+(,121/,1(

Citation: 43 Fed. Reg. 52237 1978 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Nov 4 14:26:52 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
tees, such as travel and meeting ex- penses, will be funded by the separate

members' offices using General Expense funds otherwise available. Major

expenses connected with special studies or activities will be funded through

the normal budgetary procss. Budget

requests will be supported by appropriate justification material.

(Act of Congress approved I Alarch 1917, (33

U.S.C. 701) and Section 2 of the Act of Congress approved 28 June 1938 as amended (33

U.S.C. 701c-I).)

Dated: November 1, 1978.

THoMAs J . WVOODALL,

LTC, Corps of Engineer, Assistant Executive Director, EngineerStaff

[FR Doc. 7841488 F led 11-9-78; 8:45 am]

[6560-01-M]

Title 40-Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS

[FRL 1004-8]

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

California Plan Revision: South Coast

Air Quality Management District

and Los Angeles, Riverside and

San Bernardino Air Pollution Control Districts (Southeast Desert Portions) "

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUM ARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes final

action to approve new source review

rules for the south coast portion of,

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor's designee.

EFFECTIVE DATE. December 11,

1978.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT'

Lloyd Kostow, Chief, Air Section,

Permits Branch, Enforcement Division (E-4-3), Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, Calif.

94105, telephone: 415-556-8005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 21, August 2, and November

19, 1976 the State of California submitted to the Regional Administrator,

Region IX, revisi6ns of the Southern

RULES AND REGULATIONS

California Air Pollution Control District (previously Los Angeles County

APCD, Orange County APCD. Riverside County APCD, and San Bernardino County APCD) regulations. On

February 1, 1977 the State split the

Southern California Air Pollution

Control district into the South Coast

Air Quality Management District In

the western region and three separate

APCDs formed out of the remaining

parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, and

San Bernardino counties in the eastern desert areas. These eastern areas

are designated as the Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino County

APCDs (Southeast Desert Portions).

The State of California resubmitted

rules for these eastern areas on June

6, 1977, merely to reflect this split.

The rules were Identical to the previous submittals. South Coast Air Quality Management District and Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino

Air Pollution Control Districts (Southeast Desert Portions) regulation II,

rules 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206. 207,

209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 213.1, 213.2. 214,

215, 216, 217, and 219 will provide a

procedure by which persons who wish

to construct, modify or operate any article, machine, equipment, or other

contrivance that-may cause the Issuance of air contaminants may be

granted a permit to do so. A permit shall not be granted, If it is determined that such construction, modiflcation, or operation would interfere

with the attainment or maintenance

of a national ambient air quality

standard.

The State of California has certified,

by letters of August 2. December 22,

1976, and June 6, 1977, that these revisions to the state Implementation plan

were adopted after public hearings

held on January 9, February 6, and

May 7,1976 in Pomona, Calif., October

4 and 5, 1976 In Fresno, Calif., and October 8, 1976, in Los Angeles, Calif.,

after notice conforming to 40 CFR

Part 51, Requirements for Preparation. Adoption. and Submittal of Implementation Plans was given.

On January 6, 1977 (42 FR 1273),

the Environmental Protection Agency

published a notice of proposed rulemaking (42 FR 1273) advising the

public of receipt of the revised Southern California Air Pollution Control

District (both western region and east- er desert areas) regulation II, rules

201-207, 209-217, and 219 and requested public comments within thirty (30)

days. Five (5) comment letters were received. Comment letters were received

from the following parties: Western

Oil & Gas Association. Gulf Oil Co.-

U.S., California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, Union

Oil Co. of California, and Southern

California Gas Co.

52237

Discussiox or MAJon Coirair-rs

The following are the major com- ments made, together with EPA's response:

1. The inclusion of emissions from

carriers is Improper for alleged lack of

notice, alleged lack of support in the

State record and an alleged burden

upon interstate and foreign commerce.

The interpretative ruling (December

21, 1976) specifically states (footnote

3) that indirect or secondary impacts

which can be accurately quantified

should be considered when determining whether the source would cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS.

The State certified public hearings were held in accord with 40 CFR 51.4.

The rules meet the requirements of 40

CFR 51.18 and the interpretative

ruling-IR (41 FR 55524, December 21,

1976). EPA will not inquire into the

State record so long as these requirements are met by the State submitted

SIP revision. The requirement being

commented upon does not regulate or

burden carriers. It merely states that

emissions from carriers, associated

with the new or modified stationary

source to be constructed, will be considered In determining the net emissions resulting from the proposed

source.

2. "New source review (as required

by section 110 of the Clean Air Act)

should be required only for sources for

which there are standards of performance for new stationary sources, promulgated pursuant to section 111 of

the Act." EPA believed the Clean Air

Act of 1970 required preconstruction

review of all major new or modified

stationary sources for determination

of interference with attainment or

maintenance of the national ambient

air quality standrds (NAAQS). The

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977

verified this belief. Section 129 of Pub.

L. 95-95 provides that the lM. shall

apply before July 1. 1979. (Note under

42 U.S.C. .7502.) The IR. and the 1977

amendments state that the term

"major source" shall cover any source

that emits more than a specified

amount of pollutant. Thus new source

review is required for all new or modifled major sources, regardless of

whether there are applicable standards of performance.

3. "The proposed rules are impermissibly vague.' The IR indicates precisely how "interference" will be determined. Moreover. rule 213 contains

adequate guidance for assessing air

quality Impact.

4. 'rhere has been no showing that

the rules are necessary to the attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS:" The South Coast Air Basin

in nonattainment for most of the criteria pollutants. The IIR has been established for dealing with new source

construction in areas exceeding the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 218-THURSDAY, NOVEMER 9. 1978
NAAQS. Emissions from new sources would otherwise exacerbate existing

violations of the NAAQS. Therefore new source review rules implemented

by either EPA or the SCAQMD are necessary to the attainfent and maintenance of the standards. EPA is presently implementing the IR and issues

permits for sources in the SCAQMD .

The effect of this approval will be to

transfer primary authority under the

SIP to the SCAQMD.

5. "The'requirement (on certain exemptions) of concurrence by California Air Resources Board and EPA will 'guarantee interriinable and very ex- pensive delays on proposed projects'."

Concurrence by the State and EPA in- sures that the granting of exemptions

does not violate either State or Federal requirements. Normally EPA' and

ARB will grant concurrence within the

time requirements of the public com- ment period. In cases where the

SCAQMD grants an exemption that is

inconsistent with Federal requirements, EPA, or. ARB will, conduct a review within the time requirements

specified in 40 CFR 51.18.

6. One commentor alleged that the

California Air Resources Board (ARB)

failed to follow State procedural re- quirements in adoption of new source review rules for the SCAQID. The

ARB is the only agency designated by

the Goyernor of California as the

agency for submittal of SIP revisions

and has certified that such regulations were adopted in accordance with EPA

requirements. Matters of alleged procedural Irregularities under State law are best addressed at the State level,

7. Various commentors suggested

various substantive changes to rules

213, 213.1, and 213.2. EPA must review

and approve or disapprove the SIP re- visions as submitted by the State. We

do not have the authority to rewrite

the State submitted regulations. So

long as the proposed SIP revision is

equal to or more stringent than the

EPA requirements, it will be approved. Proposed substantive changes in the

SCAQMD regulations are most appropriately addressed to the adopting

body during the regulation's formative

stages.

These comments have not caused

EPA to change its position, as summa- rized below:

EPA has thoroughly reviewed the

South Coast Air Quality Management District and Los Angeles, Riverside,

and San Bernardino Air Pollution

Control Districts (Southeast Desert

Portions) revised regulation II, rules

201-207, 209-217, and 219. This was done by comparing them to the re,-

quirements of section 110 of the Clean

Air Act, the requirements of 40 CFR

Part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and submittal of Implementation Plans (particularly 40

RULES AND ) REGULLATIO)NS

CFR 51.18-Review of New Sources

and Modifications), EPA's Interpretative Ruling for Implementation of the

Requirements of 40 CFR 51.18 (41 FR

55524, December 21, 1976). A compari- son of the effectiveness of control of

emissions of new sources, both for sources proposed for construction

within the District and for sources

representative of a national projection was 'also prepared. It is concluded that.

these rules are broader'in scope and at

'least as stringent as are required

under the Clear Air Act and 40 CFR

51.18.

I The Administrator hereby approves

South Coast Air Quality Management

District and Los Angeles, Riverside,

and San, Bernardino Air Pollution

Control Districts (Southeast Desert

Portions) rules 201, 202, 203, 204, 205,

206,-207, 209, 210,-211, 212, 213, 213.1,

213.2, 214, 215, 216, 217, and 219 -as part of the California State Implementation Plan. ,.

In accordance with this approval the

Administrator hereby deletes 40 CFR

52.233 (d)(2), (d)(8)(i-iii), (g)(1)(ii), and

(g)(1)(ix)(a-c) which were substitute

regulations, Implemented and en- forced by EPA, for the review of new sources and modifications in the

South Coast Air Quality Management

District and Los Angeles, Riverside,

and San Bernardino Air Pollution

Control Districts (Southeast Desert

Portions). This approval transfers primary authority for implementation

and enforcement from EPA to the, District.

(Sections 110 and 301(a) of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7410

and 7601(a)).)

Dated: October 31, 1978.

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,

Administrator,'

Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1. Section 52.220, - paragraph

(c)(31)(vi)(C), (32)(iv)(C), (36)(i)(A),

(39)(ii)(B), (39)(iii)(B), and (39)(iv)(B) are added to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

c)* * **

(c)

• * C'

/ 

* *

(31) * * *

(vi) Southern California APCD.

(C) Rules 201-207, 209-212, 214-217,

and 219.

* C * *' *

(32) * *

(iv) Southern California APCD.

(C) Rules 202 and 219.

(36) Revised-regulations for the fol.'

lowing APCD were submitted on November 19, 1976, by the Governor's

designee.

(i) Southern California APCD,

(A) Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2.

(39) * * *

(i) * **

(ii) San Bernardino County APCD

(Southeast Desert Portion).

(A) * * *

(B) Rules 201-207, 209-212, 213,

213.1, 213.2, 214-217, and 219.

(iii) Los Angeles County APCD

(Southeast Desert Portion).

(A) * * *

(B) Rules 201-207, 209-212, 213,

213.1, 213.2, 214-217, and 219.

(iv) Riverside County APCD (Southeast Desert Portion). •(A) * * *

(B) Rules 201-207, 209-212, 213,

213.1, 213.2, 214-217 and 219.

* * * * *

2. Section 52.233 Is amended by revoking and reserving paragraphs

(d)(2), (d)(8)(1-iii), (g)(1)(li), and

(g)(1)(ix)(a-c).

§ 52.233 Review or new sources and modifications.

(d) * * (1) * * *

(2) [Reserved]

(8) * * *

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) [Reserved]

(e) * * (f) * * *

(g) * * *

(i) * **

(ii) [Reserved]

(ix) *'* *

(a) [Reserved]

(b) [Reserved]

(c) [Reserved]

* * *

S S *

* * 5 

[FR Doe. 78-31610 Filed 11-8-78: 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL, 43, NO. 218-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1978