21758 Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## I Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations

i) December 31. 1987.

§52.242, 52.243, 52.244, 52.247, 52.251, 52.257, 52.258, 52.259, and 52.266 [Removed]

0, 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 Dcc. 331—11054 Filed 4—13—81; 33:45 nmj

BIWNO CODE 6560-38-M

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9—FRL 1792—3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Nonattainment
Area Plans for the State of Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection tgency.

ACTION: Notice offinal rulemaking:

SUMMARY: On April 10 and 27, and May 7, 1979 (44 FR 21307, 24880 and 26763) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notices ofproposed rulemaking for the Mason Valley/ Fernlcy Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area plans (NAPs). On September 9, 1980 (45 FR 59334) EPA published another notice ofproposed rulemaking for these areas since revisions to those NAPs were submitted

on July 24 and September 18, 1979 and March 17, 1980 which causes EPA to reevaluate the NAPs. The September 9, 1980 notice, which supersedes the April notices and supplements the May notice, proposed to conditionally approve the NAPs, since only minor deficiencies remain with respect to Part D ofthe Clean AirAct, ‘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 NiPs as revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action

removes the prohibition on construction ofmajornew or modified sources in these areas.

This notice provides a briefsummary ofthe 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 oftile NAPs mentioned above is located at: The Office ofthe Federal Register, 1100 ‘L” Street, N.W., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, Attn: Douglas Grano (415) 556—2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Clean Air Act, us amended in 1977, requires states to revise their SIPs for 

### all areas that have not attained the National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS). On December 29, 978 the Governor submitted revisions to the Nevada SIP consisting ofcontrol strategies and regulations forMason Valley/Fernley Area, Carson Desert, Lander County, Winnernucca Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley. These revisions, which comprise the NAPs, are intended to provide for the attainment ofthe carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), and total suspended particulate (TSP) NAAQS, in the Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley areas and the TSP NAAQS in the remaining areas.

On April 10 and 27, and May 7, 1979 (44 FR 21307, 24880 and 26763) EPA published notices ofproposed rulemaking for these NAPs in the State ofNevada, Those notices provided a description ofthe NAPs, summarized the applicable Clean Air Act requirements into 14 criteria, compared the NAPs to those criteria, and proposed
to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove portions ofthe NAPs. On September 9 1980 EPA published another notice ofproposed rulemaking for these NAPs since revisions to the NAPs were submitted on July 24 and September 18, 1979 and March 17, 1980. The September 9, 1980 notice supersedes the April notices and supplements the May notice. The May 7, 1979 and September 9, 1980 notices should be used as reference in reviewing today’s action.

Inspection/Maintenance Program ‘lnspection/Maintenance” (I/M) refers to a program whereby motor vehicles receive periodic inspections to

assess the functioning oftheir 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 proofofcompliance to purchase license plates or to register a vehicle. A windshield sticker system, much like that ofmany safety inspection programs, can be used ifit can be demonstrated that equal effectiveness will be achieved.

Section 172 ofthe Clean AirAct requires that SlPs for States which include nonattainment areas must meet certain criteria. For areas which demonstrate that they will not be able to attain the ambient air quality standards for ozone or carbon monoxide by 1982; despite the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures,

an extension beyond 1982 will be granted. In such cases Section 172(b)(11)(B) requires that “the plan provisions shall establish,a specific schedule for implementation ofa vehicle emission control inspection and maintenance program * *

EPA issued guidance on February 24, 1978, on the general criteria for approval ofthe 1979 SIP revision including I/M, and on July 17, 1978, regarding the specific criteria foj JIM approval. Both ofthese items are part ofthe 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 l/M elements required for approval ofthe 1979 SIP reviion are as follows:

(1) LegalAuthority. States or local governments must have adopted the necessary statutes, regulations, added to paragraphs (a) through (h), as § 52.238 AttaInment dates fornational follows: standards.

a * * *

,

Pollultrnts

Air qualily control reqion and nonatla,nment area TSP SO,

-

—— NO 00 0, Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

San Drego trrtraslate; Eastern portion In) (e) (0) (e) (e) (a) (i). Weslernpojtion

— (Ii) (14 le) (e) (14 (i) 9.

• Nole.—’Descriplion ol ha boundary çtividrrg ho U’asrarn and Woslu,n portions of Inc new Srrrr 010130 IntraSlate is sot Out

ar 36 FR 22439-40, November 25, 1971.( Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## I Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations 

### 21759

ordinances, etc., to implement and enforce the JIM program. (Section 172(b)(10)J.

(2) 

### Commitment. The appropriate governmental unit(s) mustbe committed to implement and enforce the JIM program. (Section 172(b)(lOfl.

(3) 

### Resources. The necessary-finances and resources to carry out the JIM programmust be identified and committed. (Section 172(b)(7)).

(4) 

### Schedule. A specific schedule to 

### establish the JIM program mustbe included in the SIP. (Section 172(b)(11)(B)). Interim milestones are specified in the July 17, 1978 memorandum in accordance with the general requirementof40 CFR 51.15(c).

(5) 

### Program Effectiveness. As set forth in the July 17, 1978 guidance memorandum, the J/M program must achieve a 25% reduction inpassenger
carexhaustemissions ofhydrocarbons and a 25% reduction for carbon monoxide. This reduction is measured by comparing the levels ofemissions projected to December 31, 1987, with •and without the J/Mprogram.

This policy is based on Section 172(b)(2) which states that “the plan provisions * * * shall * *

- * provide for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures * *

Specific detailed requirements of these 

### five provisions are discussed 

### below.

To be acceptable, JIM legal authority mustbe adequate to implement and effectively enforce the program and must not be conditioned upon further leialative approval or any other substantial contingency. However, the 

### legislation can delegate certain decision making to an appropriate regulatory body. Forexample, a state department ofenvironmentalprotection or department oftransportation may be charged with implementing the program, selecting the type oftest procedure as well as the type ofprogram to be used, and adopting all necessary rules and regulations. J/M legal authority must be included with any 1979 SIPrevision which requires J/M (i.e.,a plan which establishes an attainment date beyond December 31, 1882) unless an approved extension to certify legal authority is granted by EPA. The granting ofsuch an extension, however, is an exceptional remedy to be utilized only when a state legislature has had no opportunity to consider enabling legislation. Written evidence is also required to establish that the appropriate governmental bodies are committed to implement and enforce the appropriate elements ofthe plan” (Section 172(b)(10)). Under Section 172(B)(7), supporting commitments for 

### the necessary financial and manpower
resources are also required.

A specific schedule to establish an If M program is required (Section 172(b)(11)(B)). The July 17, 1978 guidance memorandum established as EPA policy the key milestones for the implementation ofthe various l/M programs. These milestones were the general SIPrequirement forcompliance modified at 40 CFR 51.15(c). This section requires thatincrements ofprogress be incorporated for compliance schedules ofover one yearin length.

To be acceptable, an J/M program must achieve the requisite 25% reductions in bothhydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide 

### (CO) exhaust emissions from passengercars by the end ofcalendaryear 1987. The Act mandates “Implementation ofall reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable” (Section 172(b)(2fl. At the time of passage ofthe CleanAirAct Amendments of1977, several 

### J/M programs were already operating, including mandatory programs in New Jersey and Arizona operating at about a 20% stringency. (The stringency ofa program is defined as the initial proportion ofvehicles which would have failed the program’s standards ifthe affected fleet had not previously undergone 

### JIM.

Because some motorists tune their vehicles before JIM tests, the actual proportion ofvehicles failing is usually a smaller number than the stringency of the program.

Depending on program type (private garage or centralized inspection) a mandatory J/M program may be implemented as late as December 31, 1982 and the attainment date may be as late as December 31, 1987. Based on the implementation date ofDecember31, 1982 and a 20% stringency factor, EPA predicts the reduction ofboth CO and HC exhaust emissions by 25% canbe achieved by December31, 1987. Earlier implementation ofJ/M will produce greater emissionreductions. Thus, because ofthe Act’s requirement for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures and because New Jersey and Arizona have effectively demonstrated practical operation ofJ/M programs with 20% stringency factors, it is EPA policy to
use a 25% emissionreduction as the criterion to determine compliance ofthe I/M portion ofthe nonattainment area plan with Section 172(b)(2).

EPA published the 182 SIPpolicy (part ofwhich pertains to 

### TIM programs)

on January 22, 1981 [46 FR 7182]. As discussed in thatpolicy, States with

areas that have J/M programs under development or operational as part of their 1979 SIPrevisions were only required to submit qualitative descriptions oftheir J/M program elements in the 1979 SIP submittal 

### The 1982 SIPrevision must include, unless already submitted and approved as part ofa previous SIP submittal, rules and regulations and all otherJ/M elements which could affect the ability ofthe l/M program to achieve the minimum emissionreduction requirements. More specifically, the 1982 submittal must include: (1) inspection test procedures; (2) emission standards; (3) inspection station licensing requirements; (4) emission analyzer specification and maintenance/calibrationrequirements; (5) recordkeeping andrecord submittal requirements; (6) quality control, audit, and surveillanceprocedures; (7) procedures to assure that non-complying vehicles are not operated on the public roads; (8) any other official program rules, regulations, andprocedures; (9) a public awareness plan; and (10) a mechanics training program ifadditional emissionreduction credits are being claimed formechanics training.

EPA will determine the overall adequacy ofthe critical elements of each J/M program, and therefore, the approvabilily ofthe 1982 SIPby comparing those elements to established J/M-policy. J/M program elements must be consistentwithEPA policy or the State must demonstrate that the program elements are equivalent.

State or local governments that have J/M programs,liutplan to increase the coverage and/or stringency ofthe programs in order to achieve greater reductions and to demonstrate earlier attainment ofthe standards, must submit the program modifications in legally enforceable form through the 1982 SIP revision process.

In the case ofa partial submittal, EPA’s action will be limited to the submittedprogram elements. Final action on the total I/M program mustbe reserved until all elements are submitted andreviewed in orderto
ensure that the program satisfies the requirements in PartD ofthe Clean Air 

### Act.
Nevada I/MProgranz

Or. December 29, 1978 the Governorof Nevada submitted Statutes and ROgulations which togetherprovide an inspection and maintenance program for portions ofNevada, including the Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows

areas. 

### This legislation and supporting regulations establish 

### in progressive steps a mandatory annual JIM ppgram forall used light-duty vehicles being

### 21760 Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations

registered orre-registeredin counties with more than 100,000 

### population. The December29, 1978 submittal ofthe Air QualityRegulations forMobile Equipmentprovidedthat, on or after July 1, 1979, such 

### vehicles in Clark and Washoe Counties musthave evidence of compliance with State exhaust emission standards. New legislation submitted on July 24, 1979 

### revises that date and provides for such implementation on or afterJuly 1, 

### 1981.

The programrequires a motorvehicle

ownerto obtain a certificate of compliance with the State emission standards and federal emission control equipmentrequirements. This certificate must be obtainedfrom a State authorized inspector, complying with all State regulations concerning testing equipment and procedures. The State regulations establish standards for licensing inspection stations, which may include service stations andfleet stations. The inspectiontestmeasures emissions fromvehicles atboth low and fast idle speeds. The engine is then adjusted to the manufacturer’s specifications, such as timing and dwell. The emissions are again measured at the two engine speeds. Ifthe measurements afteradjustment.ofthe engine are in compliance, the vehicle is issued a certificate ofcompliance. The inspection with adjustmentsusuallyrequires 15 

### to 20 

### minutçs ofoperator time.

The programprovides forexceptions to therequirements ofinspection and maintenance. These exceptions include among others, heavy duty motor vehicles, light duty motorvehicles more than 15 

### years old, and motorcycles. In addition, these requirements do not apply to vehicles changingregistration under specific circumstances and vehicles forwhich necessary repair co8ts 

### exceed fixed amounts.

Any vehicle not complying with the 1/ M requirements is prohibitedfrom operating onpublic roads through denial ofregistration, No vehicle maybe registered ifitviolates the l/M requirements. In addition, a violation of any regulation under the program is punishable as a misdemeanor. The regulations include a program for informing the public ofthe reasons and methods forthe emission control 

### inspection. As described below. Nevada’s l/M program satisfies the key requirements for approval previously described.

(1) LegalAuthority. The basis for the State’s legal authority is contained in the Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 445 which provides authority and 

### guidance forthe State Environmental Commission and the State Department 

### ofMotorVehicles to establish an l/M program.

(2) Commitment. 

### In a letterfrom the Governor, to EPA, dated December 29, 1978, 

### and in aresolution adopted by the ClarkCounty Board ofCommissioners

on December 5, 1978, 

### the State identified its commitments to the implementation andenforcement ofthe Nevada I/M program submitted as part ofthe Truckee Meadows andLas Vegas Valley nonattainment area plans 

### (NAPs).

(3) Resources. 

### The Statehas identified its commitments forresources submitted

as partofthe Truckee Meadows andLas Vegas Valley NAPs.

(4) Schedules. The Nevada statute 

### provides that no vehicle shall be registered afterJuly 1, 1981 

### without a certificate ofcompliance with the l/M program. This mandatory start-up date forthe inspectionprogram is consistent

- 

### withEPApolicy and is therefore 

### approvable.

(5) ProgramEffectiveness. 

### Based on
an analysis ofNevada’s idle testpass! fail standards, theprogramwill achieve

a 25% reduction, thus complying with EPA’s requirement forminimum emission reductions.

As 

### indicated above and in the May7, 1979 

### and September9, 1980

### notices, Nevada’sJIMprogram meets the 1979 

### SIPrevisionrequirements and is therefore approvable.

The following elements ofNevada’s If Mprogram, as officially submitted, also satisfypartofthe I/Mrequirements for the 1882 SIPrevision.

(1) Inspection TestProcedures. 

### Section4.1 ofthe Rules describes the testprocedure. The procedure includes

an exhausttest which demonstrates that propermaintenancehas been performed. This element ofNevada’s program is therefore approvable.

(2) Emission Standards. 

### Section 3.8.2 ofthe Rules prescribes inspection standards foreach class ofvehicle subject to testing. This element of Nevada’s programis therefore approvable.

(3) Inspection Station Licensing 

### Requirements. Section 3.10 ofRules sets forthprivate inspection facility licensing requirements.

These requirements include: Use ofan approved emission analyzer (Section 3.10.3);

Employing an inspectorwhohas 

### passedproficiency tests in the following


### areas:

—rules 

### and regulations —testprocedures —analyzeruse and calibration checking, data recording and recordkeeping. (Section 3.10, 3.12) The licensed station must maintain records and submit to unscheduled, unannounced audits. The station must also comply with local and state programregulations.

This element ofNevada’s program is therefore approvable.

(4) Emission analyzerspecifications andmaintendnce/calibration requirements. 

### Section4.2.1 ofthe Rules lists instrument specifications. Section 4,2,2 cites where a list ofapproved analyzers is on file. Sections 4.2 

### and4.3 outline the maintenance and calibration procedures to be used by the inspection 

### facilities on the approved analyzers. This element ofNevada’s program is therefore approvable.

(5) Recordkeeping andrecord submittalrequirements. 

### Section 4.1 of the Rules lists required recordkeeping elements. The authorized station shall maintain and submit the records ofall inspections to the DMV for data evaluation (Section 4.3.6). Both the Department and Commission will interpret and correlate the submitted data to determine the amount of reductions ofemissions achieved (Section4.3.7).

The data collection procedures utilized allow determination ofprogram effectiveness. This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable.

(6) Qualitycontrol, auditand surveillance

### procedures. Section4.3 of the Rules states: 1. 

### TheDepartmentof MotorVehicles will inspect and certify that authorized stations areproperly. equippedand personnel are adequately trained in accordance with DMV procedures. The Department ofMotor Vehicles will dynamically calibrate and certify the exhaust gas analyzer at intervals ofnotmore than 30 days. 3. All inspectionrecords shall be made available to the Department ofMotor Vehicles and the Environmental Commission orits representatives when conducting a complignce inspection, The licensed station must maintain records and submit to unscheduled, unannounced audits. The station must also comply with local and state programregulations. The program therefore contains 

### the appropriate procedures and a monthly audit with a records check, a calibration check, and

a checkto assure thatprocedures are being followed.

- -.

-Itis EPA’s understanding from the Department ofMotorVehicles that their inspectors conduct audits which include all elements described in Section 4.3 and that all these items are checked monthly.Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations 21761

Sections 49, 4.12, and 4.13 presèribe penalties for offenses by facilities and/

or inspectors. These penalties include suspension orrevocation offacility licenses for serious offenses. This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable as long as the Department ofMotorVehicles continues to follow the procedures mentioned above.

(7) Procedures to assure thatnon complying vehicles are notoperatedon thepublicroads. Nevada Revised Statutes 445.670 and 445.710 prohibitthe registration ofnon-complying vehicles.

This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable.

(8) Anyotherofficialprogramrules, regulations, andprocedures. Senate Bill 543 specifles geographic coverage.

The Department ofMotorVehicles provides a challenge capability for any motorist who questions 

### the results of inspections conducted at a licensed garage.

The start-up date is consistent with EPA policy.

This element ofthe Nevada program is therefore approvable.

(9) Apublic awarenessplan. The State is currently engaged in various public awareness activities to inform the public about the program. A comprehensive public awareness plan must be developed and officially submitted as part ofthe SIP.

(10) A mechanics trainingprogramif additionalemissionreduction credits

are being claimed. No creditis being claimed; therefore this elementis not applicable.

On December 29, 1978 the Governorof Nevada submitted Statutes and Regulations which togetherprovide for

an inspection and maintenance program forportions ofNevada, including the Las Vegas Valley andTruckee Meadows areas, This legislation and supporting regulations established in detail 

### the parameters ofthe inspection and maintenance program.

Nevada included in this submittal their demonstration that theirprogram,
as described, would achieve a 25% reduction (usingMobile I) in both hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide exhaust emissions from light duty gasoline vehicles by 1987. Since that time, the program start-up date was changed from July 1979 to July 1981. The July 1981 start-up date does not affect the ability ofthe program to achieve the required emission reductions by 1987. Therefore this element ofthe 1982 SIP is approvable. TspPlans

EPA proposed to approve the followingportions ofthe Mason Valley! Fernley Area, LanderCounty, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs forTSP: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision, reasonable further progress, legally adopt?d measures (except for the Las Vegas Valley NAP), emissions growth, annual reporting, permitprogram, public and governmen.t involvement, andpublic hearings. These provisions were found to be consistent with PartD ofthe CleanAirAct.

EPAproposed to conditionally approve the following portions ofthe NAPs mentioned above forTSP: legally adopted measures (forthe Las Vega8. ValleyNAP only) andresources. These portions were found to contain minor deficiencies withrespect to PartD and

wereproposed to be approved with the condition that each deficiencybe correctedby a specified deadline.
CO and03 Plans

EPAproposed to approve the following portions ofthe Truckee Meadows andLas Vegas ValleyNAPs for CO and 03: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainmentprovision (exceptforLas Vegas Valley 08), reasonable further progress, legally adopted measures (for Truckee Meadows O only,) emissions growth, annual reporting, permit program, public and government involvement, public hearing, and extensionrequirements forVolatile Organic Compounds. Reasonably Available Control Technology (VOC RACT). These provisions were found to be consistent with PartD of

### the Clean AirAct,

V

EPAproposed to conditionally approve the followingportions ofthe TruckeeMeadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs forCO and 03: attainment provision (Las Vegas Valley 03 only), legally adopted-measures (except for TruckeeMeadows 03), resources, and extension requirements (Las Vegas Valley CO only). These portion8 were found to contain minor deficiencies with respect to Part D and were proposed to be approved with the condition that each deficiency be correctedby a specified deadline, Summary

As noted in the Sepkmber 9, 1980 notice, approval or conditional approval ofallportions ofthe NAPs is sufficient to lift the currentprohibition on construction ofcertain majornew or modified sources in the affected areas of Nevada. Thus, that notice proposed to conditionally approve 

### the overall Nevada NAPs and remove the construction prohibition. Public Comments

Comments Specific to theNevadaNAP

During the public commentperiod, EPA received several comments. For the most part the comments are specific to the Las Vegas Valley NAP. These comments andEPA’s responses follow.

1. EmissionInventory. Comments were received supporting EPA’s actms.

2. Modeling. Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers, representing Concerned Citizens of Clark County, commented thatthe

ozone model is notvalidated and that 

### EPA’s evaluation report did not adequatelyjustify use ofthe NAP’s

ozone design value.

Response: Although the model i8 not fully validated, EPA’s guidelines on air quality modeling were used and EPA has determined that the ozone modeling

was performed satisfactorily for the 1979 NAP. In addition, EPAreviewed all of the available ozone air quality data for Clark County. In its review, EPA found that data collected by a private contractor were not used in determining the design value. In discusions with EPA, the County indicated that the data

were notusedin the NAP since the data

were collected under a questionable quality assurance program and since this data is notpart ofthe official SIP monitoring network. Therefore, EPA found that the NAP’s data base 

### was adequate fordetermining the ozone design value.

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers also commented thatEPA’s evaluation report seems to be generally inadequate with regard to CO modeling.

ResponsesEPA’s guidelines on air quality modeling were used in determining thatthe CO modeling was performed satisfactorily for the NAP.

3. Emission ReductionEstimates. Comments were received supporting EPA’s actions.

4. AttainmentProvision. Comment: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) commented that the Las Vegas Valley is not nonatteinmentforozone and thus should notbe subject to the proposed rulemaking. They attached a copy ofthe Nevada 1979 Air Quality Trend Report to support this comment.

Response: The Las Vegas Valley is designated and should remain nonattainmentforozone (43 FR 9012, March 3, 1978). Contrary to the 1979 Nevada Air Quality Report, Clark County Health District data show three days with violations ofthe ozone standard at the Henderson (Carson Way) station in 1979, Based on this

### 21762 Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## 7 Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations

preliminary data, the EPA criteria for redesignation to attainment or unclassifiable have notbeen met. One (1.0) 

### orless expected exceedances ofthe national standardperyearat each monitor averaged overatleast one year (maximum of3 

### years ifdata is available) is necessary forsuch a redesignation. The procedure for calculating expected exceedances may be found at 40 CFR 50, 

### Appendix H, promulgated on January 12, 1979.

5. ReasonableFurtherProgress. 

### Comments were received supporting EPA’s actions.

8. LegallyAdoptedMeasures. 

### Comment: The ClarkCounty Department ofComprehensivePlanning (DCP) commented that since J/M, traffic flow improvements and mass transit and ride-sharingprograms are currently being implemented, they do notfeel that additional actions are required to fulfill the 

### proposed condition regarding commitments and schedules for transportation control measures.

Response: 

### As noted in the notice of proposedrulemaking, schedules for analysis and development ofadditional controlmeasures are needed in areas which will not attain the CO NAAQS by
1982. 

### While itmay be true that the transportation measures have been implemented forthe currentyear, the plan does notprovide written evidence that all implementing agencies have committed to aprogram of transportationprojects which will continue to be implemented as needed to demonstrate attainment. Such policy level resolutions, including the 

### commitment to seek andprovide annual evidence ofcontinuing funding, need to be submitted as apart ofthe 

### NAP. Thus, the conditionmustremain.

7. Emissions Growth. 

### 8. AnnuülReporting. 9. PermitProgram. 

### Comments werereceived supporting EPA’s actions regarding these three criteria.

10. Resources. 

### Comment: DCP 

### indicated that the. condition regarding resource commitments would be satisfiedin proposed revisions and annual updates which would detail budgeting commitments forfuture years.

Response: 

### Until these revisions are officially submitted and reviewed, EPA 

### cannotmake any final 

### determination on the adequacy ofthe revisions, Therefore, the condition remains the same,

11. Public andGovernment Involvement.

12. PublicHearing. 

### Comments werereceived supporting EPA’s actions regarding these two criteria. 

### 13. ExtensionRequirements. 

### Comment: The NUEP stated that
statutes and regulations have been submitted regarding cost-benefit regulations forpowerplants.

Response: 

### On October 13, 

### 1980 EPA received a letterfrom the Governor of Nevada. In that letterhe advised EPA of

an SIPrevision, regarding powerplants; the specific statute andregulation to be transmitted by the NDEP. Until EPA 

### receives the statutes andregulations along with evidence ofnotice and public hearing, no action canbe taken on this revision. Thus, the condition remains.

Comment: 

### In response to the May7, 1979 

### notice ofproposedrulemaking, Clark County and the NDEP’commented that the Nevada State Legislature recently amended the State statute regarding the I/M program and delayed implementation ofthe program untilJuly 1, 1981.

Response: 

### This amendment to the Slate statute is discussed in the September 9, 1980

### proposedrulemaking notice. As indicated in thatnotice the delayed implementation does not alter EPA’s 

### approval ofthe Nevada J/M program.

Comment: 

### The NOEPcommented that they disagree with the proposed conditions requiring the State to submit certainplanrevisions. They stated that theDCPhas submittedrevisions to the NAP

### thatdemonstrate the NAP

### has legally enforceable measures to control TSP andhas shown a commitmentof

resources tomeetbasic transportation needs,

Response: EPA

### has notreceived the abovementioned measures or commitmentas revisions to the SIP. Therefore, the conditionremains.

Comment: 

### DCPalso commented that commitments forbasic transportation needs (BTN) are subject to budgetary andmanpowerconstraints. However, theirproposedplanrevisions contain the County’s shortrange transitprogram whichprovides forthe most expeditious implementation program available to the County.

Response: 

### Clark County is required to provide the 

### essential policy evel commitmentto establish, expand or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs. This commitmentis distinguished from budgetarycommitments in that specific

resources will need to be shown 

### on an annual basis when Clark County has completedits analysis ofpublic transportation needs (including demand createdby any disincentives toprivate auto use that maybe necessary to demonstrate attainment) and subsequently develops the strategy to meetbasic transportation needs. The policy resolution currently required represents an acknowledgement ofthe requirements ofSections 110(a)(3)(D) and (c)(5)(B) and a commitment to develop necessary improvements, as indicatedby the analysis.

Comment: 

### Tomlinson and Chalmers commented on the failure ofthe Las Vegas Valley NAP: 1)10 

### define or demonstrate a commitment forpublic transportation to meetbasic transportation needs, and 2) 

### to identify, analyze, orcommit to transportation control measures to provide for attainment, In addition, they commented that EPA’s 

### proposed condition does not specify any limits upon the schedules to be submitted.

Response: 

### These two deficiencies

were the subjects ofseveral conditions ofapproval in EPA’s Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, wherein EPArequired the submittal ofcommitments and schedules by January 1, 1981. 

### These conditions remain in today’s final rulemaking. With respect to the limits on schedules for analysis and development ofadditional

measures necessary to demonstrate attainment, all analyses mustbe completed to allow sufficienttime for development andinitial implementation ofthose measures found to be reasonably availableno laterthan Decembar 31, 1982, 

### and forinclusion of those measures in the July 1, 1982 SIP 

### submittal. Measures necessary tomeet basic transportationneeds mustbe Included in the 1982 

### submittal.

GeneralComments



### Comment.’ Inresponse to EPA’s April 

### 10 and 27, 1979 notices, several 

### comments werereceived during the public commentperiod.

Response: 

### On September9, 1980EPA 

### published anotice ofproposed rulemaking for several areas inNevada. The September 9, 1980 

### notice supersedes the discussion in the April 10 

### and 27, 

### 1979notices; therefore, comments on the Aprilnotices will not be addressed,

Comment: 

### Tomlinson and Chalmers commented that there is no 

### authorization forconditional approvals and that a conditional approval ofthe Nevada NAP

### is an abuse ofany discretion thatmightexist.

Response: 

### EPApolicy (July 2, 1979 

### FederalRegister, 44 FR 38583) 

### provides thatwhen a planhas beenrevised so as tobe in substantial compliance with the requirements ofPartD, and the State provides assurances that any remaining minordeficiencies will be remedied within a shortperiod, imposition ofthe restriction onnew sources during that period wouldnot serve 

### the Congressional purpose. Therefore, underFederal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, April 14. 1981 

## I Rules and Regulations 

### 21763

such circumstances EPA interprets the Clean AirAct topermit the plan to be conditionally approved as satisfying Part 0 requirements. Therefore, there is

no abuse ofdiscretion.

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers also requested an extension ofthe commentperiodto submit additional

cornments.

Response: EPA believes the available period for comments was adequate because:

(1) The NAPs and the JIM program have been available forpublic inspection and comment since they were the subject ofNotices ofProposed Rulemaking on April 10 and April 27, 1979; and

(2) The issues involved in the revisions submitted on July 24 and September 18, 1979, and March 17, 1980

are limited in scope and are sufficiently clear to allow comments to be developed in the available 30-day period.

Comment: DCP stated thatrevisions, which are expected to meet the conditions, will soon be adopted by the County. They felt that adoption and submittal ofthese revisions would fulfill the conditions specified in the notice.

Responses: Until these revisions are Qfficially submitted and reviewed, EPA cannotmake any final determination on the adequacy ofthese revisions, Therefore, the conditions mustremain.

NationalComments

One commenter submitted extensive comments and requested that they be considered part ofthe record for each state plan. Another comwenter, a national environmental group, discussed EPA action on permit fee systems and the composition ofstate boards. Although some ofthe issues raised are notrelevant to provisions in the Nevada NAPs, the November 10, 1980 Federal Register (44 FR 74480) 

### should be referenced for a discussion ofthese comments and EPA’s responses. EPA Actions

Introduction

It is important forreviewers ofthis notice to understand the overall nature ofNAPs and ofEPA’s review and approval role. Central to such an understanding is recognition that action may be takun on a portion ofthe NAPs for a specific pollutant.

Therefore, a portion ofthe NAPs may be adequate for one pollutant but inadequate for others. It is EPA’s policy to take final action on all portions ofthe NAPs for each pollutant. As a result, this notice contains a series ofactions for each pollutant and for each portion ofthe NAPs rather than a single action. One ofthe following three actions may be taken for each portion ofthe NAPs:

1. Disapproval where the State does
not agree to correctminor 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, butwhere the effect ofthe deficienc7is notjudged 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 Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley NAPs are describedbelow and

are based on the proposed rulemaking notices and the public comments received byEPA. ApprovedPortions ofthe NAPs

J/M

As proposedin the May 7, 1979 and September9, 1980 notices, EPA is taking final action underPart 0 to approve the
statutes andrules listed in those notices regarding the Nevada

### JIM program. The approved statutes andrules form the basis ofNevada’s 

### JIM program and satisfy the key l/M elements required for approval ofthe 1979 SIPrevision. EPA is therefore approving the I/M portion ofthe 1979 SIPrevision.

In addition, the statutes and rules also satisfy a number ofthe

### JIM requiremerts for approval ofthe 1982 SIP revision. EPA is taking final action 

### today to approve those completed elements ofNevada’s T/M program 

### which satisfy certainrequirements for the 1982 SIPrevision, namely: inspection testprocedures; emission standards; inspection station licensing requirements; emission analyzer specifications, and maintenance/ calibration requirements; recordkeeping and record submittal requirements; quality control, audit and. surveillance procedures; procedures to assure that non-complying vehicles are not operated

on the public roads; and other official program rules, regulations and procedures as noted above. However, today’s action is not intended nor should it be interpreted as final approval of 

### Nevada’s totalJ/M program or the l/M portion ofthe 1982 SIP

### revision. Approval ofthe revision can only be granted afterthe public awareness element required by the 1982 SIPpolicy (46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981) is submitted and reviewed in order to

assure thatNevada’s total J/M program and the T/M section ofNevada’s SIP satisfy the requirements ofPart D ofthe Clean AirAct.

The following statutes and 

### regulations, applicable to both the 1979 

### and 1982 SIP

### revisions, are being approved and incorporated into the Nevada SIP.

Nevada Revised Statutes: 445.610, 445.620, 445.625, 445.630, 445.632, 445.634, 445.635, 445.640, 445.644, 445.650, 445.860, 445.670, 445.680, 445.690, 445.700, 445.705, and 445710.

Nevada Air Quality Regulations for Mobile Equipment: Article 1—Sections 1.1 to 1.38; Article 2—Sections 2.1 to 2.2; Article 3—Sections 3.1 to 3.14.6and Article 4—.Sections 4.1 to 4.20.

EPA will take action to approve the 1/ M portionin total upon receiptfrom the State ofan adequate public awareness plan.

The State should be aware that annual reports mustbe made to EPA on the effectiveness ofprogram implementation and enforcement (42 U.S.C. 7410(s)(2)(B), 7414 and 40 CFR 51.321—51.328).

TSP

As proposed in the September 9, 1980 notice, EPA is taking final action under Part D of.the Clean AirAct to approve the following portions ofthe Nevada NAPs: emission inventory, modeling, emissionreduction estimates, attainment provision, reasonable further progress, legally adopted measures (except the Las Vegas Valley NAP), emissions growth, annual reporting, permitprogram, public and government involvement, and public hearings.

CO and03



### Asproposed in the September9, 1980 notice, EPA is taking final action under PartD ofthe CleanAirAct to approve the following portions ofthe Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas ValleyNAPs: emission inventory, modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision (except forLas Vegas Valley 0,), reasonable furtherprogress, legally adopted measures (forTruckee Meadows 03 only), emissions growth, annual reporting, permit program, public and government involvement, public hearing, and extension requirements for VOC RACT.21764 Federal Register 

# / Vol. 40, No. 71 

# / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

# / Rules and Regulations

ConditionallyApprovedPortions ofthe NAP Tsp

As discussed in the September9, 1980 notice and in the PUBLIC COMMENTS section ofthis notice, the following portions ofthe Nevada NAPs contain minor deficiencies and the State has provided assurances to correct these deficiencies: legally adopted measures (for the Las Vegas ValleyNAP only) and

resources. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve these portions ofthe NAPs.

CO and03

As discussed in the September 9, 1980 notice and in the PUBUC COMMENTS section ofthis notice, the following portions ofthe Trutkee Meadows and Las Vegas ValleyNAPs contain minor deficiencies and the State has provided

assurances to correct these deficiencies: attainmentprovision (Las Vegas Valley 03 only), legally adopted measures (except forTruckee Meadows 03),
resources, and extension requirements (Las Vegas Valley CO only). Therefore, EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve these portions of the NAPs.

The conditions ofapproval and the associated deadlines are specified belaw:

Mason Valley/FernleyArea, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, TruckeeMeadows andLas Vegas ValleyNAPsfor TotalSuspended Porticulotes.

By August 12, 1981, the State must submit an identification and commitment ofresources specifically identifying and budgeting all financial and manpower resources necessary for plan implementation.

TruckeeMeadows NAPForCO

By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments for adopted

measures and schedules for the’analysis ofthe othermeasures listed in Section 108(f).

Los Vegas ValleyNAPforCO. 03 and Tsp

1. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a demonstration showing attainment by December 31, 1982 ofthe 0.12 ppm (or the 0,08 ppm) standard for the ozone portion ofthe plan.

2. By Au8ust 12, 1981, the State must submit the measures referenced in the June 22, 1979 letterfrom the Clark County Manager for the TSP portion of the plan.

3. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit the adopted measures and schedules for the analysis ofthe other measures listed in Section 108(f) for the CO portion ofthe plan.

4. ByAugust 12, 1981, the State must submitregulations for the review and permitting offossil fuel-fired electric
steam generators.

5. 8

y August 12, 1981, the State must submit a commitmentto establish, expand, or improve public transportation to meetbasic transportation needs for the CO portion ofthe plan.

8. By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments and schedules to analyze further the Section 108(f)

measures notyet included in the CO portion ofthe plan and a commitment to initiate implementation ofthose

measures shown to be reasonably available.

FinalAction on theNAP

As described in the September 9, 1980 notice, only minordeficiencies remainin the Nevada NAPs. Therefore, EPA is taking final action today to conditionally
approve the overall Mason Valley! Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley NAPs with respect to PartD. As a result, the
current prohibition on construction of certain majornew ormodified sources in those areas 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 State has submitted conditionally approvable NAPs forMason Valley! FernleyArea, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley. Therefore, EPA finds that good cause exists formaking this action Immediately effective.

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct,judicial review oftoday’s action is available onlyby the filing ofa petition forreview in the United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit within 00 days oftoday. Under Section 307(bJ(2) ofthe Clean AirAct, the requirements which are the subject oftoday’s notice maynotbe challenged laterin civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

ConditionalApprovalProcedure

A discussion ofconditional approval and its practical effect appears in two supplementsto the General Preamble [44 FR 38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67192 (November23, 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 when determining if the State has satisfied the conditions.

1. Ifthe State submits the required additional documentation according to schedule, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing receipt ofthe material. The notice ofreceipt will also announce that the conditional approval is continuedpending EPA’s final action on the submission.

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

are fully met. After EPA’s review is completed, a Federal Register notice will be published proposing ortaking final action to either (1) find the conditions have been met and approve the NAP, or (2) find the conditions have notbeen met, withdraw the conditional approval, and disapprove the NAP. Ifthe NAP is disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on construction would be reimposed.

3. Ifthe State fails to submit the required materials to meet a condition, EPA will publish a Federal Register notice shortly after the expiration ofthe deadline. The notice will announce that the conditional approval is withdrawn, the NAP is disapproved,’ and the Section 110(a)(2)(I) restrictions on construction

are in effect.

Certain deadlines for satisfying conditions have been changed from thoseproposed and are being promulgated today without further notice and comment. EPA finds that for good cause additional notice and
comment on these 1eadlines are unnecessary (See U.S.C. Section 553(b)(B), Administrative Procedure Act). The State is the party responsible formeeting the deadlines. In addition, the public has had an opportunity to
commentgenerally on the concept of conditional approval and on what deadlines should apply forthese conditions (44 FR 38583, July 2,1979 and 45 FR 59334, September9, 1980).

NewSourceReviewRequiiements

It should be noted that EPA has published two final rulemaking notices

on the September 5, 1979 proposed amendments to EPA’s New Source Review (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 requirements forNSR under Section 173. The State, Clark County, and Washoe County are required to comply with the August 7, 1980 requirements by May 7, 1981. In revising the State and local NSR rules, the Slate and local agencies mustFederal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations 21765



### address any requirements in EPA’s 

### amended regulations for NSR (45 FR 31307. May 13, 1980 and 45 FR 52678, August 7, 1980) which these rules do not currently satisfy.

VOC RACTRequirements

The April 4, 1979 General Preamble (44 FR 20376) describes the requirements for agencies to submit VOC RACT regulations for certain sources located in

ozone nonattainment areas. The first set ofRACT regulations were required for

sources covered by the Group I CTG documents published before January 1978. Regulations for sources covered by the Group I docuthents were to have been submitted by January 1, 1979. A second set ofRACTregulations are required for sources covered by the Group II CTG documents, published betweenJanuary 1978 and January 1979. Regulations for sources covered by the Group II documents were to have been submittedby January 1, 1981 (45 FR 78121, November 5, 1980). Regulations
must be submitted in order for the Part D requirements ofthe ozone portions of the Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows NAPs to ãontinue to be fully approvable. Further, these requirements have been set forth in 40 CFR 52.1472. Action on the Group II RACT regulations will be handled in a separate Federal Registernotice.

40 CFR Part 52Rescissions, As a result ofEPA’s final promulgation of conditional approval for the Las Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows NAPs, EPA is also taking final action to rescind the following Federally promulgated regulations from 40 CFR Part 52.

52.1478 Review ofNew Sources and Modifications, The new source review regulation submitted on July 24, 1979 for the Washoe County District Health Department fulfills the requirements of 

### § 51.18(c).

§ 52.1483 Maintenance ofthe National Standards. The NAPs forLas Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows (Reno) fulfill the requirements of § 51.12 (e) and 

### (fl.§ 52.1484 ControlStrategy: Carbon Monoxide. The control strategy demonstration contained in the Las Vegas NAP fulfills the requirements of § 51.14 for carbon monoxide.

AttainmentDates. The 1980 edition of 40 CFR Part 52 lists, in the Subpartfor Nevada, the applicable deadlines for attaining the NAAQS (attainment dates) required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act. For each nonattainrnent area where

a NAP provides for attainmentby the deadlines required by Section 172(a) of the Act, the new deadlines are substituted on Nevada’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 forpreviously regulated

sources to comply with new, more stringentrequirements, and to permit previoualy uncontrolled sources to comply with the newly applicable emission limitations. These new deadlines were not included to give

sources that failed to comply with pre 1977 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) ofthe Act made clear that each source hod to meet its emission limits ‘us expeditiously as practicable,” but not laterthan three years after approval ofa plan. This provision was not changed by the 1977 Amendments. It would be a perversion ofclear Congressional intent to construe Part D to authorize relaxation or delay ofemission limits forparticular sources. The added time for attainment ofthe National AmbientAir QualityStandards was provided, if

necessary, because ofthe need to tighten emission limits orbring previously uncontrolled sources under control. Delays or relaxation ofemission limits were not generally authorized or intended underPart 0 (123 Cong. Rec. H 11958, daily ed. November 1, 1977).

To implement Congress’ intention that

sources remain subject to pre-existing plan requirements, sources cannotbe grantedvariances extending compliance dates beyond the attainment dates established prior to the 1977 Amendments. EPA cannot approve such complianie date extensions, even though a NAP with a later attainment date has been approved. However, a compliance data extension beyond a pre-existing attainment date may be granted ifit will not contribute to a violation ofan ambient standard or a PSD increment (44 FR 20373—74, [April 4, 1979)).

In addition, sources subject to pre existing plan requirements may be relieved ofcomplying with such requirements ifa NAP imposes new,
more stringent control requirements that

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

case basis.

Pursuant to the provisions of5 U.S.C. § 605(b) 1 hereby certify that the attached rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. This action only approves state actions, It imposes

no new requirements. Moreoever, due to the nature ofthe federal-state relationship, federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofthe state action would serve no practical purpose and could well be improper.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
mustjudge whether a regulation is “major” and therefore subject to the requirement ofa 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 ofManagement and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291. Any comments from 0MB to EPA and any EPA response are available for public inspection at EPA Region IX, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, 215 Fremont Street, SanFrancisco, CA 94105: (Sections 110, 129, 171 to 178, and 301(a) of the Clean AirAct, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7410, 7429. 7501 to 7508, and 7801 (a))) Dated: April 8, 1981.

Walter C. Barber, ActingAdministrator.

Note.—Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada was approved by the Directorofthe Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

Subpart DD ofPa( 52 ofChapter I, Tifle 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows: Subpart DO—Nevada

1. Section 52.1470(c) is amended by revising the introductory text of subparagraph (14) and adding subparagraphs (14)(iii), (14)(iv), (14)(v), (16), (17) and (18) as follows:

§ 52.1470 Identification ofplan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (14) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on December 29, 1978, by the Governor.

(iii) Nonattainment area plans for Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley.

(iv) Nevada Revised Statutes, Engine Emission Controls: 445.610, 445.620, 445.625, 445.630, 445.640, 445.650, 445.660, 445.670, 445.680, 445.690. 445.700, 445.705, and 445.710.

(v) Nevada Air Quality Regulations for Mobile Equipment: Article 1— Sections 1.1 to 1.38; Article 2—Sections21766 Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, 

### April 14, 1981 

## I Rules and Regulations

2.1 to 2.2; Article 3—Sections 3,1 to 3.14,6; and Article 4—Sections 4.1 to 4.20.

* * * * *

(16) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on July 24, 1979, by the Governor.

(i) Amendments to the Nevada Air Quality Regulations: Article I— Definition: No. 2—LAER.

(ii) Amendments to the Clark County District Board ofHealth AirPollution Control Regulations: Section 15—Source Registration, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15,10, 15.11, and 15.12; Section 50—Storage ofPetroleum Products; Section 51—Petroleum Product Loading into Tank Trucks, and Trailers; and Section 52—Handling ofGasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks.

(iii) Amendments to the Washoe County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations: Definitions, Sections 010.011, 010.014, 010.028, 010.057, 010.059, 010.071, 010.072, 010.091, 010.106, 010.107B, 010.108, 010.116, 010.117, 010.136, 010.148, 010.149, 010.151, 010.168, 010.197, and 010.1751; Source Registration and Operation, Sections 030.000, 030.005, 030.010, 030.015, 030.025, 030.030, 030.110, 030.115 (1 and 5)B, 030.120, 030.1201, 030.205, 030.210, 030.215, 030.245, and 030.250; Section 040.070—Storage ofPetroleum Products; Section 040.075—Gasoline Loading into TankTrucks and Trailers; Section 040.080—Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks andTrailers into Storage Tanks; Section 040.085— Organic Solvents; and Section 040.090.— Cut-Back Asphalt.

(iv) Paving schedules for the following Nonattainment Area Plans: Mason Valley!Femley Area, Carson Desert, Winnernucca Segment, and Lander County.

(v) Amendments to the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainrnent Area Plan: Two memoranda ofunderstanding between Clark County, the Health District, and the Transportation Policy Committee.

(vi) Nevada Revised Statutes, Engine Emission Control: 445.632, 445.634, 445.635, and 445.644.

(17) The followihg amendments to the plan were submitted on September 18, 1979, by the Governor.

(1) Amendments to the Clark County District Board ofHealth Air Pollution Control Regulations: Section 1— Definitions (except 1.14, 1.15, 1.79, and i.94);,Section 15.14-Source Registration Requirements for Areas Exceeding Air Quality Standards; and Section 60— Evaporation and Leakage.

(18) Amendments to the Nevada Air Quality Règulaions submitted on March 17, 1980, by the Governor.

(I) Article 13.1.3—Point Sources and Registration Certificates.

4 * * * *

2. Section 52.1472 is revised to read as follows:

§ 52.1472 Approval status.

(a) With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Nevada’s plan for tl?e attainment and maintenance ofthe national standards under Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act.

(b) 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 nonattainmént areas listed in this paragraph.

(1) Mason Valley/Fernley Area for TSP.

(2) LowerReese River Valley/Clovers Area for TSP.

(3) Carson Desert forTSP. (4) Winnemucca Segment for ‘rsp. (5) Truckee Meadows forTSP and CO. (6) Las Vegas Valley forTSP and CO. (c) 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 the 1977, for the nonattainment areas listed in this paragraph. In addition, continued satisfaction ofthe requirements ofPart D for the ozone portion ofthe State Implementation Plan (SIP) depends on the adoption and submittal by January 1, 1981 ofreasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for

sources covered by Control Technique Guidelines (CTG’s) published between January 1978 and January 1979.

(1) Truckee Meadows for O. (2) Las Vegas Valley for O. 3. Subpart DD ofPart 52 is amended by adding 

### § 52.1474, reading as follows:

§ 52.1474 Part 0 conditional approval.

(a) The following portions ofthe Nevada SIP contain deficiencies with respect to Part U ofthe Clean Air Act which must be corrected within the time limit indicated.

(1) The Mason Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley portions ofthe Nevada SIP are approved

as satisfying Part D requirements for total suspended particulate provided the following conditions are met: (I) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit an identification and commitment ofresources specificall.y Identifying and budgeting all financial and manpower resources necessary for plan implementation for all the plans 

### listed above.

(ii) By August’12, 1981, the State must submit the measures referenced in the June 22, 1979 letterfrom the Clark County Manager for the Las Vegas VaHey plan only.

(2) The Truckee Meadows portion of the Nevada SIP is approved as satisfying Part U requirements for carbon monoxide provided the following condition is met:



### (I) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments for adopted

measures and schedules for the analysis ofthe other measures listed in Section 108(f).

(3) The Las Vegas Valley portion of the Nevada SIP is approved as satisfying PartD requirements for carbon monoxide and ozone provided the following conditions are met:

(i) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a demonstration showing attainment by December 31, 1982 ofthe 0.12 ppm (or the 0.08 ppm standard for the ozone portion ofthe plan.

-

(ii) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit the adopted measures and schedules for the analysis ofthe other

measures listed in Section 108(f) for the CO portion ofthe plan.

(iii) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit regulations for the review and permitting offossil fuel-fired electric
steam generators.

(iv) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit a commitment to establish, expand, or improve public transportation to meet basic transportation needs for the CO portion ofthe plan.

(v) By August 12, 1981, the State must submit commitments and schedules to analyze further the Section 108(f)

measures not yet included in 

### the CO portion ofthe plan and a commitment to initiate implementation ofthose

measures shown to be reasonably available.
§ 52.1478 [Reserved]

4. Section 52.1478 is removed and reserved.

5. The table and the “note” in 

### § 52.1480 are revised. A new note and footnotes “e” and ‘f” are added. Footnotes “a” through “d” are unchanged.
§ 52.1480 AttainmentDates forNational Standards.Federal Register 

## / Vol. 46, No. 71 

## / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 

## / Rules and Regulations 

### 21767

(e) December 31, 1982, (1) December 31, 1987.

6. Section 52.1481 is revised to read as follows:

§ 52.1481 Extensions.

(a) The Administrator hereby extends
to July 31, 1977, the attainment date for the primary sthndards ofsulfur oxides in the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. In the event that the

source subject to § 52.1475(d) is granted permission to comply with §‘52.1475(e) the attainment date forthe primary standards for sulfur oxides in the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region shall be extended only to January 1, 1977.

(b) The Administratorhereby extends
to December 31, 1982 certain attainment dates for the National standards for carbon monoxide (GO), ozone (03), and total suspended particulates (TSP) in the following areas:

(1) Truckee Meadows for CO and TSP. (2) Las Vegas Valley for 0 and TSP. (3) Mason Valley/FernleyArea for TSP.

(4) LowerReese River Valley/Clovers Area forTSP.

(5) Carson Desert forTSP. (6) Winnemucca Segment forTSP. (c) The Administrator hereby extend to December 31, 1987 certain attainment dates for the national standards for CO and 03 in the following areas;

(1) Truckee Meadows for 03. (2) Las Vegas Valley for CO.

§ § 52.1483 and 52.1484 [Reserved]

7. Sections 52.1483 and 52.1484 are removed and reserved.

IFR Dec. 81—11318 Filed 4—13—81; 8z43 an)

ILUNG CODE 6560-38-H 40 CFR Part 52 [A—5-FRL 17894]
Ohio; Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA approves two revisions to the Ohio State Implemntation Plan for sulfur dioxide for the Interlake IncorporatedToledo Plant and the Koppers Company Incorporated Toledo Coke Plant which are located in Lucas County, Ohio. The combinedrevision will result in a net decrease in the allowable emissions and will therefore result in an improvement in the air quality in Lucas County, Ohio,

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Marcantonio, AirPrograms Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886— 6088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 31, 1977 (42 FR 27588) EPA promulgated final regulations establishinga State ImplementationPlan (SIP) for the control ofsulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) for the majority ofsources in Lucas County,’ Ohio, This final rule amends that SIP as it applies to the Interlake Incorporated (Interlake) Toledo Plant and the Koppers Company Incorporated (Koppers) Toledo Coke Plant in Lucas County, Ohio.

Interlake submitted a request for a SIP revision on May 29, 1979based on operational changes at the facility. At the time the SIP forthis facility was promulgated by EPA (May 31, 1977, 42 FR 27588), Interlake àwned and operated a coke battery, a blast furnace,

a pig iron casting facility, a steam generator, and an electric power generator. lnterlake has since sold the coke battery to Koppers and terminated operations at all other facilities except for the electric power generating facility which consists ofthree 66,9 

### MW (228.3 MMI3TU/hr) boilers. In the May 31, 1977 regulation, these three boilers were given a total allowable SO 3 emission
rate of31.1 kg/hr (68.5 lbs/hr). This SIP revision will reduce the allowable SO 2 emissionrate for Interlake to 13.6 kg/hr (30.0 lbs/hr). The remaining 17.5 kg/hr (38,5 lbs/hr) ofSO 2 emission offsets are to be given to Koppers.

Koppers submitted a request for a SIP revision on June 29, 1979. To obtain permits for two new boilers, Koppers

was required to obtain SO 2 emission offsets since the source is located in a nonattainment area. The Prevention of SignificantDeterioration regulations are not applicable because both sources are locate4iin a nonattainment area. In addition to the offsets received from Interlike, Koppers reduced the emission limitation on its coke battery (purchased from nterlake) fróm 2.0kg/ton (metric)

— to 1.69 kg/ton (metric) (4.00 to 3.38 lbs SO 2 per ton) ofactual process wight input. A summary ofthe previous and revised emissions is shown below, Koppers/InterfakeEmlslans

(Kilograms per hour (pounds per hour))

source Previous SO, Revised SO, emission, emissions

Intertako 8006—&.._,,,_,.,..,_ 31.1(68.5) 13,6(30.0) Inieriake coke battery 87.4(192.7) Koppers 8001—2

- 11.5(25.4) Koppers coke battery 73.8(162.8)

Total emissions 118.5(261.2) 98.9(218.2)

Furtherdiscussion ofthe modeling analysis for the two SIPrevisions can be found in the proposedrule published in the Federal Register on September9, 1980 (45 FR 59339) and in the Technical SupportDocumentwhich is available in
rocket #5A—80—1. The Agency reviewed the two SIP submittals and on September9, 1980, EPA proposed approval ofthese revisions (45 FR 59399). During the public commentperiod, two commenters submitted comments. One commenter

was in full support ofthe proposed revisions since they should result in an improvementin the air quality in Lucas County. The other commenterraised several issues which are discussed below.

Issue: The commenter claimed that

use ofRAM-urban to predict annual average concentrations In the Koppers —.. Pollutants

Air quality control region and TSP SO,

— nonaltainmeni area NO, 

### co 0,

. Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

Las Vegas intrastate e e.,,,Z,,,.,.,.,,,.,,,.. a,.........,.... a.............,.,...,... c I Northwest Nevada intrastate: erntey Area

....,.,,....,....,,,,,..,..,,..,....,.., e..,.....,,,..., e..,....,...,...,.,,.. c....,.,...,.,.. ,c c c............... ci. ruclree Meadows,.....,,,,,..,,...,.,,.,,,,,. e.,.,.,,.,,,,,.. e 0 a

-. C e............... I. Mason Valley e e c a c c a. Remainder 01 Intrastate July July 1977......, c C

- a C a. 1976, Nevada Intrastate: Carson Desecl....,,..,.....,,,.,,,.,,,,..,..,,,, e..,,..,.....,,. e.....................,. It b c a C. Winnemucca Segment e...,.,,.,,,..,. e.....................,. It It C C C. Lower Reese t]ivor Valley............... e c., b b......,.,.,,.,,.,,,,,,. c..,,.......,,.. c............... c. Clovers Area

,...,..,,.,...,,.,.,,,,...,.,.,,,,,,, e............... c It It c..,,,,,.,.,...; C C. Remainder at inlrastale.,,,,.,..,,,,,,..., July July 1977.,.,.,. It.....,......... It C............,.. C..........,..,, C. 1976.

NOTE—Dates or tootnotes which are lialicized are prescribed by tue Administrator because the ptwt does not provide a specitic date or the date provided is not acceptable.

NoTE—Sources aublect to ptarr requirements and attainment dates established under $ectlon I 10(a)(2)(A) prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments remain obligated to comply with those requirements by thegartier deadlines. The earlier attainment dates are set out at 40 CFR 52.1480 (1960),