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

cholinesterase inhibition, a90-day rat feeding study with acholinesterase NOEL of 2.0 ppm (0.1 mg/kg ofbw), a rabbit teratology study with no-observed effects atthe 2.5 mg/kg dosage level, an acute delayed neurotoxicity study (hen) withno-observed effects atthe 50.63 mg/kg dosage level, and an interim report of anoncogenic study (mouse).

Desirable data that are currently lacking and the projected dates of completion ofthese 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 ofMay 11, 1979 (44FR 27932-27954) the "Agency will generally consider as insignificant an increase in the TMRC of 1.0 percent orless."

Arelated document (PP9G2151/T371) establishing a temporary tolerance for residues ofthe insecticide methamidophos in or on peanuts and peanut hulls appears elsewhere in this issue ofthe Federal Register.

The established tolerances for the combined residues ofacephate 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 theproposed 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 ofthe residues is adequately understood.

Tolerances have previously been established forresidues of methamidophos in oron a variety ofraw agricultural commodities (40 CFR 180.315). There are no regulatory actions pending against continued registration ofthe 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) etseq.) Therefore, the regulation is established

as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, on orbefore 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. Ahearing will be granted if the objections are supported by grounds legally sufficient tojustify the relief sought.

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this regulation from the requirements of section 3 ofExecutive Order 12291.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96- 534, 94 Stat. 1164, 5U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations establishing new food or feed additive levels, orconditions for safe use of additives, orraising such food orfeed additive levels do not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall 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), 72Stat. 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, ActingDirector, Officeof 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 ofproposed 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 Dof the Clean Air Act, "Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas."

On March 3, 1981, EPApublished a notice offinal rulemaking redesignating the Lake Tahoe Basin to attainment for

ozone. The effect ofthis redesignation

was to remove the Part Drequirements for ozone. EPAis today taking final action to fully approve the ozone portions ofthe NAPs under Section 110 ofthe 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 ofthe CO standards in the California portion ofthe Lake Tahoe Basin.

Further, since the States have provided assurances to correct the minor deficiencies in the NAPs for CO, EPAis 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 ofmajor new or modified sources in this

area.

This notice provides a brief summary ofthe proposed rulemaking notice, describes recentrevisions which supplement the NAP, discusses public comments, and describes EPA's final action on therevisions. DATES: This action is effective June 23, 1982. ADDRESS: A copy oftherevisions mentioned above is located at: The Office ofthe 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 FremonfStreet, San Francisco, CA94105, 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 SIPconsisting ofcontrol strategies and regulations for the California portion ofthe 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 ofcontrol strategies and regulations for the Nevada portion ofthe LakeTahoe 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 (45FR 59177) EPA proposed to approve the State's rescission ofNevada'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 ofa separate Federal Register rulemaking action.

On September 10, 1980 (45FR 59591) EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the Lake Tahoe Basin NAPs. That notice provided a description ofthe 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 ofthe NAPs. The September 10, 1980notice should be used as a reference in reviewing today's action.

03
EPA proposed to fully approve all but

one portion ofthe Lake Tahoe Basin NAPs for 03. The permit program portion was foundto 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 EnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA)

The September 10, 1980 notice proposed to conditionally approve the California NAP for CO based uponthe submittal ofthose portions ofCEQA that relate to the requirement providing for an analysis ofalternatives for new

sources which demonstrates that benefits ofthe source outweigh the environmental costs (Section 

### 172(b)(11)(A) ofthe Clean AirAct).

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 (January21, 1981, 46 FR 5967), EPAhas determined that these portions ofCEQA satisfy the requirements of Section 172(b)(11)(A) ofthe 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 ofConservation 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), EPARegion 9 Office, and EPA Library inWashington, D.C.). A discussion ofNational comments received is also contained in the Technical Support Document.

Both California and Nevada indicated that an additional period oftime is necessary for satisfying the conditions ofapproval. The assumptions and strategies in both NAPs are significantly 

### affected bythe recently revised Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (Pub.L.96- 55, December 19, 1980) which may 

### require complicated amendment to several aspects ofthe plans. 

### Accordingly, EPA is extending all conditional approval deadlines to 180 days from the date ofpublication of this notice. However,EPA is extending the submittal date for the NSR condition only to November 7, 1981, because ofthe national schedule for submittal/ 

### approval ofpermitting 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. EPAwill allow for the submittal offuture 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 (see46 FR 14892). As a result of thisredesignation, the States are no longer subject to the requirements of Title I,Part D ofthe Clean Air Act for

ozone in the Lake Tahoe Basin, including theproposed condition respecting thepermit program forthe California ozone NAP.
EPA Actions

IntroductiontoAction onNAPs



### It is important forreviewers of this notice to understand the overall nature ofNAPs and ofEPA's review and approval role. Central to such an understanding is recognition that action maybe taken on a portion of the NAPs for a specific: pollutantor rule. Therefore, a portion ofthe NAPs may be adequate for onepollutant but inadequate forothers. Further, a rule may be adequate under Section 110 but inadequate under Part D. Itis EPA's policy to take final action on allportions ofthe NAPs for each pollutant. As a result, thisnotice contains a series of actions foreach pollutant and for each portion ofthe NAPs rather than a single action. One ofthe following three actions may be taken foreach portion of the NAPs:



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

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

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

3.Approval with conditions where deficiencies exist,but wherethe effect of the deficiency is notjudged to be major and the State has agreed to take those steps necessary to correct the deficiency.

In thiscase, itis EPA's intent that the Stateproceed expeditiously to correct thenoted deficiency by certain dates.

EPA's final actions on theLake Tahoe Basin NAPs are described below and

are based on theproposed rulemaking notice, supplementalrevision, and the publiccomments received byEPA.

Rules



### EPA is taking final action under Section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct to approve all ofthe volatile organic compound rules listed in the September 10, 1980 proposed rulemaking notice. Also, EPAis takingfinal action under Section 110ofthe Act to approve the

new source review (NSR)-rules listed in the notice ofproposed rulemaking, with exception ofPlacer 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 ofthebank need to be submitted. EPA will soon be publishing guidance in the form ofa policy statement in the Federal Register describing minimum conditions required ofState in establishing rules governing the creation, holding (i.e., "banking"), and use of emission reduction credits. ApprovedPortionsoftheNAPs

Following the redesignation ofthe Lake Tahoe Basin to attainment for

ozone under Section 107(d) ofthe CAA, the ozone portions ofthe NAPs need not satisfy the provisions ofPart 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 ofthis action is to reorder, update, and make more stringent the ozone portions of the SIPs for the Lake Tahoe Basin. The revisions meet therequirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean AirAct and 40 CFR Part51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans.

As proposed in the September 10, 1980 notice, EPAis taking final action under PartD ofthe Clean Air Act to approve the following portions ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ApprovedPortionsofthe 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 SIPrevision as specified below: California/CO

1.By November 7, 1981, NSR rules for El Dorado and Placer Counties (Tahoe portion) mustbe revised and submitted

as SIPrevisions. Therules must satisfy Section 173 and 40CFR 51.18, "Review ofnew sources and modifications." In revising the counties' NSR rules, the State must address all therequirements in EPA's amended regulations forNSR (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 inDocument 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 7,1980in promulgating the revised NSR requirements (see45 FR 52687), ifthe revised NSR rules have not been submitted and approved byNovember 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 foreach adopted control

measure or package ofcontrol measures.

3.By December 20, 1982, the State must submit written evidence that all adopted measures are supported by sufficient implementation commitments

or thatadopted schedules forobtaining such commitments will ensure that all

measures willbe 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 mustprovide 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) ofthe Clean AirAct. The State must also submit a commitment to initiate implementation ofthose measures shown to be reasonably available. Nevada/CO
1.By December 20, 1982, the State must submit emission reduction estimates foreach adopted control

measure orpackage ofcontrol 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 forobtaining 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 ofthe necessary
resource commitments to implement the Lake Tahoe Basin NAP.

Final Action on theNAPs
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, EPAis fully approving the NAPs for 0, under Section 110. As a result, the prohibition on construction of~certain majornew 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, EPAfinds that good

cause exists for making this action immediately effective.

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, judicial review oftoday's action is available onlyby the filing ofa petition forreview in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days oftoday. Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act, the requirements which are the subject oftoday's notice may notbe challenged later incivil orcriminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Conditional ApprovalProcedure
A discussion ofconditional 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 bythe deadlines specified in today's notice. There will be

no extensions granted to the conditional approval deadlines being promulgated today. EPAwill followthe procedures described belowwhen determining if the States have satisfied the conditions.

1.Ifthe States ,submitthe required additional documentation according to schedule, EPA will publish a notice in theFederal Register announcing receipt ofthe material. The notice ofreceipt will also announce that theconditional approval is continued pending EPA's final action on the submission.

2.EPA will evaluate the States' submittal to determine iftheconditions

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 theNAPs,

or (2)find the conditions have notbeen met,withdraw the conditional approval, and disapprove the NAPs. Ifthe NAPs

are disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on construction would be reimposed.

3.Ifthe Statesfail to submit the required materials to meet a condition, EPA willpublish a Federal Register notice shortly after the expiration of the deadline. The notice will announce that the conditional approval iswithdrawn, 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. EPAfinds thatfor good cause additional notice and comment on these deadlines are unnecessary (See 5U.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 ofconditional approval and on what deadlines should apply for these conditipns (44FR38583, July 2,1979 and 45 FR 59591, September 10, 1980).

40 CFRPart 52Rescissions 

### As a result ofEPA's final promulgation ofconditional approval for the Lake Tahoe Basin CONAPs and final promulgation ofapproval for the

ozone NAPs EPA is also taking final action torescind Federally promulgated regulations from40 CFR Part52. Several of theregulations proposed were rescinded in a final action published for the San Diego Air Basin NAP on April 14, 1981 (46FR 21749). The remaining regulations: 40 CFR 52.245, 52.255, and 52.264 are being rescinded in today's 

### final action.

AttainmentDates



### The 1980edition of40 CFR Part52 lists,in the Subparts forCalifornia 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 forCalifornia and Nevada in 40CFR Part 52.

The earlier attainment dates willbe 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 172requirements.

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 togive

sources thatfailed to comply with pre1977plan requirements by the earlier deadlines more time to comply with those requirements. As noted by Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing the 1977Amendments:

fSection 110(a)(2) 

### oftheAct made clearthat each source hadtomeet itsemission limits "as expeditiously aspracticable," butnot later than threeyears after approval ofa plan.This provision was notchanged by the 1977 Amendments.Itwouldbeaperversion ofclear congressional intent toconstrue Part Dto authorize relaxation or delayofemission limits forparticular sources. The added time for attainment oftheNational Ambient Air Quality Standards wasprovided, if necessary, because ofthe need to tighten emission limits orbring previously uncontrolled sourcesunder control. Delays or relaxation ofemission limitswere not generally authorized or intended underPart D (123 

### Cong.Rec. H11958, 

### 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 priorto the 1977 Amendments. EPA cannot approve such compliance date extensions, even though a NAPwith a laterattainment date has been approved. However, a compliance date extension beyond a pre-existing attainment date maybe granted ifit will not contribute to a violation of an ambient standard ora PSD increment (44 FR20373-74, (April4. 1979)).

In addition, sources subject to preexisting plan requirements maybe relieved ofcomplying with such requirements ifa NAP imposes new,
more stringent control requirements that

are incompatible with controls required to meet thepre-existing regulations. Decisions on the incompatibility of requirements will be made on a case-bycase basis.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA mustjudge whether a regulation is "major" andtherefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis.This regulation is not major because it onlyapproves state actions. Itimposes no new regulatory requirements.

This regulation was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget [OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291.

Note.-Incorporation byreference ofthe State Implementation Plans for the States of California andNevada wasapproved by the Director ofthe Federal Register on July 1, 1981. 

### (Secs. 110,129, 171, to 178,and 301(a) ofthe Clean AirAct, as amended (42U.S.C. 7410, 7429, 7501 

### to7508, and 7601(a)l)


### List of Subjectsin 40 CFRPart52

Airpollution 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 Fand DD ofChapter I,Title 40of the Code ofFederal 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 to506, 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 Approvalstatus.

(d) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves the planwith 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 PartDconditionalapproval.



### (a)

• * ft ft f * •

(8) Lake Tahoe Basin. • (i)For CO: (A) By December 20, 1982, NSR rules forEl 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 ofnew 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 ofthe following as SIP revisions. 

### (1)Emission reduction estimatesfor each adopted control measure or package of control measures.

(2)Written evidence that all adopted

measures are supported by sufficient implementation commitments orthat 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 ofcommitments by agencies with legal authority to establish, expand, or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs.

(5)A schedule to analyze alternative packages oftransportation control
measures, including but not limited to those measures listed in Section 108(f)(1)(A) ofthe Clean Air Act.The State must also submit a commitment to initiate implementation ofthose

measures shown to be reasonably available.

5. Section 52.233 is amended by revisingparagraphs (d)(3), (d)(18), (g)(1)(iii) and (g)(1)(xvi) to read as follows: 

### §52.233 Review ofnew sourcesand 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
Airquality 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 revisingparagraph (b) to read as follows: §52.255 Gasoline transfer vapor control.



### (b) This section is applicable inthe Metropolitan Los Angeles, Sacramento Valley, and San Joaquin Valley Intrastate Air Quality ControlRegions, 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 Identificationof 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 conditionalapproval.

(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 SIPrevision, emission reduction estimates for each adopted control measure orpackage ofcontrol

measures. 

### 27069

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27069 1982

### 27070 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) ByDecember 20, 1982, the State must submit, as a SIPrevision, a fully documented modeling analysis indicating attainment by 1982based upon legally adopted control measures.

(iii) By December 20, 1982, the State
must submit, as a SIPrevision, written evidence that all adopted measures are supported by sufficient implementation commitments or that adopted schedules forobtaining 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.

IFRDec.82-16827 Filed 6-22-82: 8:45 aml
BILLINGCODE 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 ofproposed 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 ofNevada's ISRP, since the State's nonattainment area plans were also proposed to be conditionally approved. Today's notice approves the rescission ofNevada's ISRP. DATE: This action is effective July 23, 1982. ADDRESS: A copy oftoday's revision to the Nevada SIP is located at:The Office ofthe 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 ofsuch facilities

as shopping centers, sports complexes, and apartment developments, which induce or attract significant traffic. The purpose ofthis program is to ensure that the substantial increase in traffic resulting from the construction ofsuch facilities will not cause violations ofthe 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 datesfornational standards.

* * * * * 

### complete list ofthe rulesbeing proposed is contained in the October 16, 1979 notice.

EPA'sproposed actionwas based on the view that Section 110(a)(5)(A)(iii) of the Clean AirAct, as amended,permits

a state to rescind its ISRP so long as the State complies with theprocedural requirements in Section 110. During the 60 day comment period, EPA received comments opposing theproposed approval as well as comments favoring it.On December 6, 1979 the U.S. Court of Appeals inManchester Environmental Coalitionv. 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 SIPrevision rescinding an ISRP meetsboth theprocedural and substantive requirements of section 110. The Court held that before deciding whether to approve such a rescission, EPAmust 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 noticesproposing to conditionally approve nonattainment

area plans (NAPs) forthe areas ofthe Statewhich havenot attained the NAAQS for transportation related pollutants. Since the State's NAPs were proposed to be conditionally approved, EPA determined that the ISRPrescission 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 StateWater Resources Control Board, the California Office of Planning and Research, the California Department ofTransportation, the Council on Environmental Quality, and

onbehalf ofthe League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, Joseph J. Brecher. A document containing a summarization ofthe substantive comments and EPA's response to each, entitled "EPAPublic Comment Technical Support Document", hasbeen mailed to thecommentors and is also available forpublic inspection at the EPA Library in Washington, D.C., at the EPA Region 9 Office in SanFrancisco, Cal. and at the Department of

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 27070 1982