46384 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. -134 / Thursday, July 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

submitted to EPA asproposed plan revisions on July 3,1978.

EPA reviewed the proposed plan revisions to assess how much, ifany, PSD increment would be consumed. This evaluation showed that the new emission limits would cause a violation ofthe PSD increments around some

sources. EPA requested the Mississippi
agency to revise the submitted emission limits for those specific areas where violations ofthe PSD increment were predicted. Mississippi adopted the
necessary changes and submitted them
to EPA'on September 13, 1979. The affected sources and their emission limits are as follows:

S,so Source/Permit No. Emission Umit (Lbs./Hr)

Mobil Oil Corp 284 -00006 282.0 Amerada Hess Corp/2840-00001

.......... 78.4 Amerada Hess Corp/0440-00001: lare No. 1

..... .20.8 Flare No. 2

. .............. .. 15.5 Hess Pipeline/2840-00021

................ 242.4 American Quasar Petroeum/2840-0024. 28.2 Shell OiCompany/2500-00027

.......... _ 27.6 Getty Oil Company/1300-00012...

......... 0.8 Shell Oil Company/1300-00014................... 4.1 Pierremont Petroleum Co/.2420-0007...... 89.1 Shell Oil Co/0860-O0005-002........... 125.8 Pruett &Hughes/0400-00018 62.4 Getty 01 Co/0440-00l.. ti 2.1 Gelty Oil 13/0440-00012............ Getty Oil Co/0440-00014...........

. 17.4 Crystal Oil

Co/1720-00043

.............. 65.0 Continental OilCo/0440-0009 58.6 Shell Oil C/0860-00005-01..._..._... 169.0

EPA has determined that these emission limitations are adequate to protect both the PSD increments and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the revisions are approved.

Under Executive Order 12044, EPA is required tojudge whether a regulation is "significant" and, therefore, subject to the procedural requirements ofthe Order or whether it may follow other specialized development procedures. EPA labels these other regulations "specialized". I have reviewed this regulation and determined that it is a specialized regulation not subject to the requirements ofExecutive Order 12044. (Section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct (42U.S.C. 7410)).

Dated: June 30, 1980. Douglas M.Costle, Administrator.

Part 52 ofChapter I,Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
Subpart Z-Mississippi

In §52.1270, paragraph (c)is amended by adding subparagraph (12) as follows:
§52.1270 Identification ofplan.

* * * * * (c) The plan revisions listed below

were submitted on the dates specified.

(12)Revised regulation APC S-1, Section 4.2(b), for emissions ofsulfur oxides from the incineration ofgas streams containing hydrogen sulfide, submitted on July 3,1978; and permits containing limits on sulfur oxide emissions from individual flares, submitted on-September 13,1979, by the Mississippi Bureau ofPollution Control (see Federal Register ofJuly 10, 1980).

iFR Dec.80-20625 Filed 7-9-80; 845am]
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL 1533-4]

Nevada State Implementation Plan Revision: Nevada Revised Statutes and the Emergency Episode Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA] takes final action to approve and, where appropriate, disapprove ortake no action on changes
to the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan. These changes were submittedby the Governor ofNevada forincorporation into the Nevada State Implementation. Plan (SIP). The intended effect of this action is to correct deficiencies in the SIP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Louise P. Giersch, Director,Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Environmental-Protection Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Attn: Douglas Grano, (415) 556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 28, 1980 (45FR 13132), EPA published a Notfce ofProposed Rulemaking for revisions to the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan submitted on December 29, 1978, by the Governor of Nevada for inclusion in the Nevada SIP.

As discussed in the February 28 Notice, the revisions have been reviewed and found to be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 and EPA policy with certain exceptions. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking provided a 60-day public comment period. No comments

were received. Therefore, this notice takes final action to approve the revisions contained in the December 29, 1978 submittal, and incorporate them into the Nevada SIP, except as discussed below.

EPA is disapproving Section 6.1.5 of the Emergency Episode Plan since it does not meet the requirements of40 CFR 51.16 and Appendix L. The new rule provides that the termination ofan episode is left to the discretion of the control officer and not to specified criteria. Therefore, the rule is disapproved.

No action is being taken on Section 6.5.2.1 ofthe Emergency Episode Plan, Action will be taken in a separate Federal Register notice.

No action is being taken on 445.477, 445.481, 445.526, and 445,576 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Identical rules were submitted on September 10, 1975 and final action to approve them was taken on January 24, 1978. The December 29,1978 submittal Is identical to the previously approved rules and therefore, no action Is

necessary.

No action is being taken on NRS 445.493, and 445.610-445.710. Action will be taken in separate Federal Register notices.

EPA is approving NRS 445.500, 445.511, 445.516, and 445.521, concerning variance procedures. However, it should be noted that each variance must satisfy the requirements of Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act and Part 51 in order to be approved as a revision to the SIP.

EPA is approving NRS 445.451, State Environmental Commission. However, It should be noted that the requirements of Section 128, State Boards, of the Clean AirAct are not completely satisfied.

EPA is approving the deletion of Section 8.5, 17(1-4, 6,7), 27, and 38 of Senate Bill275 submitted on January 20, 1972 since these rules are now obsolete. (Section 110 and 301(a) ofthe Clean Air Act

as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 7410 and 7601(a)))

Dated: June 30. 1980. Douglas M.Costle, Administrator.

Subpart DD ofPart 52 of Chapter 1, Title 40, ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

Subpart DD-Nevada

1. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(14) as follows:
§52.1470 Identification ofplan.

* * * * * 

### (c) * ** (14)Amendments to the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada State Emergency Episode Plan submitted on December 29, 1978, by the Governor.

(i) Nevada State Emergency Episode Plan Sections: 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.5.2.2: Tables: 6.1, 6.2 (Stages 1,2, and 3), 6.3; Air

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 46384 1980Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 134 / Thursday, July 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Pollution Episode Notice; Episode Communication Checklist.

(ii)Nevada Revised Statutes Policy Declarations; Definitions: 445.401, 445.406,445.411A, 445.416,445.421,445.424, 445.427,445.431,445.441,445.446; State Environmental Commission: 445.451, 445.456,445.461,445.466,445.471,445.472, 445.473,445.474,445.476; LocalHearing Boards: 445.486; Enforcement Provisions: 445.491,445.496,445.497,445.498,445.499, 445.501; Variances: 445.506,445.511, 445.516,445.521; Hearings, Orders Respecting Violations: 445.529; Local Air Pollution Control Programs: 445.546, 445.551, 445.556, 445.561, 445.566; Miscellaneous Provisions: 445.571, 445.581,445.586,445.596,445.598; Penalties: 445.601; Deletions: Senate Bill 275, Sections 8.5,17(1-4, 6,7). 27,38.

* * *k * *

2. Section 52.1477 is added to read as follows:
§52.1477 Nevada air pollution emergency plan.

Section 6.1.5 of theEmergency Episode Plan submitted onDecember 29, 1978 is disapproved since termination of the episode is leftto the discretion ofthe Control Officer andnot specified criteria and it does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR51.16 and Appendix L The old rule 6.1.5 submitted on January 28,1972 is retained.

[FR Doc -o -351 Filed 7-9-0 8:4s am]

BILUING CODE 6560-01-M

40 CFR Part 65

[FRL 1508-31

State and Federal Administrative Enforcement of Implementation Plan Requirements After Statutory Deadlines; Delayed Compliance Order for N.L Industries, Inc., Sayreville, N.J.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY. EPAhereby issues an order under Section 113(d)(4] ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. ("theAct') requiring N.L. Industries, Inc. ("NL"] tobring the emissions from its Sayreville, New Jersey facility into compliance with the New Jersey State Implementation Plan regulations for the control ofparticulate matter.

This regulation is a part of the federally-approved NewJersey Implementation Plan. The date forfinal compliance established by the Order is May 31,1980. Compliance byN.L. Industries with the Orderwill insulate it from further federal enforcement action under Section 113 ofthe Act and from citizen enforcement action under Section 304 of the Act forviolations of the regulations covered bythe Order during the period the orderis in effect.

DATES- This rule takes effect on July 10, 1980.
ADDRESSES- The administrative Order and supporting material are available forpublic inspection and copying during normal business hours at:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 11, GeneralEnforcement Branch, Room 437,26 Federal Plaza. NewYork, NewYork 10007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Samuel P. Moulthrop, Attorney, General Enforcement Branch, Enforcement Division, 26 Federal Plaza, NewYork, NewYork 10007(212) 264-1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Monday, April 21,1980, the Regional Administrator ofEPA's Region I published in the Federal Register,45 FR 26902, a notice setting forth the provisions of a proposed administrative Order to N.L. Industries, Inc. ("NL") pursuant to Section 113(d) of the AcL The notice solicited public comment and offered the opportunity to request a -publichearing on the proposed Order. N11 Industries operates a titanium dioxide manufacturing plant at Sayreville, New Jersey. The Order addresses particulate emissions from digestion tanks 19 and 20 which are subject toN.J.A.C. 7.27-6.2. This regulation limits the emission of particulate matter and ispart ofthe federally-approved State Implementation Plan. The Order requires final compliance with the regulation by May 31,1980, and the

source has consented to its terms.

This DCO is issued in order forNL to implement anew digestion process which would eliminate excess particulate emissions at digestion tanks 19 and 20. EPA has determined that the company's proposed hand phase digestion CPD")process constitutes a "new means ofemission limitation" within the meaning of Section 113(d)(4) ofthe Actand that all other requirements ofSection 113d)(4) have been met.

One comment was received on May 21,1980 from the Department ofthe Public Advocate ofthe State ofNew Jersey written by Mr. Michael Bryce, AssistantDeputy Public Advocate. Mr. Bryce made three comments, each of which are addressed below.

Mr. Bryce noted that itwould have been more appropriate for the Delayed Compliance Order toreflect the final compliance date for the NLplant as set out in the separate Consent Decree negotiated between the company and the US. government in resolution of additional violations.

Mr.Bryce is correct that there is a relationship between the DCO andthe Consent Decree, indeed, the Consent Decree was noticedforpublic comment

on the Federal Register page immediately following thenotice forthis DCO (45FR 28904). The DCO, however,

covers only theperiod ofnoncompliance extending up until the completion and evaluation ofNL's prototypeLiquidPhase Digestion system. Asnoted, above,EPA considers this a new means of emission control eligible for issuance ofa DCO under 113(d)(4) ofthe Clean AirAct. The Consent Decree, by contrast, addresses the period ofnon-compliance after May 31,1980 when theprototype willhave been completed and tested. After completion ofthe prototype, expanded

use ofthe LPD system would no longer constitute anew means ofemission control. Consequently, it would be inappropriate fora DCO issuedpursuant to 113(d)(4) toreflect a compliance date beyond the earliest time at which the prototype LPD system couldbe completed and evaluated.

Mr. Bryce, in paragraph 2 ofhis letter, posed a number ofspecific questions: (a) Whatis the size ofthe prototype LPD
process covered by theDCO?; (b)why will the extension ofthe LPD process to the balance ofNi'splant (addressed in the ConsentDecree) not take.place until September. 1981?; and (c) is there a technical basis for this delay? Mr.Bryce also observed that the history ofthis

case argues against excessively lengthy time schedules, andhe further asserts that the public hasnot beenadvised of the compliance dates intherelated ConsentDecree.

As indicated above,the Consent Decree was the subject ofa separate Federal Registernotice appearing on the
page following the notice forthis DCO. The ConsentDecree sets forth the capacity ofthe prototype LPD system as 35-40% ofNi's total digestor load. Since the new system is technically complex and extremely costly,itwas impracticable to build aprototype facility large enough to handle the plant's entire load,before the system could be evaluated on a smaller scale. This DCO represents the most expeditious schedule for completion of the prototype facility; the Consent Decree similarly represents the most expeditious schedule forthebalance of theplant's digestors.

Finally, Mr.Bryce expresses his opinion thatviolations ofeither the DCO orthe Consent Decree should be dealt with expeditiously and without further time concessions. EPA will, of 

### 46385

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 46385 1980