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

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

as follows: (e) * * *

(1) * * *

Bacitracin methylene Combinations i dco rsm n

disadlicylate in grams grmbnampton in Sra

per ton. grams per ton 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 Clostidium spp. or other organisms

susceptible to bacitracin.

Effective date. April 14, 1981.

(Sec. 512(i), 82 Stat. 347 (21 U.S.C. 360b(i)))

Dated: April 2, 1981.

Robert A. Baldwin,

Associate Director for Scientific 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 of final 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 of the San

Diego NAP except the inspection/

maintenance portion, which will be

addressed in a future Federal Register

notice.

Through revisions submitted to

supplement the NAP, the State has

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 of major

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

of the proposed rulemaking notice,

describes the recent revisions which

supplement the NAP, discusses public

comments, and describes EPA's final

actions on the NAP.

DATES: This action is effective April 14,

1981.

ADDRESS: A copy of today's revisions to

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP) is located at: The Office of the

Federal Register, 1100 L Street NW.,

Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Louise P. Glersch, Director, Air and

Hazardous Materials Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, 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 July 5, 1979, the Executive

Officer of the California Air Resources

Board (ARB), the Governor's official

designee, submitted the San Diego Air

Basin Control Strategy as a revision to

the California SIP. In addition, prior to

July 5, 1979, several amendments to the

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District (APCD) Rules and Regulations

were submitted. These revisions, which

comprise the San Diego Air Basin NAP,

are intended to provide for the

attainment of the CO, 0 TSP, and NO2

NAAQS in San Diego County.

§ 558.76 Bacltracin methylene disalcylate.

On October 4, 1979 (44 FR 57109), EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking on the San Diego Air Basin

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, or disapprove portions of the

NAP. The October 4, 1979 notice should

be used as a reference in reviewing

today's actions.

EPA proposed to disapprove the

following poPtions of the NAP: legally

adopted measures/schedules; permit

program; extension requirements; and

extension requirements for VOC RACT.

EPA proposed to disapprove these

portions because the lack of an I/M

program, an NSR rule, and rules

reflecting RACT for certain VOC

sources constituted major deficiencies

with respect to Part 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 also proposed to approve and

incorporate into the SIP the following

portions of the NAP, regardless of the

ultimate approvability of the overall

NAP: emission inventory for

hydrocarbons (HC), CO and NO2 ;

modeling for CO; reasonable further

progress (RFP); emission growth; and

public hearing. These portions of the

NAP were found to be consistent with

Part D.

Finally, EPA proposed that the

following portions of the NAP could be

conditionally approved if major

deficiencies in the NAP were corrected:

emission inventory for particulates;

attainment provision; modeling for Os,

TSP, and NO2 ; legally adopted

measures/schedules; emission reduction

estimates; annual reporting; 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 of approval for

these portions.

After the publication of the 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 State has 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 SIP revisions-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 of the

October 4, 1979 notice, the State

submitted revisions which supplement

portions of the NAP. These revisions are

discussed below.

New Source Review (NSR)

The October 4, 1979 notice cited the

lack of an adopted, legally enforceable

NSR rule as a major deficiency which

must be corrected before EPA could

approve or conditionally approve the

CO, 03, TSP, or NO2 plants.I However,

the State submitted a draft NSR rule and

requested EPA to review this rule. EPA

reviewed the draft NSR rule and

concluded that it contained only minor

deficiencies with respect to Part D

requirements. EPA proposed that the

permit program portion of the NAP

could be conditionally approved if the

State submitted an adopted NSR rule

similar and equivalent to the draft rule.

On February 13, 1980, the State

submitted the following adopted NSR

rules for the San Diego County APCD:

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 for Authority to

Construct-Air Quality Analysis Rule 20.4 Standards for Authority to

Construct-Major Stationary Sources

Rule 20.5 Power Plants

Rule 20.6 Standards for Permit to Operate- Air Quality Analysis

Rule 20.7 Standards for Authority to

Construct-Significant Deterioration

Section 173 of the Clean Air Act

contains the requirements for approval

of a permit program. EPA established

guidance based on Section 173 in: (1)

EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative

Ruling (January 16, 1979 Federal

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 rules were reviewed

against the requirements stated in

Section 173 of the Act and the Emission

Offset Interpretative Ruling of January

I In this notice, the word "plants)" means the

overall NAP or portions of the NAP specific to

certain pollutant(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 of Section 173. In addition,

the submitted rules will be in effect for

only a short time since the State is

required to meet new EPA requirements

for NSR by May 7, 1981, as is discussed

below.

EPA has also determined, however,

that the submitted rules contain some

minor deficiencies 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

Evaluation Report Addendum, which is

contained in document file NAP-CA-19

and is available at the EPA Region IX

Office, the ARB, the San Diego County

APCD, the Comprehensive Planning

Organization, and the EPA Library in

Washington D.C.

It should be noted that EPA has

published two final rulemaking 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 FR 31307) and August 7, 1980

(45 FR 52676), amend EPA's

Interpretative Ruling and set out new

EPA requirements for NSR under

Section 173. The State is required to

comply with the August 7, 1980

requirements by May 7, 1981. In revising

the San Diego County APCD's NSR

rules, the State/APCD must address (1)

any new requirements in EPA's

amended regulations for NSR (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 VOC RACT

Regulations

The October 4, 1979 notice cited the

lack of adopted, legally enforceable

rules reflecting RACT for seven VOC

source categories for which 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:

October 15, 1979

Rule 67.6 Solvent Cleaning Operations

Rule 07.7 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts

October 25, 1979

Rule 67.3 Coating of Metal Parts Products

Rule 67.4 Can and Coil Coating Operations

Rule 67.5 Paper and Fabric Coating

Operations

EPA will 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 by the other four Group I

CTG source categories applicable in the

San Diego Air Basin. However, the State

submitted the following San Diego

County APCD rules on July 25 and

December 15, 1980, which revise and

supersede all of the originally proposed

rules except Rule 61.7:

Rule 61.0 Definitions

Rule 61.1 Receiving and Storing Volatile

Organic Compounds at Bulk Plants and

Bulk Terminals

Rule 61.1 Transfer of Volatile Organic

Compounds into Mobile Transport Tanks

Rule 61.3 Transfer.of Volatile Organic

Compounds into Stationary Storage

Containers

Rule 61.4 Transfer of Volatile 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 not been

superseded, namely Rules 2(t), 61.5, and

61.7.

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA)

The October 4, 1979 notice proposed

as a condition of approval the submittal

of those portions of CEQA that relate to

an a'nalysis of alternatives 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) of the Clean Air Act,'the

lack of which 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 1981
F.dral Re~ister / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 215

These portions of CEQA 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

or void 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 or project

alternatives identified in the

environmental impact report."

EPA has determined that the

submittal of these portions of CEQA

corrects the cited minor deficiency.

Further, EPA incorporated these

portions of CEQA into the California SIP

in the recently published notice of final

rulemaking for the South Coast Air

Basin NAP.

Public Comments

Comments Specific to the San Diego Air

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) Emission Inventory

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of a refined emission

inventory for particulates, identifying

and quantifying subcategories of the

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 of the submittal

deadline is needed 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 be revised to reflect:

only the nonattainment'area portion of

the County.

Response: EPA will revise the

deadline for State submittal of the

refined particulate emission inventory to

December 31, 1981;.

(2) Attainment Provision

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of emission 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 of the 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 of alternative

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 should be 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 of the NAAQS.

Response: EPA agrees. Targets should

reflect the reductions in emissions

necessary to demonstrate attainment,

taking into account the air quality

impacts of anticipated growth and

development, emission reductions

achieved through existing programs

(such as the federal motor vehicle

emission standards program), and local

decisions regarding the responsibilities

of each source sector (i.e.,

transportation, stationary, mobile, and

area sources) to assume appropriate

portions; of the needed reductions.

Comment: The October 4, 1979: notice

proposed aS a condition of approval 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

would then complete the above

condition. ARB requested an extension

of the 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 for the 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 of the NO. attainment

demonstration. The APCD and ARB

commented that a preliminary analysis

of N0 2 ambient monitoring data

correcting calibration errors suggests

that the San Diego Air Basin may

qualify for NO 2 attainment status. If the

analysis confirms that the NO2 standard

has been met, redesignation to

attainment will be requested. If the

analysis shows otherwise, additional

time will be needed to revise the

attainment demonstration.

Response: EPA will revise the

deadline for state submittal of either a

reanalysis of the NO 2 attainment

demonstration, or an N0 2 analysis

which can support an EPA attainment

redesignation to July 13, 1981.

(3) Modeling/Level of Control

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of documentation of the Oa

design value and the ratio of nonmethane 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 for the purpose of

1979 SIP revision, 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 SIP revision. Thus, EPA is deleting

the submittal of 03 modeling

documentation for the 1979 SIP revision as a condition of approval.

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of modeling results which

estimate the emission reductions

necessary to provide for attainment of

the NO 2 standard by December 31, 1982.

The APCD and ARB commented that the

NO 2 attainment status question created

by the monitoring calibration errors mentioned above will result either in an attainment redesignation request or in

additional time needed to perform an NO2 modeling analysis.

Reponse: As with the NO2 attainment

demonstration approval condition, EPA

will revise the deadline for the State's

submittal of either NO 2 modeling results, or an NO 2 analysis 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 of documentation of the TSP

design value, and modeling results

which estimate the emission reductions

necessary to provide for attainment of

the TSP standard. ARB commented that

it would 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 of the TSP design

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 to maintain coordination in the

State's TSP work.

(4) Legally Adopted Measures/

Schedules

Comment: In response to EPA's citing

the lack of legally enforceable

regulations for seven volatile organic

compound (VOC) source categories, the

APCD and ARB commented that locally

adopted rules for these VOC sources have been or will be submitted to EPA.

Response: The State submitted the

required VOC rules on October 15 and

25, 1979. EPA will propose action and

invite public comment on these rules in a separate Federal Register notice.

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of legally enforceable

commitments and implementation

schedules for the 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 ARB for

submittal to EPA and requested an extension of the submittal deadline. The

APCD commented that EPA should

consider local adoption of model

ordinances developed by CPO as evidence of commitments to implement or enforce NAP control measures. Response.: Local adoption of model

ordinances could provide evidence of

commitments to implement control

measures if supported by the necessary

commitments of staff and financial resources for implementation and/or

enforcement. The adequacy of such

adopted model ordinances will be

determined at the time of their submittal

to EPA by the State. EPA will revise the

deadling for State submittal of the 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 of each

agency or entity responsible for

implementing the control measures. Included in these devices must be:

(a) an acknowledgment of the

agency's role in implementing specific

NAP related control strategies;

(b) an identification of specific agency

tasks to be carried out in fulfillment of

that role; and

(c) specified implementation dates

and, where appropriate, completion

dates for each of the identified tasks.

Scheduling must be 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 of approval the

submittal of a commitment in legally

enforceable form to implement all

control measures necessary for

attainment of the NO 2 standard by the

statutory date. The APCD and ARB

commented that if the current analysis

of NO 2 ambient data shows San Diego

County not to be in attainment,

additional time beyond the proposed

submittal deadline will be needed.

Response: As with the NO2 attainment

demonstration and modeling conditions

of approval, EPA will revise the

deadline for the State's submittal of

either a commitment to implement all

necessary NO2 control measures, or an

NO 2 analysis which can support an EPA

attainment redesignation to July 13,

1981.

(5) Emission Reduction Estimates

Comments: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of annual 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 of the submittal deadline.

Response: EPA will revise the

deadline for State submittal of emission

reduction estimates per control tactic to

(90 days after publication of this notice).

(6) Reasonable Further 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 of a transportation

monitoring program. CPO further

commented that similar monitoring

programs should be developed for non- transportation control tactics, or a 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) Emissions GroWth

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) Annual Reporting

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval 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 of approval.

(9) Permit Program

Comment: In response to EPA's citing

in the October 4, 1979 notice the lack of

an adopted and legally enforceable NSR

rule, the APCD and ARB commented

that adopted NSR rules for San Diego

County would be submitted.

Response: The State submitted the

San Diego County NSR rules on

February 13, 1980. EPA's review of these

rules can be found in the Supplemental

Revisions section of this notice and in

EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum.

(10) Resources

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of the financial and personnel

resource commitments necessary to

implement the NAP. The APCD and

CPO commented that they will submit

budget and manpower figures for the

current fiscal year, as well as proposed

budget and manpower estimates for the

next fiscal 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 local budget

commitments. Therefore, the

identification of necessary resource

commitments to implement the NAP

must be submitted by the State to EPA

when the local budgets are adopted. The

NAP must include a commitment to

provide this information annually.

(11) Public and Government

Involvement

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of an analysis of the health

effects of the NAP provisions. The

APCD commented that an adequate

discussion of the health effects of the

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 will revise the

deadline for State submittal of the

analysis of the health effects of the NAP

to July 13, 1981.

(12) Public Hearing

No comments were submitted.

(13) Extension Requirements

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of those portions of the

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 of Section

172(b](11)XA) of the Clean Air Act.

Response: As noted in EPA's

Evaluation Report Addendum, the San

Diego County NSR rules [i.e., Rule

20.4(g)] do not fully satisfy Section

172(b)(11)(A) of the Act and the rules

should be revised to do so. However, in

response to the proposed 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 of approval 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, or improve public

transportation to meet basic

transportation needs. CPO commented

that theyproduced a &faft report,

concluding that the existing transit

service meets basic 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 EPA needs to

provide guidance to define "basic

transportation needs" and the

acceptability of commitments to meet

such needs, and both requested an

extension of the submittal deadline.

Response:

Guidance on basic transportation

needs has now been developed by EPA -

Headquarters in consultation with the

Department of Transportation (DOT),

and was published as proposed policy in

the Federal Register on September 18,

1980 (45 FR 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 the explicit requirements

of Sections 110(a)C3)(D) and 110(c)(5)(B)

of the Act, and committing to develop

plans and programs to meet those

requirements, such as those currently

being analyzed by CPO. EPA will revise

the deadline for State submittal of the

commitments to meet basic

transportation needs to July 13, 1981.

Comment: CPO commented that

efforts to enhance air quality and

conserve energy through increased

transit are hampered by the

unavailability of transit coaches and by -

partially contradictory Federal

objectives of improving air quality and

providing increased mobility for the

physically and economically

disadvantaged.

Response: While the unavailability of

transit coaches is an important shortterm limitation, expansion of existing

bus fleets is only one element of what

should be a coordinated transportation

program aimed at maximizing mobility

while minimizing energy consumption

and air pollution.

Also, while certain Federal objectives

may compete for the same limited

resources, EPA disagrees with the

notion that Federal air quality objectives

and objectives of increased 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 also recognizes that once a

determination of necessary

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 of approval the

submittal of a 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 further proposed

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.

CPO commented that they intend to

develop and analyze alternative

packages of TCMs, and will transmit a

schedule for this analysis to ARB for

submittal to EPA. CPO also commented

that they will analyze one of the 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 of analysis required at the local/

regional level for the latter two TCMs.

In addition, ARB commented generally

that EPA should provide additional time

for ARB review of the locally developed

actions, in recognition of the complex

two-tiered process of plan development

and implementation in California.

Response: Although fleet vehicle

controls and alternative engines and

fuels can best be analyzed by EPA and

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 to use 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 of such

alternatives in cooperation with other

local agencies. As for the proposed

condition of approval, EPA will revise

the deadline for State submittal of a

schedule to analyze alternative

packages of TCMs 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 over which

CPO has approval authority. CPO and

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 of the CPO FY-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 issued joint 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 of improved procedures

not wait for issuance of the additional

guidance.

(14) Extension Requirements for VOC

RACT

Comment: As noted above under

Criterion 4, "Legally Adopted

Measures/Schedules,," the APCD and

ARB commented that the required VOC

rules identified in the October 4, 1979

notice as missing have been or will be

submitted to EPA. I

Response: The State submitted the

required VOC rules on October 15 and

25, 1979. EPA will propose action and

invite public comment on these rules in

a separate Federal Register notice.

Comment: The October 4, 1979 notice

proposed as a condition of approval the

submittal of a 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 they will submit

documentation demonstrating VOC

emission reductions under the rule

submitted on May 23, 1979 to be within

5% of the 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 SIP revisions on July 25 and

December 15, 1980. EPA will propose

action and invite public comment on

these rules in a separate Federal

Register notice. The adequacy of

amended Rule 61.3 as it relates to RACT

is discussed in that notice.

National Comments

One commenter submitted extensive

comments and requested that they be

considered part of the 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 of the 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 of this

notice to understand the overall nature

of NAPs and of EPA'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 of the NAP may be adequate for

one pollutant but inadequate for others.

EPA is taking final action on all portions

of the San Diego NAP for each pollutant

except the inspection/maintenance

portion. As a result, this notice contains

a series of actions for each portion of

the NAP for each pollutant rather than a

single action. One of the 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 of such

magnitude as to significantly interfere

with the basic objective: or

2. Approval where the portion of the

NAP under consideration meets all

requirements; or

3. Approval with conditions where

deficiencies exist, but where the effect

of the deficiency is not judged to be

major and the State has agreed to take

those steps necessary to correct the

deficiency. In this case, it is EPA's intent

that the State proceed expeditiously to

correct the noted deficiency by certain

dates.

EPA's final actions on each portion of

the NAP for each pollutant is based on

the proposed rulemaking notice,

supplemental revisions submitted by the

State, and public comments received by

EPA. Each action is described below.

Approved Portions of the NAP

As proposed in the October 4, 1979

notice, EPA is taking final action to

approve the following portions of the

NAP, regardless of the approvability of

the overall NAP'with respect to Part D:

emission inventory for HC, 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 of the NAP for ozone and CO

since the key deficiency is the I/M

portion of the 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 RFP portion of the NAP. No

supplemental revisions or public

comments were received addressing the

approvability of these portions.

Further, as discussed in the

Supplemental Revisions and Public

Comments sections of this notice, the

following portions of the 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 for NSR (i.e., the

requirements of Section 172fb)(11(A of

the Clean Air Act). Therefore, EPA is

taking final action to approve these

portions of the NAP. As proposed, EPA is taking final

action under Section 110 and Part D 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 of Volatile Organic

Compounds.

However, as discussed in the Supplemental

Revisions section of this notice, EPA is

proposing action and inviting public comment on the BOC RACT rules recently submitted

(February 4, 1981 (TM) Federal Register, 46

FR 10750). Therefore, this notice is not taking

final action on the "extension requirements

for VOC RACT" portion of the plan.

Conditionally Approved Portions of the

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 rule in that they

are at least as effective in meeting the

requirements of Section 173, and (2)

contain only minor 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 the NAP 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 5 U.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

short time since the State is required to

meet new EPA requirements for NSR 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 Diego Air Basin with

respect to particulate and NO.

emissions.

As discussed in the October 4, 1979

notice and the Public Comments section

of this notice, the following portions of

the NAP contain minor deficiencies:

emission inventory for TSP; attainment

provision; modeling for TSP and NO2:

legally adopted measures/schedules

(except for I/M); emission reduction

estimates; resources; public and

governmental involvement; and

extension requirements for basic

transportation needs and other

measures (i.e., the requirements of

Sections 110(a)(3)(D), 110(c)(5)(B), and

172(b)(11)(c) of the Clean Air Act).

Therefore, EPA is taking final action to

conditionally approve these portions of

the NAP with respect to Part D.

ARB, CPO, and the APCD have

provided assurances through the public

comment letters and Section 105 air

program grants that the minor

deficiencies will be corrected by

satisfying the conditions of approval

discussed below. EPA finds these

assurances acceptable for the purposes

of conditional approval.

The conditions 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 the NSR 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, 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. The Evaluation

Report Addendum is contained in

document file NAP-CA-19 and is

available at the EPA Region IX Office

and the EPA Library in Washington,

D.C.

2. By July 13, 1981, emission

projections for December 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. By July 13, 1981, identification and

analysis of the health effects of the San

Diego Air Basin nonattainment area

plan provisions.

For ozone and CO:

1. By July 13, 1981, written evidence of

local adoption of legally 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 NAP 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 of TCMs,

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 of the 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 of the

NO2 attainment demonstration,

modeling results which show the

emission reductions necessary to

provide for attainment of the NO 2

standard by December 31, 1982, and

written evidence of commitments in

legally enforceable form'to implement

all necessary measures to provide for

attainment by December 31, 1982; or an

NO 2 analysis which can support an EPA

attainment redesignation piirsuant to

Section 107 of the Clean Air Act.

It should be noted that additional

conditions may result from EPA's

review, in a separate Federal Register

notice, of the VOC 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 of the NAP

for TSP and NO2 with respect to Part D.

This removes the current prohibition on

construction of major 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 of the San

Diego NAP for CO and O, the

inspection/maintenance program,

today's actions do not result in a final

overall approval or disapproval of the

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 NO 2 plans for the

San Diego Air Basin. Therefore, EPA

finds that good cause exists for making

this action immediately effective.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, judicial review of today's action

is available only by the filing of a

petition for review in the United States

court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit within 60 days of today. Under

Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,

the requirements which are the subject

of today's notice may not be challenged

later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by EPA to enforce these

requirements.

Conditional Approval Procedure

A discussion of conditional approval

and its practical effect appears in two

supplements to the General Preamble

[44 FR 38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR

67192 (November 23, 1979)]. Conditional

approval requires the State to submit

additional material by the deadlines

specified in today's notice. There will be

-no extensions granted to the conditional

approval deadlines being promulgated

today. EPA will follow the procedures

described below in determining whether

the State has 6atisfied the conditions.

1. If the State submits the required

additional documentation according to

schedule, EPA will publish a notice in

the Federal Register announcing receipt

of the material. The notice of receipt will

also announce that the conditional

approval is continued pending EPA's

final action on the submittal.

2. EPA will evaluate the State's

submittal to determine if the conditions

are fully met. After EPA's review is

pompleted, a Federal Register notice will

be published 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

-notice shortly 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. EPA finds 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. (44 FR 38583, July 2, 1979 and

44 FR 57109, October 4, 1979).

40 CFR Part 52 Rescissions

Since no supplemental revisions or

public comments were received

regarding EPA's proposed 40 CFR Part

52 rescissions, EPA is taking final action

to rescind the following Federally

promulgated regulations from 40 CFR

Part 52:

Sec.

52.242 Inspection and maintenance

program.

.52.243 Motorcycle limitation.

52.244 Oxidizing catalyst retrofit.

52.247 Definitions for parking management

regulations.

52.251 Management of parking supply.

52.257 Computer carpool matching.

52.258 Mass transit priority-exclusive bus use. 52.259 Ramp metering and preferential bus!

carpool lanes.

52.266 Monitoring transportation mode

trends.

.52.269 Control strategy and regulations:

Photochemical oxidants, paragraph (a).

Attainment Dates

The 1979 edition of 40 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.

For each nonattainment area where a

NAP provides for attainment by the

deadlines required by Section 172(a) of

the Act, the new deadlines are

substituted on California's attainment

date chart in 40 CFR Part 52. The earlier

attainment dates will be referenced in a

footnote to the chart. Sources subject to

plan requirements and deadlines

established under Section 110(a)(2](A)

prior to the 1977 Amendments remain

obligated to comply with those

requirements, as well as the new

Section 172 requirements.

Congress established new attainment

dates under Section 172(a) to provide

additional time for previously regulated

sources to comply with new, more

stringent requirements, and to permit

previously-uncontrolled sources to

comply with the newly applicable

emission limitations. These new

deadlines were not included to give

sources that failed to comply with pre1977 plan requirements by the earlier

deadlines more time to comply with

those requirements. As noted by

Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing

the 1977 Amendments:

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act made clear that

each source had to meet its emission limits "as expeditiously as practicable," but not

later than three years after approval of a plan. This provision was not changed by the

1977 Amendments. It would be a perversion

of clear Congressional intent to construe Part

D to authorize relaxation or delay of emission

limits for particular sources. The added time

for attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards was provided, if

necessary, because of the need to tighten

emission limits or bring previously

uncontrolled sources under control. Delays or relaxation of emission limits were not

generally authorized or intended under Part D

(123 Cong. Rec. H 11958, daily ed. November

1, 1977).

To implement Congress' intention that

sources remain subject to pre-existing

plan requirements, sources cannot be

granted variances extending compliance

dates beyond the attainment dates

established prior to the 1977

Amendments. EPA cannot approve such

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 if it will not contribute to a

violation of an ambient standard or a

PSD increment [44 FR 20373-74, (April 4,

1979)].

In addition, sources subject to preexisting plan requirements may be

relieved of complying with such

requirements if a NAP imposes new,

more stringent control requirements that

are incompatible with controls required

to meet the pre-existing regulations.

Decisions on the incompatibility of

requirements will be made on a case-bycase basis.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b) I hereby certify that the attached

rule will 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

of the state actions would serve no

practical purpose and could well be

improper.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

"Major" and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

/Rules and Regula'tions 21756 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981

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 Of Management 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 for public

inspection at EPA Region IX, 215

Fremont St., San Francisco CA 94105.

(Sections 110, 129, 171-178, and 301(a) of the

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

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

Dated: April 6, 1981.

Walter C. Barber,

Acting Administrator.

Note.-Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter I, Title

40, of the Code of Federal 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 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(51) ** *

(vii) San Diego County APCD.

(A) Amended Rules 2(t), 61.5, and 61.7.

(62) The San Diego Air Basin Control

Strategy (Chapter 14 of the

Comprehensive Revisions to the State of

California Implementation Plan for the

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 of the Son Diego Air Basin

Control Strategy, including Appendices,

identified by Table 14-1, "Location of

-Plan Elements Which Meet Clean Air

Act Requirements" (pages 6-7),

comprise the submitted nonattainment

area plan, .except the inspection/

maintenance portion. The remaining

portions are for 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 TSP and

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 for TSP 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) to read as follows:

§ 52.232 Part D conditional approval.

(a) The following portions of the

California SIP contain deficiencies with

respect to Part D of the Clean Air Act

which must be corrected by meeting the

indicated conditions of Part D plan

approval.

(1) Imperial County for ozone. * * * * *

(2) North Central Coast Air Basin for

ozone.

(3) South Coast Air Basin.

(4) San Diego Air Basin.

(i) For ozone, CO, TSP, and NO 2:

(A) By May 7, 1981, the NSR rules

submitted on March 17, 1980 must be

revised and submitted as an SIP

revision. In revising the NSR 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, 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. The Evaluation

Report Addendum is contained in

document file NAP-CA-19 and

available at the EPA Region IX Office

and the EPA Library in Washington,

D.C.

(B) By (90 days after the publication of

this notice), the submittal of the

following as SIP revisions:

(1) Particulate, volatile organic

compound, CO and NO. emission

projections for December 31, 1982 and

volatile organic compound and CO

emission projections for December 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 of the

health effects of the San Diego Air Basin

nonattainment area plan provisions.

(ii) for ozone and CO:

(A) By July 13, 1981, the submittal of

the following as SIP revisions:

(1) Written evidence of local adoption

of legally 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 (but not

limited to) those measures listed in

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

(iii) For TSP:

(A) By December 31, 1981, the

submittal of the following as an SIP

revision:

(1) 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) A refined emission inventory for

particulates, identifying subcategories of

the fugitive dust source category and

quantifying the associated emissions.

(B) By July 13, 1981 the submittal of

the following as SIP revisions:

(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 NO 2:

(A) By July 13, 1981, the submittal of

the following as an SIP revision:

(1) A reanalysis of the NO 2 attainment

demonstration, modeling results which

show the emission reductions necessary

to provide for attainment of the NO 2

standard by December 31, 1982, and

written evidence of commitments in

legally enforceable form to implement

all necessary measures to provide for

attainment by December 31, 1982; or an

NO 2 analysis which can support an EPA

attainment redesignation pursuant to

Section 107 of ,the Clean Air Act.

5. In § 52.238, the entries for the San

Diego Intrastate Air Quality Control

Region are revised, and footnote (i) is

I

21757

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

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

follows: standards.

Air quality control region and nonattanment area

Pollutants

TSP S02 Primary SoNOn co O Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

San Diego Intrastate:

Eastern portion ..................................... (6) ............ (e) .................... (e) ............ (e) .................... (e) ............ (a) ........... (i).

W estern pottion .................................... (h) ............ (h) .................... (a) ............ (e) .................... (h) ............ (i) .............. (i).

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

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

i) December 31, 1987.

§§' 52.242, 52.243, 52.244, 52.247, 52.251,

52.257, 52.258, 52.259, and 52.266

[Removed]

6. Sections 52.242, 52.243, 52.244,

52.247, 52.251, 52.257, 52.258, 52.259, and

52.266 are removed and reserved.

IFR Dec. 81-11054 Filed 4-13-81; 8:45 amj

BILLING CODE 6560-38-M

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL 1792-31

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Nonattainment

Area Plans for the State of Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On April 10 and 27, and May

7, 1979 (44 FR 21307, 24880 and 26763)

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) published notices of proposed

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 of proposed

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 to Part D of the

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

of major new or modified sources in

these areas.

This notice provides a brief summary

of the proposed rulemaking notice,

discusses public comments, and

describes EPA's final action on the

NAPs.

DATE: Effective Date: This action is

effective April 1*4, 1981.

ADDRESS: A copy of the NAPs

mentioned above is located at: The

Office of the 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 of control

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 of proposed

rulemaking for these NAPs in the State

of Nevada. Those notices provided a

description of the 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 of proposed rulemaking

for these NAPs since revisions to the

NAPs were submitted on July 24 and

September 18, 1979 and March 17, 1980.

The September 9, 1980 notice supersedes

the April notices and supplements the

May notice. The May 7, 1979 and

September 9, 1980 notices should be

used as reference in rev'ewing today's

action.

Inspection/Maintenance Program

"Inspection/Maintenance" (I/M)

refers to a program whereby motor

vehicles receive periodic inspections to

assess the functioning of their exhaust

emissions control systems. Vehicles

which have excessive emissions must

then undergo mandatory maintenance.

Generally, I/M programs include

passenger cars, although other classes

can be included as well. Operation of

noncomplying vehicles is prohibited.

This is effectively accomplished by

requiring proof of compliance to

purchase license plates or to register a

vehicle. A windshield sticker system,

much like that of many safety inspection

programs, can be used if it can be

demonstrated that equal effectiveness

will be achieved.

Section 172 of the 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 of all

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 of a vehicle

emission control inspection and

maintenance program

EPA issued guidance on February 24,

1978, on the general criteria for approval

of the 1979 SIP revision including I/M,

and on July 17, 1978, regarding the *

specific criteria for I/M approval. Both

of these items are part of the SIP "

guidance material referred to in the

General Preamble for Proposed

Rulemaking (44 FR 20372). Though the

July 17, 1978 guidance should be

consulted for details, the key I/M

elements required for approval of the

1979 SIP revision are as follows:

(1) Legal Authority. States or local

governments must have adopted the

necessary statutes, regulations,

21758

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 21758 1981