approvability of the overall NAP'with respect to Part D: emission inventory forHC, CO, and NO2;modeling for CO; reasonable further progress; emissions growth; and public hearing. In addition, without legal authority to implement and enforce an I/ M program, the NAP cannot demonstrate RFP for ozone and CO through 1987. However, at this time there is no point in disapproving the RFP portion ofthe NAP for ozone and CO since thekey deficiency is the I/M portion ofthe NAP.Once I/M legislation is passed, the State would be able to demonstrate RFP and the NAP could be approved. Therefore, EPA is approving the RFPportion of theNAP.No supplemental revisions orpublic
comments were received addressing the approvability ofthese portions.

Further, as discussed in the Supplemental Revisions and Public Comments sections ofthis notice, the following portions ofthe NAP satisfy Part D requirements: modeling for 03; annual reporting: and extension 

### 21754

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21754 1981

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

requirements forNSR (i.e., the requirements ofSection 172fb)(11(A of the Clean Air Act). Therefore, EPA is taking final actionto approve these portions ofthe NAP.

As proposed, EPA is taking final action under Section 110 and PartD of the Clean Air Act to approve the following San Diego County APCD rules listed in the October 4, 1979 notice: Rule 2(t) Definitions Rule 61.5 Visible Emissions Standards for

Vapor Control Systems Rule 61.7 Spillage ofVolatile Organic

Compounds. However,as discussed inthe Supplemental Revisions section of thisnotice, EPA is proposing action and invitingpublic comment
on the BOCRACT rules recently submitted (February4, 1981 (TM)Federal Register,46 FR 10750). Therefore, this noticeis not taking final actionon the "extension requirements forVOC RACT" portion oftheplan. Conditionally ApprovedPortionsofthe NAP

As discussed in Supplemental Revisions, the NSR rules submitted on February 13, 1980 are (1)similar to the State's draft NSR rule in that the definitions and requirements are substantially the same and are equivalent to the draft rulein that they

are at least as effective in meeting the requirements ofSection 173, and (2) contain onlyminor deficiencies with respect to Part-D. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve the San Diego County NSR rules and thus conditionally approve the permit program portion of theNAP with respect to Part D. Further,EPA finds that good cause exists for taking final action on the San Diego County APCD NSR rules without providing for additional public comment (see 5U.S.C. Section 553(b)(B), Administrative Procedure Act) since:

1. The rules are similar and equivalent to the State draft rule which was subject to public comment.

2. The rules will be in effect for only a shorttime since the State is required to meet new EPA requirements forNSR by May 7, 1981.

3. Final action on the rules will

remove the current prohibition on construction of major new or modified

sources in the San DiegoAir Basin with respect to particulate and NO. emissions.

As discussed in the October 4, 1979 notice and the Public Comments section ofthis notice, the following portions of the NAP contain minordeficiencies: emissioninventory forTSP; attainment provision; modeling forTSPand NO2: legally adopted measures/schedules (except forI/M); emission reduction estimates; resources; public and governmental involvement; and extension requirements for basic transportation needs and other

measures (i.e., therequirements of Sections 110(a)(3)(D), 110(c)(5)(B), and 172(b)(11)(c) ofthe Clean AirAct). Therefore, EPAis taking final action to conditionally approve these portions of theNAP with respect to PartD.

ARB, CPO, and the APCD have provided assurances through the public comment letters and Section 105 air program grants that theminor deficiencies willbe corrected by satisfying the conditions ofapproval discussed below. EPA finds these

assurances acceptable for the purposes ofconditional approval.

Theconditions of approval and the associated deadlines are:

For ozone, CO, TSP, and NO2: 1.By May 7, 1981, the San Diego County APCD's NSR rules must be revised and submitted as an SIP revision. In revising theNSR rules, the State/APCD must address (1) any new requirements in EPA's amended regulations for NSR under Section 173 of the Clean Air Act (May 13, 1980, 45FR 31307; and August 7, 1980, 45 FR 52676) which the APCD rules do not currently satisfy and (2)the deficiencies cited in EPA's EvaluationReport Addendum which still apply despite EPA's new NSR requirements. The Evaluation Report Addendum is contained in document file NAP-CA-19 and is available at the EPARegion IX Office and the EPALibrary in Washington, D.C.

2. By July 13, 1981, emission projections forDecember 31, 1982.

3. By July 13, 1981, annual emission reduction estimates per control tactic per pollutant.

4. By July 13, 1981, a commitment to submit annual implementing agency fiscal and personnel commitments to implement the San Diego Air Basin NAP.

5. ByJuly 13, 1981, identification and analysis ofthe health effects ofthe San Diego Air Basin nonattainment area plan provisions.

For ozone and CO: 1. By July 13, 1981, written evidence of local adoption oflegally enforceable commitments and implementation schedules consistent withreasonable further progress for the necessary transportation control measures (TCMs) (at a minimum, the seven TCMs identified in theNAP as reasonably available).

2. By July 13, 1981, a commitment to establish, expand, or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs. 3.By July 13, 1981, a schedule to analyze alternate packages ofTCMs, including, but not limited to, those

measures listed in Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.

4.'By July 13, 1981, emission projections for December 31, 1987.

For TSP: 1.By December 31, 1981, documentation for the TSP design value used to determine allowable emissions, and modeling results which show the emission reductions necessary to provide for attainment of the TSP standards by December 31, 1982.

2.By December 31, 1981, a refined emission inventory for particulates, identifying subcategories ofthe fugitive dust source category and quantifying the associated emissions.

3.By July 13, 1981, a commitment and

a schedule to study nontraditional TSP

source control measures, and a commitment to implement those necessary to provide for attainment.

For NO 2: 1.By July 13, 1981, a reanalysis ofthe NO2 attainment demonstration, modeling resultswhich show the emission reductions necessary to provide forattainment ofthe NO 2 standard byDecember 31, 1982, and written evidence ofcommitments in legally enforceable form'to implement all necessary measures to provide for attainment by December 31, 1982; or an NO2analysis which can support an EPA attainment redesignation piirsuant to Section 107 ofthe Clean Air Act.

It shouldbe noted that additional conditions may result from EPA's review, in a separate Federal Register notice, oftheVOC rules submitted on October 15 and 25, 1979, and on July 25 and December 15, 1980, which are listed in Supplemental Revisions.

Final Action on the Overall NAP
As the major deficiencies in the TSP and NO2 plans have been corrected and only minor deficiencies remain in these plans, today's actions result in a final overall conditional approval ofthe NAP for TSP and NO2 with respect toPart D. This removes the current prohibition on construction ofmajor new or'modified

sources in the San Diego Air Basin with respect to particulate and NO. emissions.

However, since this notice does not address a major portion ofthe San Diego NAP for CO and O, the inspection/maintenance program, today's actions do not result in a final overall approval or disapproval ofthe NAP for CO and 03 with respect to Part D. This retains the current prohibition

on Construction of major new or 

### 21755

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21755 1981

### 21756 Federal Register 

# / Vol. 46, No. 71 

# I Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

# /Rules and Regulations

modified VOC and CO sources in the San Diego Air'Basin CO and 03 nonattainment areas.

EPA has a responsibility to take final action as soon as possible in order to lift construction prohibitions, since the State has submitted conditionally approvable TSP and NO2 plans for the San Diego Air Basin. Therefore, EPA finds that good cause exists formaking this action immediately effective.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act,judicial review oftoday's action is available onlyby the filing ofa petition for review in the United States
court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit within 60 days oftoday. Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act, the requirements which are the subject oftoday's notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Conditional ApprovalProcedure
A discussion ofconditional approval and itspractical effect appears in two supplements to the General Preamble [44 FR 38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67192 (November 23, 1979)]. Conditional approval requires the State to submit additional material by the deadlines specified in today's notice. There will be

-noextensions granted to the conditional approval deadlines being promulgated today. EPA will follow the procedures described below in determining whether the State has 6atisfied the conditions.

1.If the State submits therequired additional documentation according to schedule, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing receipt ofthe material. The notice ofreceipt will also announce that the conditional approval iscontinued pending EPA's final action on the submittal.

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

are fully met. After EPA's review is pompleted, a Federal Register notice will bepublished proposing or taking final action to either (1) find the conditions have been met and approve the submittal or (2) find the conditions have not been met and disapprove the submittal. If the submittal is disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(1) restrictions on construction would be effective.

3.If the State fails to submit the required materials to meet a condition, EPA will publish a Federal Register -noticeshortly after the expiration of the deadline. The notice will announce that the conditional approval is withdrawn, the NAP is disapproved, and the Section 110(a)(2)(I} prohibition on construction is in effect. Certain deadlines for satisfying conditions have been.changed from those proposed and are being promulgated today without further notice and comment. EPAfinds that for good cause additional notice and
comment on these deadlines are unnecessary (See U.S.C. Section 553 (b)(3), Administrative Procedure Act). The State is the party responsible for meeting the deadlines. In addition, the public has had an opportunity to comment generally on the concept of conditional approval and on what deadlines should apply for these conditions. (44FR 38583, July 2, 1979 and 44 FR 57109, October 4, 1979).
40 CFRPart 52Rescissions
Since no supplemental revisions or public comments were received regarding EPA's proposed 40 CFR Part 52rescissions, EPA is taking final action torescind the following Federally promulgated regulations from 40 CFR Part 52:

Sec. 52.242 Inspectionandmaintenance program. .52.243 Motorcyclelimitation. 52.244 Oxidizingcatalystretrofit. 52.247 Definitions for parkingmanagement regulations. 52.251 Managementof parkingsupply. 52.257 Computercarpool matching. 52.258 Mass transit priority-exclusive bus

use. 52.259 Ramp meteringand preferential bus! carpoollanes. 52.266 Monitoringtransportation mode trends. .52.269 Controlstrategy andregulations: Photochemical oxidants,paragraph (a).
AttainmentDates

The 1979 edition of40 CFR Part 52 lists, in Subpart F for.California, the applicable deadlines for attaining the NAAQS [attainment dates] required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act.

Foreach 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 California'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 forpreviously regulated

sources to comply with new, more stringent requirements, and topermit 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 PaulRogers 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 after approval ofa plan. Thisprovision wasnot changed by the 1977 Amendments. Itwould be aperversion ofclear Congressional intent to construe Part Dto authorize relaxation ordelay ofemission limits for particular sources. The added time for attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards was provided, if necessary, because of the need to tighten emission limitsor bringpreviously uncontrolled sources under control. Delaysor relaxation ofemission limits were not generally authorized orintended underPart D (123Cong. 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. EPAcannot approve such compliance date extensions, even though a NAP with a later attainment date has been approved. However, a compliance date extension beyond a pre-existing plan attainment date may be granted ifit will not contribute to a violation ofan ambient standard or a PSD increment [44FR 20373-74, (April4, 1979)].

In addition, sources subject to preexisting planrequirements may be relieved of complying 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 of5 U.S.C. 605(b) I hereby certify that the attached rulewill not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action only approves state actions. It imposes no new requirements. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship, federal inquiry into the econmic reasonableness ofthe state actions 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 of a Regulatory Impact /Rules and Regula'tions Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

### 21756

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21756 1981

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

Analysis. This regulation is not Major because it only approves state actions. It imposes no new regulatory requirement.

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 to those
comments are available forpublic inspection at EPA Region IX,215 Fremont St., San Francisco CA 94105. 

### (Sections 110, 129,171-178, and 301(a) ofthe CleanAir Act, as amended [42 U.S.C.7410, 7429, 7501-7508, and 7601(a)])

Dated: April 6, 1981. Walter C.Barber, ActingAdministrator.

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

Subpart F ofPart 52 ofChapter I,Title 40, ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart F-California

1. Section 52.220, paragraph (c) is amended by adding subparagrphs (51)(vii), (62), and (64) as follows:
§52.220 Identificationof plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (51) ** * (vii) San Diego County APCD. (A)Amended Rules 2(t), 61.5, and 61.7.

(62) The SanDiegoAirBasinControl Strategy(Chapter 14 ofthe Comprehensive Revisions to the State of California Implementation Plan forthe Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards) submitted on July 5, 1979, by the Governor's designee, except the inspection/maintenance portion. Additional documents were also submitted as Appendices. Those portions ofthe SonDiegoAirBasin ControlStrategy,including Appendices, identified by Table 14-1, "Location of -PlanElements Which Meet Clean Air ActRequirements" (pages 6-7), comprise the submitted nonattainment

area plan, .exceptthe inspection/ maintenance portion. Theremaining portions arefor informational purposes only.

* + * * *

(64) Revised regulations for the

--. following APCD submitted on February 13, 1980, by the Governor's designee.

(i) San Diego County APCD. 

### (A) Rules 20.1, 20.2,20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, and 20.7. 2. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) as follows: §52.222 Extensions.

* * * * *

(b) * * * (3)San Diego Air Basin for TSPand NO 2 .

3. Section 52.223 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4) as follows: §52.223 Approval status.

* * * * *

(b) * * * (4) San Diego Air Basin forTSP and NO2. * * * * *

4. Section 52.232 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) thru (a)(3) and adding paragraph (a)(4) toread as follows: §52.232 Part Dconditionalapproval.

(a) Thefollowing portions of the California SIP contain deficiencies with respect toPart D ofthe Clean Air Act which must be corrected by meeting the indicated conditions ofPartD plan approval.

(1)Imperial County for ozone.

* * * * *

(2) North Central Coast AirBasin for

ozone.

(3) South Coast Air Basin.

(4) San Diego Air Basin. (i)For ozone, CO,TSP, and NO2: (A) By May 7, 1981, the NSR rules submitted on March 17, 1980 mustbe revised and submitted as an SIP revision. In revising the NSR rules, the State/APCD must address (1) anynew requirements in EPA's amended , regulations for NSR under Section 173 of the Clean AirAct (May 13, 1980,45 FR 31307; and August 7, 1980, 45 FR 52676) which the APCD rules do not currently satisfy and (2) the deficiencies cited in EPA'sEvaluationReport Addendum which still apply despite EPA's new NSR requirements. TheEvaluation ReportAddendum is contained in document file NAP-CA-19 and available at the EPA Region IX Office and theEPA Library in Washington, D.C.

(B) By (90days after the publication of this notice), the submittal ofthe following as SIP revisions:

(1)Particulate, volatile organic compound, CO and NO. emission projections forDecember 31, 1982 and volatile organic compound and CO emission projections forDecember 31, 1987. (2)Annual emission reduction estimates per control tactic for particulates, NO., VOC and CO.

(3) A commitment to submit annual implementing agency fiscal and personnel commitments to implement the San Diego Air Basin NAP.

(4) Identification and analysis ofthe health effects ofthe San Diego AirBasin nonattainment area plan provisions.

(ii) for ozone and CO: 

### (A) By July 13, 1981, the submittal of the following as SIPrevisions:

(1)Written evidence of local adoption oflegally enforceable commitments and implementation schedules consistent with reasonable further progress for the .necessary transportation control

measures (TCMs) (at a minimum, the

seven TCMs identified in the San Diego Air Basin nonattainment area plan as reasonably available).

(2)Commitment to establish, expand,

or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs.

(3)A schedule to analyze alternative packages of TCMs.Including (butnot limited to) those measures listed in Section 108(f)(1)(A) ofthe Clean Air Act.

(iii) For TSP: (A)By December 31, 1981, the submittal ofthe following as an SIP revision:

(1)Documentation forthe TSP design value used to determine allowable emissions, and modeling resultswhich show the emission reductions necessary toprovide forattainment ofthe TSP standards by December 31, 1982.

. (2)Arefined emission inventory for particulates, identifying subcategories of thefugitive dust source category and quantifying the associated emissions.

(B) By July 13, 1981 the submittal of the following as SIPrevisions:

(1) A commitment and a schedule to study nontraditional TSP source control
measures, and a commitment to implement those necessary to provide for attainment.

(iv)For NO2: (A)By July 13, 1981, the submittal of the following as an SIP revision:

(1) A reanalysis ofthe NO 2attainment demonstration, modeling results which show the emission reductions necessary to provide for attainment of theNO 2 standard by December 31, 1982, and written evidence ofcommitments in legally enforceable form to implement all necessary measures to provide for attainment by December 31, 1982; or an NO 2analysis which can support an EPA attainment redesignation pursuant to Section 107 of,the Clean Air Act.

5. In §52.238, the entries forthe San Diego Intrastate Air Quality Control Region are revised, and footnote (i)is 

### I 21757

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21757 1981Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

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

Airquality 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 Filed4-13-81; 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 ormodified 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 forthese 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 theirexhaust 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

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21758 1981