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 of final rulemaking:

SUMMARY: On April 10 and 27, and May

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

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) published notices of proposed

rulemaking for the Mason Valley/

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 of proposed

rulemaking for these areas since

revisions to those NAPs were submitted on July 24 and September 18, 1979 and

March 17, 1980 which causes EPA to

reevaluate the NAPs. The September 9,

1980 notice, which supersedes the April

notices and supplements the May notice,

proposed to conditionally approve the

NAPs, since only minor deficiencies

remain with respect to Part D of the

Clean Air Act, ‘Plan Requirements for

Nonattainment Areas.”

Further, since the State has provided assurances to correct these minor

deficiencies, EPA is today taking final

action to conditionally approve the

NiPs as revisions to the Nevada State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action

removes the prohibition on construction

of major new or modified sources in

these areas.

This notice provides a brief summary

of the proposed rulemaking notice,

discusses public comments, and

describes EPA’s final action on the

NAPs.

DATE: Effective Date: This action is

effective April 1’4, 1981.

ADDRESS: A copy of tile NAPs

mentioned above is located at: The

Office of the Federal Register, 1100 ‘L”

Street, N.W., Room 8401, Washington,

D.C. 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and

Hazardous Materials Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, Attn:

Douglas Grano (415) 556—2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Clean Air Act, us amended in

1977, requires states to revise their SIPs

for all areas that have not attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). On December 29, 978 the

Governor submitted revisions to the

Nevada SIP consisting of control

strategies and regulations for Mason

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 of the carbon monoxide

(CO), ozone (03), and total suspended

particulate (TSP) NAAQS, in the

Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas

Valley areas and the TSP NAAQS in the

remaining areas. On April 10 and 27, and May 7, 1979

(44 FR 21307, 24880 and 26763) EPA

published notices of proposed

rulemaking for these NAPs in the State

of Nevada, Those notices provided a

description of the NAPs, summarized

the applicable Clean Air Act

requirements into 14 criteria, compared

the NAPs to those criteria, and proposed

to approve, conditionally approve or

disapprove portions of the NAPs. On

September 9 1980 EPA published

another notice of proposed rulemaking

for these NAPs since revisions to the

NAPs were submitted on July 24 and

September 18, 1979 and March 17, 1980.

The September 9, 1980 notice supersedes

the April notices and supplements the

May notice. The May 7, 1979 and

September 9, 1980 notices should be

used as reference in 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 of their exhaust

emissions control systems. Vehicles

which have excessive emissions must

then undergo mandatory maintenance.

Generally, I/M programs include

passenger cars, although other classes can be included as well. Operation of

noncomplying vehicles is prohibited.

This is effectively accomplished by

requiring proof of compliance to

purchase license plates or to register a vehicle. A windshield sticker system,

much like that of many safety inspection

programs, can be used if it can be

demonstrated that equal effectiveness

will be achieved.

Section 172 of the Clean Air Act

requires that 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 of all

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 of a vehicle

emission control inspection and

maintenance program * *

EPA issued guidance on February 24,

1978, on the general criteria for approval

of the 1979 SIP revision including I/M,

and on July 17, 1978, regarding the

specific criteria foj JIM approval. Both

of these items are part of the SIP

guidance material referred to in the

General Preamble for Proposed

Rulemaking (44 FR 20372). Though the

July 17, 1978 guidance should be

consulted for details, the key l/M

elements required for approval of the

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 for national

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) must be committed

to implement and enforce the JIM

program. (Section 172(b)(lOfl.

(3) Resources. The necessary-finances

and resources to carry out the JIM

program must be identified and

committed. (Section 172(b)(7)).

(4) Schedule. A specific schedule to

establish the JIM program must be

included in the SIP. (Section

172(b)(11)(B)). Interim milestones are

specified in the July 17, 1978

memorandum in accordance with the

general requirement of 40 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 in passenger

car exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons

and a 25% reduction for carbon

monoxide. This reduction is measured

by comparing the levels of emissions

projected to December 31, 1987, with

•and without the J/M program.

This policy is based on Section

172(b)(2) which states that “the plan provisions * * * shall * * - * provide for

the implementation of all reasonably available control measures * *

Specific detailed requirements of

these five provisions are discussed

below.

To be acceptable, JIM legal authority

must be 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. For example, a state department

of environmental protection or

department of transportation may be

charged with implementing the program,

selecting the type of test procedure as well as the type of program to be used, and adopting all necessary rules and

regulations. J/M legal authority must be

included with any 1979 SIP revision

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 of such 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 of the

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 of the various l/M

programs. These milestones were the

general SIP requirement for compliance

modified at 40 CFR 51.15(c). This section

requires that increments of progress be

incorporated for compliance schedules

of over one year in length.

To be acceptable, an J/M program

must achieve the requisite 25%

reductions in both hydrocarbon (HC)

and carbon monoxide (CO) exhaust

emissions from passenger cars by the

end of calendar year 1987. The Act

mandates “Implementation of all

reasonably available control measures

as expeditiously as practicable”

(Section 172(b)(2fl. At the time of

passage of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977, several J/M

programs were already operating,

including mandatory programs in New

Jersey and Arizona operating at about a

20% stringency. (The stringency of a

program is defined as the initial

proportion of vehicles which would have

failed the program’s standards if the

affected fleet had not previously

undergone JIM.

Because some motorists tune their

vehicles before JIM tests, the actual

proportion of vehicles 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 of December 31,

1982 and a 20% stringency factor, EPA

predicts the reduction of both CO and

HC exhaust emissions by 25% can be

achieved by December 31, 1987. Earlier

implementation of J/M will produce

greater emission reductions. Thus,

because of the Act’s requirement for the

implementation of all reasonably

available control measures and because

New Jersey and Arizona have

effectively demonstrated practical operation of J/M programs with 20%

stringency factors, it is EPA policy to

use a 25% emission reduction as the

criterion to determine compliance of the

I/M portion of the nonattainment area

plan with Section 172(b)(2). EPA published the 182 SIP policy (part of which pertains to TIM programs)

on January 22, 1981 [46 FR 7182]. As

discussed in that policy, States with

areas that have J/M programs under

development or operational as part of

their 1979 SIP revisions were only

required to submit qualitative

descriptions of their J/M program

elements in the 1979 SIP submittal The

1982 SIP revision must include, unless

already submitted and approved as part

of a previous SIP submittal, rules and

regulations and all other J/M elements

which could affect the ability of the l/M

program to achieve the minimum

emission reduction 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/calibration requirements;

(5) recordkeeping and record submittal

requirements; (6) quality control, audit,

and surveillance procedures; (7)

procedures to assure that non-complying

vehicles are not operated on the public

roads; (8) any other official program

rules, regulations, and procedures; (9) a

public awareness plan; and (10) a

mechanics training program if additional

emission reduction credits are being

claimed for mechanics training.

EPA will determine the overall

adequacy of the critical elements of

each J/M program, and therefore, the

approvabilily of the 1982 SIP by comparing those elements to established

J/M-policy. J/M program elements must

be consistent with EPA policy or the

State must demonstrate that the

program elements are equivalent.

State or local governments that have

J/M programs,liut plan to increase the

coverage and/or stringency of the

programs in order to achieve greater

reductions and to demonstrate earlier

attainment of the standards, must

submit the program modifications in

legally enforceable form through the

1982 SIP revision process.

In the case of a partial submittal,

EPA’s action will be limited to the

submitted program elements. Final

action on the total I/M program must be

reserved until all elements are

submitted and reviewed in order to

ensure that the program satisfies the

requirements in Part D of the Clean Air

Act.

Nevada I/MProgranz

Or. December 29, 1978 the Governor of

Nevada submitted Statutes and

ROgulations which together provide an inspection and maintenance program for

portions of Nevada, including the Las

Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows

areas. This legislation and supporting regulations establish in progressive

steps a mandatory annual JIM ppgram for all used light-duty vehicles being
21760 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

registered or re-registered in counties

with more than 100,000 population. The

December 29, 1978 submittal of the Air

Quality Regulations for Mobile

Equipment provided that, on or after

July 1, 1979, such vehicles in Clark and

Washoe Counties must have 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

after July 1, 1981.

The program requires a motor vehicle

owner to obtain a certificate of

compliance with the State emission

standards and federal emission control

equipment requirements. This certificate

must be obtained from 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 and fleet

stations. The inspection test measures

emissions from vehicles at both 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. If the measurements

after adjustment .of the engine are in

compliance, the vehicle is issued a

certificate of compliance. The inspection with adjustments usually requires 15 to

20 minutçs of operator time.

The program provides for exceptions

to the requirements of inspection and

maintenance. These exceptions include

among others, heavy duty motor

vehicles, light duty motor vehicles more

than 15 years old, and motorcycles. In

addition, these requirements do not

apply to vehicles changing registration under specific circumstances and

vehicles for which necessary repair co8ts exceed fixed amounts.

Any vehicle not complying with the 1/

M requirements is prohibited from

operating on public roads through denial

of registration, No vehicle may be

registered if it violates 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 of the reasons and

methods for the 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 for the State Environmental

Commission and the State Department

of Motor Vehicles to establish an l/M

program.

(2) Commitment. In a letter from the

Governor, to EPA, dated December 29,

1978, and in a resolution adopted by the

Clark County Board of Commissioners

on December 5, 1978, the State identified

its commitments to the implementation

and enforcement of the Nevada I/M

program submitted as part of the

Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas

Valley nonattainment area plans

(NAPs).

(3) Resources. The State has identified

its commitments for resources submitted

as part of the Truckee Meadows and Las

Vegas Valley NAPs.

(4) Schedules. The Nevada statute

provides that no vehicle shall be

registered after July 1, 1981 without a

certificate of compliance with the l/M

program. This mandatory start-up date

for the inspection program is consistent -

with EPA policy and is therefore

approvable.

(5) Program Effectiveness. Based on

an analysis of Nevada’s idle test pass! fail standards, the program will achieve

a 25% reduction, thus complying with

EPA’s requirement for minimum

emission reductions.

As indicated above and in the May 7,

1979 and September 9, 1980 notices,

Nevada’s JIM program meets the 1979

SIP revision requirements and is

therefore approvable.

The following elements of Nevada’s If

M program, as officially submitted, also

satisfy part of the I/M requirements for

the 1882 SIP revision.

(1) Inspection Test Procedures.

Section 4.1 of the Rules describes the

test procedure. The procedure includes

an exhaust test which demonstrates that

proper maintenance has been

performed. This element of Nevada’s

program is therefore approvable.

(2) Emission Standards. Section 3.8.2

of the Rules prescribes inspection standards for each class of vehicle

subject to testing. This element of

Nevada’s program is therefore

approvable.

(3) Inspection Station Licensing

Requirements. Section 3.10 of Rules sets

forth private inspection facility licensing requirements.

These requirements include:

Use of an approved emission analyzer (Section 3.10.3);

Employing an inspector who has

passed proficiency tests in the following

areas:

—rules and regulations

—test procedures

—analyzer use 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

program regulations.

This element of Nevada’s program is

therefore approvable.

(4) Emission analyzer specifications

and maintendnce/calibration

requirements. Section 4.2.1 of the Rules

lists instrument specifications. Section

4,2,2 cites where a list of approved

analyzers is on file. Sections 4.2 and 4.3

outline the maintenance and calibration

procedures to be used by the inspection

facilities on the approved analyzers.

This element of Nevada’s program is

therefore approvable.

(5) Recordkeeping and record

submittal requirements. Section 4.1 of

the Rules lists required recordkeeping

elements. The authorized station shall

maintain and submit the records of all

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 of emissions achieved

(Section 4.3.7).

The data collection procedures

utilized allow determination of program

effectiveness. This element of the

Nevada program is therefore

approvable.

(6) Quality control, audit and

surveillance procedures. Section 4.3 of

the Rules states: 1. The Department of

Motor Vehicles will inspect and certify

that authorized stations are properly. equipped and personnel are adequately trained in accordance with DMV

procedures. The Department of Motor

Vehicles will dynamically calibrate and

certify the exhaust gas analyzer at

intervals of not more than 30 days. 3. All

inspection records shall be made

available to the Department of Motor

Vehicles and the Environmental

Commission or its 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

program regulations. The program

therefore contains the appropriate

procedures and a monthly audit with a

records check, a calibration check, and a check to assure that procedures are

being followed. - -.

-It is EPA’s understanding from the

Department of Motor Vehicles 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 or revocation of facility

licenses for serious offenses. This

element of the Nevada program is

therefore approvable as long as the

Department of Motor Vehicles continues

to follow the procedures mentioned

above.

(7) Procedures to assure that non

complying vehicles are not operated on

the public roads. Nevada Revised

Statutes 445.670 and 445.710 prohibit the

registration of non-complying vehicles.

This element of the Nevada program

is therefore approvable.

(8) Any other officialprogram rules, regulations, andprocedures. Senate Bill

543 specifles geographic coverage. The Department of Motor Vehicles

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 of the Nevada program is therefore approvable.

(9) A public awareness plan. 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 of the SIP.

(10) A mechanics training program if

additional emission reduction credits

are being claimed. No credit is being

claimed; therefore this element is not

applicable.

On December 29, 1978 the Governor of

Nevada submitted Statutes and

Regulations which together provide for an inspection and maintenance program

for portions of Nevada, including the Las

Vegas Valley and Truckee Meadows

areas, This legislation and supporting regulations established in detail the

parameters of the inspection and

maintenance program. Nevada included in this submittal

their demonstration that their program,

as described, would achieve a 25%

reduction (using Mobile 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 of the program to achieve the

required emission reductions by 1987.

Therefore this element of the 1982 SIP is

approvable.

Tsp Plans

EPA proposed to approve the

following portions of the Mason Valley!

Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson

Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee

Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs

for TSP: 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,

permit program, public and governmen.t

involvement, and public hearings. These

provisions were found to be consistent

with Part D of the Clean Air Act.

EPA proposed to conditionally

approve the following portions of the

NAPs mentioned above for TSP: legally

adopted measures (for the Las Vega8.

Valley NAP only) and resources. These

portions were found to contain minor

deficiencies with respect to Part D and

were proposed to be approved with the

condition that each deficiency be

corrected by a specified deadline.

CO and 03 Plans

EPA proposed to approve the

following portions of the Truckee

Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs

for CO and 03: emission inventory,

modeling, emission reduction estimates, attainment provision (except for Las

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

extension requirements for Volatile

Organic Compounds. Reasonably Available Control Technology (VOC

RACT). These provisions were found to

be consistent with Part D of the Clean

Air Act, V

EPA proposed to conditionally

approve the following portions of the

Truckee Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs for CO and 03: attainment

provision (Las Vegas Valley 03 only), legally adopted-measures (except for

Truckee Meadows 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 corrected by a specified deadline,

Summary

As noted in the Sepkmber 9, 1980

notice, approval or conditional approval of all portions of the NAPs is sufficient

to lift the current prohibition on

construction of certain major new 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 the Nevada NAP

During the public comment period,

EPA received several comments. For the

most part the comments are specific to

the Las Vegas Valley NAP. These

comments and EPA’s responses follow.

1. Emission Inventory.

Comments were received supporting

EPA’s actms.

2. Modeling.

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers,

representing Concerned Citizens of

Clark County, commented that the

ozone model is not validated and that

EPA’s evaluation report did not

adequately justify use of the 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, EPA reviewed 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 not used in the NAP since the data

were collected under a questionable quality assurance program and since

this data is not part of the official SIP

monitoring network. Therefore, EPA

found that the NAP’s data base was

adequate for determining the ozone

design value.

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers

also commented that EPA’s evaluation

report seems to be generally inadequate with regard to CO modeling.

Responses EPA’s guidelines on air

quality modeling were used in

determining that the CO modeling was

performed satisfactorily for the NAP.

3. Emission Reduction Estimates.

Comments were received supporting

EPA’s actions.

4. Attainment Provision.

Comment: The Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection (NDEP)

commented that the Las Vegas Valley is

not nonatteinment for ozone and thus

should not be subject to the proposed rulemaking. They attached a copy of the

Nevada 1979 Air Quality Trend Report

to support this comment.

Response: The Las Vegas Valley is

designated and should remain

nonattainment for ozone (43 FR 9012,

March 3, 1978). Contrary to the 1979

Nevada Air Quality Report, Clark

County Health District data show three

days with violations of the 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 not been met. One

(1.0) or less expected exceedances of the

national standard per year at each

monitor averaged over at least one year

(maximum of 3 years if data is

available) is necessary for such a

redesignation. The procedure for

calculating expected exceedances may

be found at 40 CFR 50, Appendix H,

promulgated on January 12, 1979.

5. Reasonable Further Progress.

Comments were received supporting

EPA’s actions.

8. Legally Adopted Measures.

Comment: The Clark County

Department of Comprehensive Planning

(DCP) commented that since J/M, traffic

flow improvements and mass transit

and ride-sharing programs are currently

being implemented, they do not feel 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

proposed rulemaking, schedules for

analysis and development of additional

control measures are needed in areas

which will not attain the CO NAAQS by

1982. While it may be true that the

transportation measures have been

implemented for the current year, the

plan does not provide written evidence

that all implementing agencies have

committed to a program of

transportation projects which will

continue to be implemented as needed

to demonstrate attainment. Such policy

level resolutions, including the

commitment to seek and provide annual

evidence of continuing funding, need to

be submitted as a part of the NAP. Thus,

the condition must remain.

7. Emissions Growth.

8. Annuül Reporting.

9. Permit Program.

Comments were received supporting

EPA’s actions regarding these three

criteria.

10. Resources.

Comment: DCP indicated that the.

condition regarding resource

commitments would be satisfied in

proposed revisions and annual updates

which would detail budgeting

commitments for future years.

Response: Until these revisions are

officially submitted and reviewed, EPA

cannot make any final determination on

the adequacy of the revisions, Therefore,

the condition remains the same,

11. Public and Government

Involvement.

12. Public Hearing.

Comments were received supporting

EPA’s actions regarding these two

criteria.

13. Extension Requirements.

Comment: The NUEP stated that

statutes and regulations have been

submitted regarding cost-benefit

regulations for power plants.

Response: On October 13, 1980 EPA

received a letter from the Governor of

Nevada. In that letter he advised EPA of

an SIP revision, regarding power plants;

the specific statute and regulation to be

transmitted by the NDEP. Until EPA

receives the statutes and regulations

along with evidence of notice and public

hearing, no action can be taken on this

revision. Thus, the condition remains.

Comment: In response to the May 7,

1979 notice of proposed rulemaking,

Clark County and the NDEP’commented

that the Nevada State Legislature

recently amended the State statute

regarding the I/M program and delayed

implementation of the program until July

1, 1981.

Response: This amendment to the

Slate statute is discussed in the

September 9, 1980 proposed rulemaking

notice. As indicated in that notice the

delayed implementation does not alter

EPA’s approval of the Nevada J/M

program.

Comment: The NOEP commented that

they disagree with the proposed

conditions requiring the State to submit

certain plan revisions. They stated that

the DCP has submitted revisions to the

NAP that demonstrate the NAP has

legally enforceable measures to control

TSP and has shown a commitment of

resources to meet basic transportation

needs,

Response: EPA has not received the

above mentioned measures or

commitment as revisions to the SIP.

Therefore, the condition remains.

Comment: DCP also commented that

commitments for basic transportation

needs (BTN) are subject to budgetary

and manpower constraints. However,

their proposed plan revisions contain

the County’s short range transit program

which provides for the most expeditious

implementation program available to the

County.

Response: Clark County is required to

provide the essential policy evel

commitment to establish, expand or

improve public transportation to meet

basic transportation needs. This

commitment is distinguished from

budgetary commitments in that specific

resources will need to be shown on an

annual basis when Clark County has

completed its analysis of public

transportation needs (including demand

created by any disincentives to private

auto use that may be necessary to

demonstrate attainment) and

subsequently develops the strategy to

meet basic transportation needs. The

policy resolution currently required

represents an acknowledgement of the

requirements of Sections 110(a)(3)(D)

and (c)(5)(B) and a commitment to

develop necessary improvements, as

indicated by the analysis.

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers

commented on the failure of the Las

Vegas Valley NAP: 1)10 define or

demonstrate a commitment for public

transportation to meet basic

transportation needs, and 2) to identify,

analyze, or commit 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 of several conditions

of approval in EPA’s Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, wherein EPA required the

submittal of commitments 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 of additional

measures necessary to demonstrate

attainment, all analyses must be

completed to allow sufficient time for

development and initial implementation

of those measures found to be

reasonably available no later than

Decembar 31, 1982, and for inclusion of

those measures in the July 1, 1982 SIP

submittal. Measures necessary to meet

basic transportation needs must be

Included in the 1982 submittal.

General Comments

Comment.’ In response to EPA’s April

10 and 27, 1979 notices, several

comments were received during the

public comment period.

Response: On September 9, 1980 EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for several areas in Nevada.

The September 9, 1980 notice supersedes

the discussion in the April 10 and 27,

1979 notices; therefore, comments on the

April notices will not be addressed,

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers

commented that there is no authorization for conditional approvals

and that a conditional approval of the

Nevada NAP is an abuse of any

discretion that might exist.

Response: EPA policy (July 2, 1979

Federal Register, 44 FR 38583) provides

that when a plan has been revised so as

to be in substantial compliance with the

requirements of Part D, and the State

provides assurances that any remaining

minor deficiencies will be remedied

within a short period, imposition of the

restriction on new sources during that

period would not serve the

Congressional purpose. Therefore, under
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14. 1981 I Rules and Regulations 21763

such circumstances EPA interprets the

Clean Air Act to permit the plan to be

conditionally approved as satisfying

Part 0 requirements. Therefore, there is no abuse of discretion.

Comment: Tomlinson and Chalmers

also requested an extension of the

comment period to submit additional corn ments.

Response: EPA believes the available

period for comments was adequate

because:

(1) The NAPs and the JIM program

have been available for public

inspection and comment since they were the subject of Notices of Proposed

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 that revisions,

which are expected to meet the

conditions, will soon be adopted by the

County. They felt that adoption and

submittal of these revisions would fulfill

the conditions specified in the notice.

Responses: Until these revisions are Qfficially submitted and reviewed, EPA

cannot make any final determination on the adequacy of these revisions,

Therefore, the conditions must remain.

National Comments

One commenter submitted extensive

comments and requested that they be

considered part of the record for each

state plan. Another comwenter, a national environmental group, discussed

EPA action on permit fee systems and

the composition of state boards.

Although some of the issues raised are not relevant to provisions in the Nevada

NAPs, the November 10, 1980 Federal

Register (44 FR 74480) should be

referenced for a discussion of these

comments and EPA’s responses.

EPA Actions

Introduction

It is important for reviewers of this

notice to understand the overall nature

of NAPs and of EPA’s review and

approval role. Central to such an understanding is recognition that action

may be takun on a portion of the NAPs

for a specific pollutant.

Therefore, a portion of the NAPs may be adequate for one pollutant but

inadequate for others. It is EPA’s policy

to take final action on all portions of the

NAPs for each pollutant. As a result,

this notice contains a series of actions

for each pollutant and for each portion

of the NAPs rather than a single action.

One of the following three actions may

be taken for each portion of the NAPs:

1. Disapproval where the State does

not agree to correct minor deficiencies

or where deficiencies are of such

magnitude as to significantly interfere

with the basic objective; or 2. Approval where the portion of the

NAP under consideration meets all

requirements; or 3. Approval with conditions where

deficiencies exist, but where the effect

of the deficienc7 is not judged to be

major and the State has agreed to take

those steps necessary to correct the

deficiency.

In this case, it is EPA’s intent that the

State proceed expeditiously to correct

the noted deficiency by certain dates.

EPA’s final actions on the Mason

Valley/Fernley Area, Lander County,

Carson Desert, Winnemucca Segment,

Truckee Meadows, and Las Vegas

Valley NAPs are described below and are based on the proposed rulemaking

notices and the public comments

received by EPA.

Approved Portions of the NAPs

J/M

As proposed in the May 7, 1979 and

September 9, 1980 notices, EPA is taking

final action under Part 0 to approve the

statutes and rules listed in those notices

regarding the Nevada JIM program. The

approved statutes and rules form the

basis of Nevada’s JIM program and

satisfy the key l/M elements required

for approval of the 1979 SIP revision.

EPA is therefore approving the I/M

portion of the 1979 SIP revision.

In addition, the statutes and rules also

satisfy a number of the JIM

requiremerts for approval of the 1982

SIP revision. EPA is taking final action

today to approve those completed

elements of Nevada’s T/M program

which satisfy certain requirements for

the 1982 SIP revision, namely: inspection

test procedures; 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 total J/M program or the l/M

portion of the 1982 SIP revision.

Approval of the revision can only be

granted after the public awareness

element required by the 1982 SIP policy

(46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981) is

submitted and reviewed in order to

assure that Nevada’s total J/M program

and the T/M section of Nevada’s SIP

satisfy the requirements of Part D of the

Clean Air Act.

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 3.14.6 and

Article 4—.Sections 4.1 to 4.20.

EPA will take action to approve the 1/

M portion in total upon receipt from the

State of an adequate public awareness plan.

The State should be aware that

annual reports must be made to EPA on

the effectiveness of program

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 Air Act to approve

the following portions of the Nevada

NAPs: emission inventory, modeling,

emission reduction estimates,

attainment provision, reasonable further

progress, legally adopted measures

(except the Las Vegas Valley NAP),

emissions growth, annual reporting,

permit program, public and government

involvement, and public hearings.

CO and 03

As proposed in the September 9, 1980

notice, EPA is taking final action under

Part D of the Clean Air Act to approve

the following portions of the Truckee

Meadows and Las Vegas Valley NAPs:

emission inventory, modeling, emission

reduction estimates, attainment

provision (except for Las Vegas Valley

0,), reasonable further progress, legally

adopted measures (for Truckee

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

Conditionally Approved Portions of the

NAP

Tsp

As discussed in the September 9, 1980

notice and in the PUBLIC COMMENTS

section of this notice, the following

portions of the Nevada NAPs contain

minor deficiencies and the State has

provided assurances to correct these

deficiencies: legally adopted measures

(for the Las Vegas Valley NAP only) and

resources. Therefore, EPA is taking final

action to conditionally approve these

portions of the NAPs.

CO and 03

As discussed in the September 9, 1980

notice and in the PUBUC COMMENTS

section of this notice, the following

portions of the Trutkee Meadows and

Las Vegas Valley NAPs contain minor

deficiencies and the State has provided

assurances to correct these deficiencies:

attainment provision (Las Vegas Valley

03 only), legally adopted measures

(except for Truckee 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 of approval and the

associated deadlines are specified

bela w: Mason Valley/FernleyArea, Lander

County, Carson Desert, Winnemucca

Segment, Truckee Meadows and Las

Vegas Valley NAPsfor Total Suspended

Porticulotes.

By August 12, 1981, the State must

submit an identification and

commitment of resources specifically

identifying and budgeting all financial

and manpower resources necessary for

plan implementation.

Truckee Meadows NAP For CO

By August 12, 1981, the State must

submit commitments for adopted

measures and schedules for the’analysis

of the other measures listed in Section

108(f).

Los Vegas Valley NAP for CO. 03 and

Tsp

1. By August 12, 1981, the State must

submit a demonstration showing

attainment by December 31, 1982 of the

0.12 ppm (or the 0,08 ppm) standard for

the ozone portion of the plan.

2. By Au8ust 12, 1981, the State must

submit the measures referenced in the

June 22, 1979 letter from 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 of the other

measures listed in Section 108(f) for the

CO portion of the plan.

4. By August 12, 1981, the State must

submit regulations for the review and

permitting of fossil fuel-fired electric

steam generators.

5. 8y 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

of the plan.

8. 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 of the plan and a commitment to

initiate implementation of those

measures shown to be reasonably

available.

Final Action on the NAP

As described in the September 9, 1980

notice, only minor deficiencies remain in

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 Part D. As a result, the

current prohibition on construction of

certain major new or modified 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 for Mason Valley!

Fernley Area, Lander County, Carson

Desert, Winnemucca Segment, Truckee

Meadows, and Las Vegas Valley.

Therefore, EPA finds that good cause

exists for making this action

Immediately effective.

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

Air Act, judicial review of today’s action

is available only by the filing of a

petition for review in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit within 00 days of today. Under

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

the requirements which are the subject

of today’s notice may not be challenged

later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by EPA to enforce these

requirements.

ConditionalApproval Procedure

A discussion of conditional approval

and its practical effect appears in two

supplementsto the General Preamble

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

67192 (November 23, 1979)]. Conditional

approval requires the State to submit

additional material by the deadlines

specified in today’s notice. There will be

no extensions granted to the conditional

approval deadlines being promulgated

today. EPA will follow the procedures

described below when determining if

the State has satisfied the conditions.

1. If the State submits the required

additional documentation according to

schedule, EPA will publish a notice in

the Federal Register announcing receipt

of the material. The notice of receipt will

also announce that the conditional

approval is continued pending EPA’s

final action on the submission.

2. EPA will evaluate the State’s

submittal to determine if the conditions

are fully met. After EPA’s review is

completed, a Federal Register notice will

be published proposing or taking final

action to either (1) find the conditions

have been met and approve the NAP, or

(2) find the conditions have not been

met, withdraw the conditional approval,

and disapprove the NAP. If the NAP is

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

restrictions on construction would be

reimposed.

3. If the State fails to submit the

required materials to meet a condition,

EPA will publish a Federal Register

notice shortly after the expiration of the

deadline. The notice will announce that

the conditional approval is withdrawn,

the NAP is disapproved,’ and the Section

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

are in effect.

Certain deadlines for satisfying

conditions have been changed from

those proposed and are being

promulgated today without further

notice and comment. EPA finds that for

good cause additional notice and

comment on these 1eadlines are

unnecessary (See U.S.C. Section

553(b)(B), Administrative Procedure

Act). The State is the party responsible

for meeting the deadlines. In addition,

the public has had an opportunity to

comment generally on the concept of

conditional approval and on what

deadlines should apply for these

conditions (44 FR 38583, July 2,1979 and

45 FR 59334, September 9, 1980).

New Source Review Requiiements

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 for NSR 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 must
Federal 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 RA CT Requirements

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

of RACT 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 of RACT regulations are required for sources covered by the

Group II CTG documents, published

between January 1978 and January 1979.

Regulations for sources covered by the

Group II documents were to have been

submitted by January 1, 1981 (45 FR

78121, November 5, 1980). Regulations

must be submitted in order for the Part

D requirements of the 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 Register notice.

40 CFR Part 52 Rescissions, As a result of EPA’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 of New 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 of the National

Standards. The NAPs for Las Vegas

Valley and Truckee Meadows (Reno)

fulfill the requirements of § 51.12 (e) and

(fl.

§ 52.1484 Control Strategy: Carbon

Monoxide. The control strategy

demonstration contained in the Las

Vegas NAP fulfills the requirements of

§ 51.14 for carbon monoxide.

Attainment Dates. The 1980 edition of

40 CFR Part 52 lists, in the Subpart for

Nevada, the applicable deadlines for

attaining the NAAQS (attainment dates)

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

Act. For each nonattainrnent area where a NAP provides for attainment by 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 for previously regulated

sources to comply with new, more

stringent requirements, 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) of the Act made clear that

each source hod to meet its emission limits

‘us expeditiously as practicable,” but not

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

1977 Amendments. It would be a perversion

of clear Congressional intent to construe Part

D to authorize relaxation or delay of emission

limits for particular sources. The added time

for attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards was provided, if

necessary, because of the need to tighten

emission limits or bring previously

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

generally authorized or intended under Part 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 cannot be

granted variances 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 if it will not contribute to a

violation of an ambient standard or a

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

1979)).

In addition, sources subject to pre

existing plan requirements may be

relieved of complying with such

requirements if a NAP imposes new, more stringent control requirements that are incompatible with controls required

to meet the pre-existing regulations.

Decisions on the incompatibility of

requirements will be made on a case-by- case basis.

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

§ 605(b) 1 hereby certify that the

attached rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This action

only approves state actions, It imposes no new requirements. Moreoever, due to

the nature of the federal-state

relationship, federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of the state

action would serve no practical purpose

and could well be improper.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

“major” and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. This regulation is not major

because it only approves State actions.

It imposes no new regulatory

requirements.

This regulation was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget 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, San Francisco, CA

94105:

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

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

7410, 7429. 7501 to 7508, and 7801 (a)))

Dated: April 8, 1981.

Walter C. Barber,

Acting Administrator.

Note.—Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Nevada was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

Subpart DD of Pa( 52 of Chapter I,

Tifle 40 of the Code of Federal

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 of plan. * * * * *

(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—Sections
21766 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 of Health Air Pollution

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 of Petroleum

Products; Section 51—Petroleum Product

Loading into Tank Trucks, and Trailers;

and Section 52—Handling of Gasoline at

Service Stations, Airports and Storage

Tanks.

(iii) Amendments to the Washoe

County District Board of Health 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 of Petroleum

Products; Section 040.075—Gasoline

Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers;

Section 040.080—Gasoline Unloading

from Tank Trucks and Trailers 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 of understanding 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 of Health 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 of the national standards

under Section 110 of the 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) Lower Reese River Valley/Clovers

Area for TSP.

(3) Carson Desert for TSP.

(4) Winnemucca Segment for ‘rsp.

(5) Truckee Meadows for TSP and CO.

(6) Las Vegas Valley for TSP 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 of the requirements of Part

D for the ozone portion of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) depends on

the adoption and submittal by January 1,

1981 of reasonably 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 of Part 52 is amended

by adding § 52.1474, reading as follows:

§ 52.1474 Part 0 conditional approval.

(a) The following portions of the

Nevada SIP contain deficiencies with

respect to Part U of the 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 of the 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 of resources 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 letter from 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

of the other measures listed in Section

108(f).

(3) The Las Vegas Valley portion of

the Nevada SIP is approved as

satisfying Part D 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 of the

0.12 ppm (or the 0.08 ppm standard for

the ozone portion of the plan. -

(ii) By August 12, 1981, the State must

submit the adopted measures and

schedules for the analysis of the other

measures listed in Section 108(f) for the

CO portion of the plan.

(iii) By August 12, 1981, the State must

submit regulations for the review and

permitting of fossil 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

of the 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 of the plan and a commitment to

initiate implementation of those

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 Attainment Dates for National

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 of sulfur 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 for the primary

standards for sulfur oxides in the

Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control

Region shall be extended only to

January 1, 1977.

(b) The Administrator hereby 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/Fernley Area for

TSP.

(4) Lower Reese River Valley/Clovers

Area for TSP.

(5) Carson Desert for TSP.

(6) Winnemucca Segment for TSP.

(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

Incorporated Toledo Plant and the

Koppers Company Incorporated Toledo

Coke Plant which are located in Lucas

County, Ohio. The combined revision

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, Air Programs

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 establishing a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

control of sulfur dioxide (SO 2)for the

majority of sources 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, 1979 based on operational changes at the facility. At

the time the SIP for this 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 of three 66,9 MW (228.3

MMI3TU/hr) boilers. In the May 31, 1977

regulation, these three boilers were given a total allowable SO3emission

rate of 31.1 kg/hr (68.5 lbs/hr). This SIP

revision will reduce the allowable SO2

emission rate for Interlake to 13.6 kg/hr

(30.0 lbs/hr). The remaining 17.5 kg/hr

(38,5 lbs/hr) of SO2emission 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 SO2emission

offsets since the source is located in a nonattainment area. The Prevention of

Significant Deterioration 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 2.0 kg/ton (metric) — to 1.69 kg/ton (metric) (4.00 to 3.38 lbs

SO2per ton) of actual process wight

input. A summary of the previous and

revised emissions is shown below,

Koppers/Interfake Emlslans

(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)

Further discussion of the modeling

analysis for the two SIP revisions can be

found in the proposed rule published in

the Federal Register on September 9,

1980 (45 FR 59339) and in the Technical

Support Document which is available in

rocket #5A—80—1.

The Agency reviewed the two SIP

submittals and on September 9, 1980,

EPA proposed approval of these

revisions (45 FR 59399). During the

public comment period, two commenters

submitted comments. One commenter was in full support of the proposed

revisions since they should result in an improvement in the air quality in Lucas

County. The other commenter raised

several issues which are discussed

below.

Issue: The commenter claimed that use of RAM-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 cca. 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),