Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

cholinesterase inhibition, a 90-day rat

feeding study with a cholinesterase

NOEL of 2.0 ppm (0.1 mg/kg of bw), a

rabbit teratology study with no-observed

effects at the 2.5 mg/kg dosage level, an

acute delayed neurotoxicity study (hen)

with no-observed effects at the 50.63

mg/kg dosage level, and an interim

report of an oncogenic study (mouse).

Desirable data that are currently

lacking and the projected dates of

completion of these studies are as

follows: A chronic feeding/oncogenic

study (rat)-August 1984; the final report

of the oncogenic study (mouse)-

January 1983; a teratology study (rat)-

October 1982; a reproduction study

(rat)-June 1984; and mutagenic studies

(Ames and-dominant lethal, August

1982).

Although there are significant data

gaps for the chemical, the available

toxicity data are adequate to support the

tolerance since the proposed use will

result in an insignificant increase (0.33

percent) in the current theoretical

maximum residue contribution (TMRC)

to the human diet. As stated in the

Federal Register of May 11, 1979 (44 FR

27932-27954) the "Agency will generally

consider as insignificant an increase in

the TMRC of 1.0 percent or less."

A related document (PP 9G2151/T371)

establishing a temporary tolerance for

residues of the insecticide

methamidophos in or on peanuts and

peanut hulls appears elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register.

The established tolerances for the

combined residues of acephate and

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolite,

methamidophos in meat, milk, poultry,

and eggs at 0.1 ppm (40 CFR 180.108) are

adequate to cover any secondary

residues occurring in this commodity

from the proposed use of

methamidophos on peanuts. An

adequate analytical method (gas

chromatographic procedure using a

cesium bromide thermionic detector) is

available for enforcement purposes and

the nature of the residues is adequately

understood.

Tolerances have previously been

established for residues of

methamidophos in or on a variety of raw

agricultural commodities (40 CFR

180.315). There are no regulatory actions

pending against continued registration

of the pesticide and there are no other

considerations involved in establishing

this feed additive regulation.

The insecticide is considered useful

for the purpose for which the regulation

is sought, and it is concluded that the

insecticide may be safely used in

accordance with the prescribed manner when such uses are in accordance with

the label and labeling registered

pursuant to FIFRA as amended, (86 Stat.

973, 89 Stat. 751, U.S.C. 135(a) et seq.)

Therefore, the regulation is established

as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, on or before July 23,

1982, file written objections with the

Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above. Such objections should be

submitted in quintuplicate and specify

the provisions of the regulation deemed

objectionable and the grounds for the

objections. If a hearing is requested, the

objections must state the issues for the

hearing and the grounds for the

objections. A hearing will be granted if

the objections are supported by grounds

legally sufficient to justify the relief

sought.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulation from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-

534, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the

Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new food or

feed additive levels, or conditions for

safe use of additives, or raising such

food or feed additive levels do not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. A

certification statement to this effect was

published in the Federal Register of May

4, 1981 (46 FR 24945).

Effective on: June 23, 1982.

(Sec. 409(c)(1), 72 Stat. 1786 (21 U.S.C.

346(c)(1)))

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 561

Animal feeds, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: June 9, 1982.

James M. Conlon,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

PART 561-TOLERANCES FOR

PESTICIDES IN ANIMAL FEEDS

ADMINISTERED BY THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Therefore, 21 CFR 561.277(a) is

amended by adding an entry for "peanut

meal" in the table to read as follows:

§ 561.277 Methamidophos.

(a) * * *

Parts Feed per Company Expiration date mllion

Peanut meal .... 0.2 Mobay June 10. 1984.

Chemical.

IFR Doc. 82-16491 Filed 6-22-82:8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL 1871-6]

Lake Tahoe Basin Nonattainment Area

Plans and Regulations, States of

California and Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On September 10, 1980, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for the Lake Tahoe Basin

nonattainment area plans (NAPs) for

ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO).

That notice proposed to conditionally

approve the overall NAPs, since they

contain minor deficiencies with respect

to Part D of the Clean Air Act, "Plan

Requirements for Nonattainment

Areas."

On March 3, 1981, EPA published a

notice of final rulemaking redesignating

the Lake Tahoe Basin to attainment for ozone. The effect of this redesignation

was to remove the Part D requirements

for ozone. EPA is today taking final

action to fully approve the ozone

portions of the NAPs under Section 110

of the Act as revisions to the California

and Nevada State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) since they contain measures

which strengthen the existing SIPs.

EPA is also approving California's

request for an extension to 1987 for

attainment of the CO standards in the

California portion of the Lake Tahoe

Basin.

Further, since the States have

provided assurances to correct the

minor deficiencies in the NAPs for CO,

EPA is today taking final action to

conditionally approve the NAPs for CO

under Part D as revisions to the

California and Nevada SIPs. This action

removes the prohibition on construction

of major new or modified sources in this

area.

This notice provides a brief summary

of the proposed rulemaking notice,

describes recent revisions which

supplement the NAP, discusses public

comments, and describes EPA's final

action on the revisions.

DATES: This action is effective June 23,

1982.

ADDRESS: A copy of the revisions

mentioned above is located at: The

Office of the Federal Register, 1100 "L"

Street, NW., Room 8401, Washington,

D.C. 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Air and Hazardous Materials

Division, Environmental Protection

27065

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27065 1982
27066 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

Agency, Region 9, 215 Fremonf 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). The Governor's designee for

California submitted revisions to the

California SIP consisting of control

strategies and regulations for the

California portion of the Lake Tahoe

Basin on May 23 and August 21, 1979

and February 11, 1980. The Governor of

Nevada submitted revisions to the

Nevada SIP consisting of control

strategies and regulations for the

Nevada portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin

on July 24, 1979 and March 17, 1980.

These revisions constitute the Lake

Tahoe Basin NAPS for 03 and CO.

On September 8, 1980 (45 FR 59177)

EPA proposed to approve the State's

rescission of Nevada's Indirect Source

Review Program (ISRP) based on EPA's

proposed conditional approval of

Nevada's NAPs. The ISRP is not

addressed in this notice but is the

subject of a separate Federal Register

rulemaking action.

On September 10, 1980 (45 FR 59591)

EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for the Lake Tahoe Basin

NAPs. That notice provided a

description of the NAPs, summarized

the applicable Clean Air Act

requirements into 13 criteria, compared

the NAPs to those criteria, and proposed

to approve or conditionally approve

portions of the NAPs. The September 10,

1980 notice should be used as a

reference in reviewing today's action.

03

EPA proposed to fully approve all but

one portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin

NAPs for 03. The permit program

portion was found to contain a minor

deficiency with respect to Part D and

was proposed to be approved with the

condition that the deficiency be

corrected by a specified deadline.

Supplemental Revisions

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA)

The September 10, 1980 notice

proposed to conditionally approve the

California NAP for CO based upon the

submittal of those portions of CEQA

that relate to the requirement providing

for an analysis of alternatives for new

sources which demonstrates that

benefits of the source outweigh the

environmental costs (Section

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

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.

As discussed in a previous rulemaking

notice (January 21, 1981, 46 FR 5967),

EPA has determined that these portions

of CEQA satisfy the requirements of

Section 172(b)(11)(A) of the Clean Air

Act and therefore this minor deficiency

has been corrected.

Public Comments

During the public comment period,

EPA received comments from the

Nevada Department of Conservation

and Natural Resources (NDCNR) and

the Californi Air Resources Board

(CARB). This notice discusses only

those comments that caused EPA to

change certain proposed actions. All

comments received are specifically

identified and responded to in EPA's

Public Comment Technical Support

Document (contained in Document File

NAP-CA-NV-O1 at the CARB, NDCNR,

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

(TRPA), EPA Region 9 Office, and EPA

Library in Washington, D.C.). A

discussion of National comments

received is also contained in the

Technical Support Document.

Both California and Nevada indicated

that an additional period of time is

necessary for satisfying the conditions

of approval. The assumptions and

strategies in both NAPs are significantly

affected by the recently revised Tahoe

Regional Planning Compact (Pub. L. 96-

55, December 19, 1980) which may

require complicated amendment to

several aspects of the plans.

Accordingly, EPA is extending all

conditional approval deadlines to 180

days from the date of publication of this

notice. However, EPA is extending the

submittal date for the NSR condition

only to November 7, 1981, because of the

national schedule for submittal/

approval of permitting provisions

established on August 7, 1980, (see 45 FR

52676).

California commented that resource

commitments should be required in the

annual report for each year, rather than

as binding multi-year budget

commitments. EPA will allow for the

submittal of future resource needs in

this manner. Therefore, EPA is revising

this condition to require that the State

submit annual resource commitments.

Both Nevada and California

commented that the Tahoe Basin is now

attainment for ozone. EPA published on

March 3, 1981, a notice of final

rulemaking redesignating the area to

attainment (see 46 FR 14892). As a result

of this redesignation, the States are no

longer subject to the requirements of

Title I, Part D of the Clean Air Act for

ozone in the Lake Tahoe Basin,

including the proposed condition

respecting the permit program for the

California ozone NAP.

EPA Actions

Introduction to Action on NAPs

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 NAPs

for a specific: pollutant or rule.

Therefore, a portion of the NAPs may be

adequate for one pollutant but

inadequate for others. Further, a rule

may be adequate under Section 110 but

inadequate under Part D. It is EPA's

policy to take final action on all portions

of the NAPs for each pollutant. As a

result, this notice contains a series of

actions for each pollutant and for each

portion of the NAPs rather than a single

action. One of the following three

actions may be taken for each portion of

the NAPs:

1. Disapproval where the State does

not agree t 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 the Lake Tahoe

Basin NAPs are described below and

are based on the proposed rulemaking

notice, supplemental revision, and the

public comments received by EPA.

Rules

EPA is taking final action under

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act to

approve all of the volatile organic

compound rules listed in the September

10, 1980 proposed rulemaking notice.

Also, EPA is taking final action under

Section 110 of the Act to approve the

new source review (NSR)-rules listed in

the notice of proposed rulemaking, with

exception of Placer County's banking

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27066 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

rule, Rule 508(I)(C)(3)(h). Rules

governing the operation of the bank

need to be submitted. EPA will soon be

publishing guidance in the form of a

policy statement in the Federal Register

describing minimum conditions required

of State in establishing rules governing

the creation, holding (i.e., "banking"),

and use of emission reduction credits.

Approved Portions of the NAPs

Following the redesignation of the

Lake Tahoe Basin to attainment for

ozone under Section 107(d) of the CAA,

the ozone portions of the NAPs need not

satisfy the provisions of Part D and

EPA's Criteria for NAP submittals. EPA

is taking final action today to approve

the entire ozone portions of the NAPs

and to incorporate them into the

California and Nevada SIPs. The effect

of this action is to reorder, update, and

make more stringent the ozone portions

of the SIPs for the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The revisions meet the requirements of

Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act

and 40 CFR Part 51, Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

State Implementation Plans.

As proposed in the September 10, 1980

notice, EPA is taking final action under

Part D of the Clean Air Act to approve

the following portions of the Lake Tahoe

Basin NAPs for CO: emission inventory,

modeling (California plan), attainment

provision (California plan), reasonable

further progress, emissions growth,

annual reporting, permit program

(Nevada plan), public and government

involvement, and public hearing.

As stated in the September 10, 1980

notice, EPA is accepting portions of the

Transportation Improvement Program

and Regional Transportation Plan that

were submitted with the California plan

for informational purposes only and not

as a part of the Fedetally-enforceable

SIP.

Conditionally Approved Portions of the

NAPs

As discussed in the September 10,

1980 notice, the following portions of the

Lake Tahoe Basin NAPs for CO contain

minor deficiencies and the States have

provided assurances to correct these

deficiencies: Modeling (Nevada plan),

emission reduction estimates,

attainment provision (Nevada plan),

legally adopted measures, permit

program (California plan), resources,

and extension requirements (California

plan).

Therefore, EPA is taking final action

to conditionally approve these portions

of the NAPs.

The material required to satisfy

conditions of approval must be

submitted as an SIP revision as

specified below:

California/CO

1. By November 7, 1981, NSR rules for

El Dorado and Placer Counties (Tahoe

portion) must be revised and submitted

as SIP revisions. The rules must satisfy

Section 173 and 40 CFR 51.18, "Review

of new sources and modifications." In

revising the counties' NSR rules, the

State must address all the requirements

in EPA's amended regulations for NSR

(45 FR 31307, May 13, 1980 and 45 FR

52676, August 7, 1980) which the

counties' rules do not currently satisfy,

including those deficiencies cited in

EPA's Evaluation Report which still

apply despite new EPA NSR

requirements (contained in Document

File NAP-CA-NV-01 at the CARB,

NDCNR, TRPA, EPA Region 9 office,

EPA Library in Washington, D.C.) As

EPA noted on August 7, 1980 in

promulgating the revised NSR

requirements (see 45 FR 52687), if the

revised NSR rules have not been

submitted and approved by November 7,

1981, a construction moratorium will

take effect in the California portion of

the Lake Tahoe Basin.

2. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit emission reduction

estimates for each adopted control

measure or package of control measures.

3. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit written evidence that all

adopted measures are supported by

sufficient implementation commitments

or that adopted schedules for obtaining

such commitments will ensure that all

measures will be implemented

consistent with reasonable further

progress. As an alternative, the State

may submit equivalent control strategies

supported by commitments and full legal

adoption.

4. By December 20, 1982, the State

must provide a commitment to submit

annual implementing agency fiscal and

personnel commitments to implement the Lake Tahoe Basin NAP.

5. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit written evidence of

commitments by agencies with legal

authority to establish, expand, or

improve public transportation to meet

basic transportation needs.

6. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit a schedule to analyze

alternative packages of transportation

control measures, including but not

limited to those measures listed in

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

The State must also submit a

commitment to initiate implementation

of those measures shown to be

reasonably available.

Nevada/CO

1. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit emission reduction

estimates for each adopted control

measure or package of control measures.

2. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit a fully documented

nodeling analysis indicating attainment

by 1982 based upon legally adopted

control measures.

3. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit written evidence that all

adopted measures are supported by

sufficient implementation commitments

or that adopted schedules for obtaining

such commitments will ensure that all

measures will be implemented

consistent with reasonable further

progress. As an alternative, the State

may submit equivalent control strategies

supported by commitments and full legal

adoption.

4. By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit evidence of the necessary

resource commitments to implement the

Lake Tahoe Basin NAP.

Final Action on the NAPs

As described in the September 10,

1980 notice, only minor deficiencies

remain in the Lake Tahoe Basin NAPs

for CO. Therefore, EPA is taking final

action today to conditionally approve

the overall Lake Tahoe Basin NAPs for

CO with respect to Part D. As noted

above, EPA is fully approving the NAPs

for 0, under Section 110. As a result, the

prohibition on construction of~certain

major new or modified sources in the

Lake Tahoe Basin is no longer in effect.

EPA has a responsibility to take final

action as soon as possible in order to lift

the construction prohibitions, since the

States have submitted conditionally

approvable NAPs for the Lake Tahoe

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 States to submit

27067

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27067 1982
27068 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

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 when determining if

the States have satisfied the conditions.

1. If the States ,submit 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 submission.

2. EPA will evaluate the States'

submittal to determine if the conditions

are fully met. After EPA's review is

completed, a Federal Register notice will

be published proposing or taking final

action to either (1) find the conditions

have been met and approve the NAPs,

or (2) find the conditions have not been

met, withdraw the conditional approval,

and disapprove the NAPs. If the NAPs

are disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(I)

restrictions on construction would be

reimposed.

3. If the States fail 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 NAPs are disapproved, and the

Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on

construction are 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 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B),

Administrative Procedure Act). The

States are the parties responsible for

meeting the deadlines. In addition, the

public has an opportunity to comment

generally on the concept of conditional

approval and on what deadlines should

apply for these conditipns (44 FR 38583,

July 2, 1979 and 45 FR 59591, September

10, 1980).

40 CFR Part 52 Rescissions

As a result of EPA's final

promulgation of conditional approval for

the Lake Tahoe Basin CO NAPs and

final promulgation of approval for the

ozone NAPs EPA is also taking final

action to rescind Federally promulgated

regulations from 40 CFR Part 52. Several

of the regulations proposed were

rescinded in a final action published for

the San Diego Air Basin NAP on April

14, 1981 (46 FR 21749). The remaining

regulations: 40 CFR 52.245, 52.255, and

52.264 are being rescinded in today's

final action.

Attainment Dates

The 1980 edition of 40 CFR Part 52

lists, in the Subparts for California and

Nevada, the applicable deadlines for

attaining the NAAQS (attainment dates)

required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the

,ct. 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 the attainment date chart

for California and Nevada 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:

fSection 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 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.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

"major" and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. This regulation is not major

because it only approves state actions.

It imposes no new regulatory

requirements.

This regulation was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

[OMB) for review as required by

Executive Order 12291.

Note.-Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plans for the States of

California and Nevada was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July 1,

1981.

(Secs. 110, 129, 171, to 178, and 301(a) of the

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur

oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons.

Dated: May 26, 1982.

Anne M. Gorsuch,

Administrator.

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Subparts F and DD of Chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

are amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1. Section 52.220, paragraph (c) is

amended by adding subparagraphs

(51)(xiv)(B), (80)(i)(B), (80)(ii), and

(81)(i)(B) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(51) * * *

(xiv) * * *

(B) New or amended Rules 102, LAER,

stationary source, and modifications;

213; and 214. * * * *

(80)* * *

i) * * *

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27068 1982
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

(B) New or amended Rules 212, 213,

508 (except Paragraph (I)(C)(3)(h)), and

514.

(ii) Chapter 8, Lake Tahoe Basin

Control Strategy, including Support

Documents and Appendices. The

Transportation Improvement Program

and Regional Transportation Plan are

for informational purposes only.

(81) * * •

(i) * *

(B) New or amended Rules 501 to 506,

508 to 510, and 516 to 518.

2. Section 52.222 is amended by

adding paragraph (d)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 52.222 Extensions.

(d) * *

(2) Lake Tahoe Basin for CO. ,* f * * *

3. Section 52.223 is amended by

adding paragraph (d)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 52.223 Approval status.

(d) With the exceptions set forth in

this subpart, the Administrator approves

the plan with respect to Part D, Title I of

the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977,

for the nonattainment areas listed in this

paragraph.

(1) Lake Tahoe Basin for CO.

4. Section 52.232 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as

follows:

§ 52.232 Part D conditional approval.

(a) • * ft ft f * •

(8) Lake Tahoe Basin. •

(i) For CO:

(A) By December 20, 1982, NSR rules

for El Dorado and Placer Counties

(Tahoe portion) must be revised and

submitted as an SIP revision. The rules

must satisfy Section 173 and 40 CFR

51.18, "Review of new sources and

modifications." In revising the counties'

NSR rules, the State must address all the

requirements in EPA's amended

regulations for NSR (45 FR 31307, May

13, 1980 and 45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980)

which the counties' rules do not

currently satisfy, including those

deficiencies cited in EPA's Evaluation

Report which still apply despite new

EPA NSR requirements (contained in

Document File NAP-CA-NV-01 at the

EPA Library in Washington, D.C. and

the Region 9 Office).

(B) By December 20, 1982, the

submittal of the following as SIP

revisions.

(1) Emission reduction estimates for

each adopted control measure or

package of control measures.

(2) Written evidence that all adopted

measures are supported by sufficient

implementation commitments or that

adopted schedules for obtaining such

commitments will ensure that all

measures will be implemented

consistent with reasonable further

progress. As an alternative, the State

may submit equivalent control strategies

supported by commitments and full legal

adoption.

(3) Provide a commitment to submit

annual implementing agency fiscal and

personnel commitments to implement

the Lake Tahoe Basin NAP.

(4) Written evidence of commitments

by agencies with legal authority to

establish, expand, or improve public

transportation to meet basic

transportation needs.

(5) A schedule to analyze alternative

packages of transportation control

measures, including but not limited to

those measures listed in Section

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

State must also submit a commitment to

initiate implementation of those

measures shown to be reasonably

available.

5. Section 52.233 is amended by

revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(18),

(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(1)(xvi) to read as

follows:

§ 52.233 Review of new sources and

modifications.

(d) * ft

(3) El Dorado County APCD

(Mountain Counties Intrastate portion), t * ft f

(18) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Intrastate portion).

(g) (1) *• •

(iii) El Dorado County APCD

(Mountain Counties Intrastate portion).

(xvi) Placer County APCD (Mountain

Counties Intrastate portion).

6. In § 52.238, the entries for the Lake

Tahoe Intrastate are added as follows: ft * • * ft f

Pollutants

Air quality control region and TSP SO,

nonattainment area NO, Co O

Prirary Secondary Primary Secondary

Lake Tahoe Intrastate ............................ (d) . (a) ........ e). (e) ........ e) . i). (e)

§§ 52.245, 52.264 [Removed and Reserved]

7. Sections 52.245 and 52.264 are

removed and reserved.

8. Section 52.255 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 52.255 Gasoline transfer vapor control.

(b) This section is applicable in the

Metropolitan Los Angeles, Sacramento

Valley, and San Joaquin Valley

Intrastate Air Quality Control Regions,

with the following exceptions:

Subpart DD-Nevada

9. Section 52.1470, paragraph (c) is

amended by adding subparagraph

(16)(vii) to read as follows:

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan.

(c)* f •

(16) * *

(vii) Lake Tahoe Basin Nonattainment

Area Plan.

10. Section 52.1472 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1472 Approval status.

(b)

(7) Lake Tahoe Basin for CO. ft ft ft ft ft

11. Section 52.1474 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1474 Part 0 conditional approval.

(a) * * *

(4) The Lake Tahoe Basin portion of

the Nevada SIP is approved as

satisfying Part D requirements for

carbon monoxide provided the following

conditions are met. .(i) By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit, as a SIP revision, emission

reduction estimates for each adopted

control measure or package of control

measures.

27069

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27069 1982
27070 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit, as a SIP revision, a fully

documented modeling analysis

indicating attainment by 1982 based

upon legally adopted control measures. (iii) By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit, as a SIP revision, written

evidence that all adopted measures are

supported by sufficient implementation

commitments or that adopted schedules

for obtaining such commitments will

ensure that all measures will be

implemented consistent with reasonable

further progress. As an alternative, the

State may submit equivalent control

Pollutants

Air quality control region and TSP SO.

nonattainment area NO, CO 01

Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

Northwest Nevada Intrastate Lake, July 1975 . July 1977 .. C .............. C ...................... C .............. e ............... C

Tahoe Basin.

13. Section 52.1481 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

§ 52.1481 Extensions.

(b) * * *

(7) Lake Tahoe Basin for CO.

IFR Dec. 82-16827 Filed 6-22-82: 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL 1871-51

Nevada State Implementation Plan

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On September 8, 1980, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking concerning the indirect

source review program (ISRR) contained

in the Nevada State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The September 8 notice

proposed to approve the State's

requested rescission of Nevada's ISRP,

since the State's nonattainment area

plans were also proposed to be

conditionally approved. Today's notice

approves the rescission of Nevada's

ISRP.

DATE: This action is effective July 23,

1982.

ADDRESS: A copy of today's revision to

the Nevada SIP is located at: The Office

of the Federal Register, 1100 "L" Street,

NW., Room 8401, Washington, D.C.

20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Air and Hazardous Materials

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 215 Fremont Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn: Douglas

Grano (415) 556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

An ISRP provides for the

preconstruction review of such facilities

as shopping centers, sports complexes,

and apartment developments, which

induce or attract significant traffic. The

purpose of this program is to ensure that

the substantial increase in traffic

resulting from the construction of such

facilities will not cause violations of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for transportation related

pollutants.

On October 16, 1979 (44 FR 59561),

EPA proposed to approve revisions to

the Nevada SIP which would remove all

indirect source review rules. The

Governor submitted the revisions on

December 29, 1978 and July 24, 1979

which were received by EPA in January

and August 1979, respectively. A

strategies supported by commitments

and full legal adoption.

(iv) By December 20, 1982, the State

must submit, as a SIP revision, evidence

of the necessary resource commitments

to implement the Lake Tahoe Basin

NAP.

12. In § 52.1480, the entry for the Lake

Tahoe Basin is added immediately

under "Northwest Nevada Intrastate" as

follows:

§ 52.1480 Attainment dates for national

standards.

* * * * *

complete list of the rules being proposed

is contained in the October 16, 1979

notice.

EPA's proposed action was based on

the view that Section 110(a)(5)(A)(iii) of

the Clean Air Act, as amended, permits

a state to rescind its ISRP so long as the

State complies with the procedural

requirements in Section 110. During the

60 day comment period, EPA received

comments opposing the proposed

approval as well as comments favoring

it.

On December 6, 1979 the U.S. Court of

Appeals in Manchester Environmental

Coalition v. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 612 F.2d 56, 59 (No.

79-4062, 2d Cir. dec. December 6, 1979).

held that Section 110(a)(5)(A)(iii)

requires the Agency to ensure that a

State's SIP revision rescinding an ISRP

meets both the procedural and

substantive requirements of section 110.

The Court held that before deciding

whether to approve such a rescission,

EPA must also consider whether the

rescission would render the SIP

inadequate to attain and maintain the

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA reevaluated

the October 16, 1979 proposed action to

determine the impact on the NAAQS.

On September 9 and 10, 1980, EPA

published rulemaking notices proposing

to conditionally approve nonattainment

area plans (NAPs) for the areas of the

State which have not attained the

NAAQS for transportation related

pollutants. Since the State's NAPs were

proposed to be conditionally approved,

EPA determined that the ISRP rescission

would not render the SIP inadequate to

attain and maintain the NAAQS. Thus

EPA proposed to approve the ISRP

rescission in the September 8, 1980

Federal Register. The September 8

notice should be used as a reference in

reviewing today's action.

Public Comments

EPA received comments from the

California Air Resources Board, the

California State Water Resources

Control Board, the California Office of

Planning and Research, the California

Department of Transportation, the

Council on Environmental Quality, and

on behalf of the League to Save Lake

Tahoe and the Sierra Club, Joseph J.

Brecher. A document containing a

summarization of the substantive

comments and EPA's response to each,

entitled "EPA Public Comment

Technical Support Document", has been

mailed to the commentors and is also

available for public inspection at the

EPA Library in Washington, D.C., at the

EPA Region 9 Office in San Francisco,

Cal. and at the Department of

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27070 1982