+(,121/,1(

Citation: 46 Fed. Reg. 8471 1981 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon May 24 17:19:57 2010

-- 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

Ethyl acetate .................

Gaso',ne, unleaded gaso.ne or rubber hydrocarbon solvent...... ..

(6) FormuTation No. IV:

Speaaly denatured alcohol formula No. I Methyl lsobutyr ketong .. ......

tolt-butyl alcohol

Gasolne, unleaded gasoline or rubber hydrocarbon solvent ...........

(e) Formulation No. V.

Specially denatured a!cohol formula No. I

Methyl Lsobt, etone

Seccodamy butyl alcohoL _..........

Gasoline, unleaded gasoine or rubber hydrocarbon solvent.- ....

N

PART 212-FORMULAS FOR

DENATURED ALCOHOL AND RUM

Glycerol US.P. - "

3. The table of sections of 27 CFR Part

212 is amended to read as follows:

Subpart C--Completely Denatured Alcohol

Formulas

212.13 Formula No. 20.

Subpart E-Specifications for Denaturants

212.80a Gasoline, unleaded (unleaded

gasoline].

4. Section 212.11 is revised to provide

for the use of unleaded gasoline, in lieu

of automotive-gasoline, as an alternate

denaturant. As revised, § 212.11 reads as

follows:

§ 212.11 Formula No. 18.

To every 100 gallons of ethyl alcohol

of not less than 1600 proof add:

2.50 gallons of methyl isobutyl ketone;

0.125 gallon of pyronate or a

compound similar thereto;

0.50 gallon of acetaldol (bhydroxybutyraldehyde); and

1.00 gallon of either kerosene,

deodorized kerosene, gasoline or

unleaded gasoline.

5. Section 212.12 is revised to provide

for the use of unleaded gasoline, in lieu

of automotive-gasoline, as an alternate

denaturant. As revised, § 212.12 reads as

follows:

§ 212.12 Formula No. 19.

To every 100 gallons of ethyl alcohol

of not less than 160' proof add:

4.0 gallons of methyl isobutyl ketone;

and

1.0 gallon of either kerosene,

deodorized kerosene, gasoline or

unleaded gasoline.

6. Section 212.13 is revised to provide

for the use of unleaded gasoline and

rubber hydrocarbon solvent, in lieu of

gasoline and automotive-gasoline, as

alternate denaturants and two gallons of

denaturant in lieu of five gallons. In

addition, Formula No. 20 is revised by

requiring ethyl alcohol to be of at least

1950 proof, in lieu of 190 ° proof. As

revised, § 212.13 reads as follows:

§ 212.13 Formula No. 20.

(a) Formula. To every 100 gallons of

ethyl alcohol of not less than 195' proof

add:

2.0 gallons, or any combination

equaling 2.0 gallons, of unleaded

gasoline, kerosene, deodorized kerosene

or rubber hydrocarbon solvent.

(b) Authorized use. Restricted to fuel

use, comparable to specially denatured

alcohol "Use Code No." 611, 612, 613,

620, and 630.

7. Section 212.38 is amended to

provide for the use of rubber

hydrocarbon solvent and unleaded

gasoline, as alternate denaturants in lieu

of automotive-gasoline. As amended,

§ 212.38 reads as follows:

§ 212.38 Formula No. 28-A.

(a) Formula. To every 100 gallons of

alcohol add:

One gallon or any combination

equaling one gallon of gasoline,

unleaded gasoline or rubber

hydrocarbon solvent.

8. Section 212.80a is revised to provide

specifications for unleaded gasoline, in

lieu of automotive-gasoline, as a

denaturant. As revised, § 212.80a reads

as follows:

§ 212.80a Gasoline, unleaded (unleaded

gasoline).

Conforms to specifications as

established by the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) in its

current revision of A.S.T.M. STP 23 229

(1980), Standard No. D 439-79. Any of

the "seasonal and geographical"

volatility classes for unleadedgasoline

are considered suitable as a denaturant.

9. Section 212.88 is revised by

providing a wider temperature range for

the first 10 percent of the distilled

sample. As revised, § 212.88 reads as

follows:

§ 212.88 Rubber hydrocarbon solvent.

Rubber hydrocarbon solvent is a

petroleum derivative.

Distillation range. When 10 percent of

the sample has been distilled into a

graduated receiver, the thermometer

must not read more than 170" F. nor less

than 900 F. When 90 percent has been

recovered in the receiver the

thermometer must not read more than

250* F.

10. The listing of authorized

denaturants in § 212.110 is amended by

inserting a line for "Gasoline, unleaded"

and amending the lines for "Kerosene",

"Kerosene (deodorized)" and "Rubber

hydrocarbon solvent" As amended,

§ 212.110 reads as follows:

§ 212.110 Listing of denaturants

authorized for denatured spirits.

Gasoline ............. C.DA. 18; 19.

S.DA. 28-A.

Gasoline, unleaded (unleaded gaso- C.D.A. 18; 19; 20;

line). S.MA 28-A.

Glycerol U.S.P."

Kerosene e.. ........ C.D.A. 18; 19; 20. Kerosen (deodorized) __ __ C.D.A 18; 19; 20.

Rubber hydrocarbon solvent ........ C.D.A. 20; S.DA 2-

B; 2-C 28-A.

§ 212.15 [Amended]

-11. Section 212.115 was previously

amended by TD ATF-67 by adding a

footnote "1" following Formula No. 28-

A. This footnote was already contained

in the heading 6f the chart and not

required alongside each formula

separately. Therefore, § 212.15 is

amended by removing the footnote "1"

following Formula No. 28-A.

Signed: December 19,1980.

G. R. Dickerson,

Director.

Approved: January 15,1981.

John Simpson,

ActingAssistant Secretary (Enforcement and

Operations).

[FR Doc. 81-2935 Filed 1-26-81; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-31-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL 1724-3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Five Air

Pollution Control Districts in the State

of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) takes final action to

approve and, where appropriate,

disapprove or take no action on changes

to rules of the Lake County, Modoc

8471

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 8471 1981
8472 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

County, Imperial County, and San

Bernardino County Desert and Great

Basin Unified Air Pollution Control

Districts (APCDs) submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (ARB).

The intended effect of these revisions is

to update the rules and to correct

deficiencies in the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules

have been evaluated and found to be in

conformance with the requirements of

the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51,

with certain exceptions. Therefore, these

revisions are approved, and

incorporated into the California SIP,

with certain exceptions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 1981.

ADDRESS: A copy of the revision is

located at: The Office of the Federal

Register 1100 "L" Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.

Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and

Hazardous Materials Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, Attn:

Douglas Grafio, (415) 556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 2,1980 EPA published a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking for revisions to

rules of the Lake County, Modoc

County, Imperial County, and San

Bernardino County Desert and Great

Basin Unified APCDs submitted by the

ARB for inclusion in the California SIP.

Revised rules which are being acted

upon by this notice include the following

subjects:

Permit Fees, Agricultural Burning,

Agricultural Operations, Equipment

Breakdown, Emergency Variances,

Particulate Emissions, Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions, In-stack

Monitoring, and Incinerators.

A list of the rules being considered by

this action was published in the October

2 notice (45 FR 65262). A 60 day public

comment period was offered. One

comment was received from the

Imperial County APCD.

Comment: The Imperial County APCD

noted that an error exists in EPA's

evaluation of Rule 111, Equipment

Breakdown, because the evaluation

references a Rule 617, Emergency

Variance, of the Imperial County APCD.

The APCD pointed out that the County's

regulation does not contain a Rule 617

and EPA's. evaluation should reference

Rule 517, Emergency Variance.

Response: EPA agrees that the correct

reference is Imperial County APCD's

Rule 517. However, as discussed in the

October 2,1980 notice, Imperial County

APCD's emergency variance rule is

inconsistent with 40 CFR Part 51

requirements since it does not give

adequate assurance that the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) will not be exceeded during variance periods. Therefore, EPA is

taking final action to disapprove this

rule.

It is the purpose of this notice to

approve the rule revisions listed in the

October 2 notice, except for the rules

discussed below.

EPA is taking no action on the

deletiQn of Rule 703, Cotton Gin Waste

Burning. of the Imperial County APCD,"

because it is not part-of the approved

SIP and thus its deletion does not need

to be requested.

As proposed, EPA is taking final

action to disapprove Rule 2:15,

Breakdown Conditions; Emergency

Variances of the Modoc County APCD.

Rule 2:15 is disapproved since it does

not give adequate assurance that the

NAAQS will not be exceeded during

variance periods.

Furthermore, EPA is taking final

action to disapprove Section B of Rule

111, Equipment Breakdown and Rule

517, Emergency Variance of the Imperial

CountyoAPCD. Section B of Rule 111 is

disapproved because it references Rule

517. However, Rule 517 is disapproved

because it lacks the requirement that the

NAAQS be attained and maintained

during a breakdown condition.

The ARB has certified that the public

hearing requirements of 40 CFR 51.4

have been satisfied.

EPA has reviewed the revisions being

acted upon in this notice and has

'determined that they are "specialized"

revisions not subject to the procedural requirements of Executive Order 12044.

(Secs. 110 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Actas

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

Dated: January 19, 1981.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

Note.-Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter I, Title

40, of the Code of FederalRegulations is

amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1 1. Section 52.220, paragraphs

(c)(42)(i)(D), (c)(50)(vii), (c)(51)(xi) and

(xii), (c)(52)(ii)(B) and (x), (c](58)(iii), and

(c)(74) are added as follows:

§ 52.220 Indentification of Plan. * * * * *

(c) * **

(42)***

(i * * *

(D) New rule 417 (A-H, and J).

(50) * * *

(vii) Modoc County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 1:2 w, 2:11,

2:15, 3:3 and 3:4. (51) * * *

(xi) Lake County APCD.

(A) New rules 227.1, 254.1, and 660.

(xii) San Bernardino County Desert

APCD.

(A) New rules 480 and 501.1..

(52)***

(ii) * * *

(B) New or amended rules 101 L, 110,

201B, 301, 302, 304, 305, 401, 404, 406, 408,

410,417 1,418, 419,422, Regulation VI,

701, 702, 703 (deletion), 705, and 706. * * * * *

(x) Lake County APCD.

(A) Amended rule 433.

*58 * ***

(58) *

(iii) Great Basin Unified APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 205, 210,

300A, and G, 403, 408, 419, and 617. * * * -* *

(74) Revised regulations for the

following APCD's submitted on

December 24,1979, by the Governor's

designee.

(i) Imperial County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 111, 413,

414, 416,416 (deletion), and 517.

2. Section 52.271, paragraphs (b)(3)

and (4) are added as follows:

§ 52.271 Malfunction regulations. *" * * * *

(b)***

(3) Modoc County APCD.

(i) Rule-2:15, Breakdown Conditions;

Emergency Variances, submitted on

May 7,1979.

(4) Imperial County APCD.

(i) Rule 111 (B), Equipment

Breakdown, submitted on December 24,

1979.

(ii) Rule 517, Emergency Variance,

submitted on December 24, 1979.

[FR Doc. 81-2737 Friled 1-26--i;8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-38-M

40 CFR Part 52

[A-5-FRL 1738-6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan Revisions: Illinois

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On April 30, 1980, the State of

Illinois submitted to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) revisions to the Illinois State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions to the transportation control

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 8472 1981
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

plans for the northeast Illinois area were

submitted to meet the requirements set

forth in the rulemaking conditionally

approving the Illinois SIP published on

February 21, 1980 (45 FR 11472, 11486).

On September 2, 1980 (45 FR 58146),

USEPA proposed approval of and

solicited public comment on the

revisions. No comments were received.

This notice announces USEPA's final

rulemaking action to approve these

revisions to the Illinois SP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 1981.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the materials

submitted by the State and by the public

during the comment period announced

in this notice of proposed rulemaking

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following USEPA

offices:

Gary Gulezian, Chief, Regulatory

Analysis Section, Air Programs

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region V, 230 South

Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

Public Information Reference Unit,

Library Systems Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Air Programs Branch, Region V, 230

South Dearborn Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

The Office of the Federal Register, 1100

L Street, N.W., Room 8401,

Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judy Kertcher, Regulatory Analysis

Secton, Air Programs Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 21,1980 (45 FR 11472), USEPA

announced final rulemaking on revisions

to the Illinois SP. The State submitted

these revisions to satisfy the

requirements of Part D of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977. In the final

ruelmaking, USEPA conditionally

approved the transportation control

plans for the northeast Illinois area. A

discussion of conditional approval was

published in the July 2,1979 Federal

Register (44 FR 38583) and the

November 23, 1979 Federal Register (44

FR 67182). A conditional approval

requires the State to remedy the

identified deficiencies by specified

deadlines. The conditional approval

status of the SIP continues until final

action is taken and published in the

Federal Register.

On April 30,1980, the State submitted

additional information on the

transportation control plans for the

northeast Illinois area in response to the

nine requirements set forth in the

conditional approval published

February 21, 1980 (45 FR 11472, 11486).

USEPA announced receipt and

availability for public review of these

revisions in the July 2, 1980 Federal

Register (45 FR 44970). On September 2,

1980, USEPA proposed approval of the

State's submittal as satisfying all of the

requirements set forth in the conditional

approval except those calling for

implementor commitments and

reasonable further progress (RFP) in

elimination of carbon monoxide

hotspots. At that time, USEPA solicited

public comment on the revisions and on

USEPA's proposed rulemaking action.

No comments were received. Therefore,

USEPA approves the northeast Illinois

TCP with the exception of the

implementor commitments and the

carbon monoxide hotspot elimination

schedule. As described in the September

22, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 62807),

the State of llinois will submit the

implementor commitments to USEPA

upon completion of its analysis of

reasonably available transportation

control measures and prior to February

28,1981. The carbon monoxide hotspot

inventory and schedule for the

elimination of hotspots were submitted

to USEPA on August 20, 1980. USEPA

will announce rulemaking on these

items in a separate Federal Register

notice. The conditional approval status

of the SIP continues until final action on

these remaining elements of the

transportation control plan is published

in the Federal Register.

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

Air Act, judicial review of this final

action is available only by the- filing of a

petition for review in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit within 60 days of date of

publication. Under Section 307(b)(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.

Under Executive Order 12044 (43 FR

12661), USEPA is required to judge

whether a regulation is "significant"

and, therefore, subject to certain

procedural requirements of the Order or

whether it may follow other specialized

development procedures. USEPA labels

proposed regulations, "specialized." I

have reviewed this and determined that

it is a specialized regulation not subject

to the procedural requirements of

Executive Order 12044.

This notice of final rulemaking is

issued under the authority of Sections

110 and 172 of the Clean Air Act (42

U.S.C. 7410 and 7502).

Dated: January 19, 1981.

Douglas Costle,

Administrator.

Note. -Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Illinois was approved by'the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 52, is

amended as follows:

1. Section 52.720(c) is amended by

adding paragraph 25 as follows:

§ 52.720 Identification of plan

(* * ***

(c)***

(25) On April 30, 1980, the State

submitted revisions to the transportation

control plan for northeast Illinois

(Chicago).

2. Section 52.737(b) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 52.737 Transportation control plans.

(b) The transportation control plan for

the northeast Illinois (Chicago) area is

approved provided that the following

conditions are satisfied:

(1) The State submits implementor

commitments upon completion of the

alternatives analysis and prior to

February 28, 1981.

(2) The State submits additional

information on reasonable further

progress in eliminating carbon

monoxide hotspot intersections and

links by August 31, 1980.

[FR Doc. 81-2940 Filed 1-26-81; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-38-M

40 CFR Part 52

[A-5-FRL 1736-6]

Indiana; Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On June 26, 1979 Indiana

submitted as a revision to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) a revised

sulfur dioxide (SO2) regulation, APC 13.

Revised APC 13, in part, relaxes the SO,

emission limitation in the SIP for certain

sources in Jefferson county to 6.0 pounds

of SO2/NMBTU (10.8 g/Mcal). EPA

proposed rulemaking to disapprove the

6.0 pound emission limitation for

Jefferson County because technical

analysis showed that the 6.0 pound limit

8473

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 8473 1981
8474 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

would potentially allow violations of the

Secondary National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS] to occur.'

Today EPA is disapproving revised APC

13 as it apllies to Jefferson County for

that reason.

DATES: This action is effective as of

February 26, 1981.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the public

comment on the proposed revision to the

SIP are available at:

Air Programs Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 230

South Dearborn Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60604

Public Information Reference Unit, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460

Air Pollution Control Division, Indiana

State Board of Health, 1330 W.

Michigan, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Robert Miller, Regulatory Analysis

Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 230

South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886-6031.

SUPPLEMENARY INFORMATION: On

September 15, 1972 Indiana submitted a

statewide SO regulation, revised APC

13. This SO regulation was approved by

EPA on May 14,1973 (38 FR 12711). This

regulation required, in part S0 2

emissions from sources 250 MMBTU or

larger in Jefferson County to be limited

to a specific number between 2.75 and

1.2 pounds of SOi/MMBTU, depending

upon the size of the source. On June 26,1979, Indiana submitted a

new revised APC 13 which the State

promulgated on June 19,1979.

Rulemaking disapproving this regulation

as it applies to Jefferson County was

proposed for public comment on March

27, 1980 (45 FR 20432).

EPA proposed disapproval of revised

APC 13 as it applies to Jefferson County

because it relaxes the emission

limitation for large sources in Jefferson

County from 1.2 to 6.0 pounds of S0 2 /

MMBTU, even though the technical

analysis submitted with the revision

predicted violations of the secondary

NAAQS at the 6.0 pound emission

limitation. EPA today is disapproving

revised APC 13 as it applies to Jefferson

County because the 6.0 pound emissioti

limitation does not ensure attainment of

the secondary SO2 NAAQS in Jefferson

County. EPA analysis shows that 6.0

pounds of SO2 IMBTU emission

limitation will assure attainment of the

primary standards, but that an emission

limitation df 4.19 pounds of S0 2 /

MMBTU (7.54 g/Mcal) is necessary to

ensure attainment of the secondary

standard.

In response to the March 27,1980

Federal Register proposal, many

comments were received on revised

APC 13. However, only one commentor,

the State, discussed revised APC 13 in

relation to Jefferson County.

Because EPA is disapproving APC 13

on the grounds that the 6,0 pound of

SO/MMBTU emission limit is not

stringent enough to attain the NAAQS,

the merits of revised APC 13 as a whole

will not be discussed in this notice.

Comments on revised APC 13 as a

whole and on its application to

geographical areas-ther than Jefferson

County will be discussed in future

Federal Register notices when EPA

takes final rulemaking action on revised

APC 13 as a whole.

EPA Response to Comments on the SO2

Strategy for Jefferson County

EPA computer dispersion modeling of

Jefferson County predicts that the

highest ambient concentrations of SO2 .

occur under stability class A conditions.

The State questions whether stability

class A conditions are appropriate in

modeling a facility with tall stacks. EPA

has determined that it is appropriate to

use class A stability in modeling tall

stacks. This determination is explained

in EPA's response to the remand in

Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company v.

EPA, 578 F. 2d 660 (1978), appearing at

45 FR 41501 June 19, 1980). Additionally,

the State committed to revising the SIP

for Jefferson County if the EPA

redesignated Jefferson County under

section 107 of the Act from "unclassifiable" to "nonattainment."

EPA is proposing for public comment

such a redesignation elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register.

Additionally, elsewhere in today's

Federal Register, EPA is issuing a notice

under Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Clear

Air Act that Indiana's SO2 SIP for

Jefferson County is substantially

inadequate to achieve the national

secondary SO2 standard and has

requested Indiana to revise the SIP.

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

Air Act, judicial review of these actions

is available only by the filing of a

petition for review in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

within 60 days of today. Under Section

307(b)(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.

Under Executive Order 12044 (43 FR

12681, EPA is required to judge whether

a regulation is "significant" and,

therefore, subject to certain procedural

requirements of the order or whether it

may follow other specialized

development procedures. EPA labels

these other regulations "specialized." I

have reviewed this proposed regulation

pursuant to the guidance in EPA's

response to Executive Order 12044,

"Improving Environmental Regulations"

signed March 29,1979 by the

Administrator, and I have determined

that it is a specialized regulation not

subject to the procedural requirements

of Executive Order 12044.

This notice of Final Rulemaking is

issued under the authority of Sections

110 and 172 of the Clean AirAct as

amended.

Dated: January 19,1981.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 81-2949 Filed 1-26-81; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-38-.

40 CFR Part 52

[A-5-FRL 1739-61

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of SIP Deficiency.

SUMMARY: The Indiana State

Implementation Plan (SIP) requires

sources 250 MMBTU (63 Gcal] and

larger in Jefferson County to limit their

sulfur dioxide (SO2] emissions. Their

emissions are limited to a specific

number between 2.75 pounds and 1.2

pounds of sO2 /MMBTU (4.95 and 2.16 g/

Mcal), depending upon the size of the

source. Indiana repealed in 1974 its

regulation on which the SIP is based as

state law and is not enforcing the SIP.

Therefore, EPA finds under section

110(a)(2)[H) of the Clean Air Act (Act)

that the SIP for Jefferson County is

substantially inadequate to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) because it is unenforceable by the State. Section 110(c)(1)(C] requires

Indiana to revise its regulations and

submit them as a revision to the SIP to.

EPA within 60 days of the effective date

of this notice.

DATES: This action is effective as of

February 26, 1981. The revised SIP is due on April 27, 1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Miller, Regulatory Analysis

section, Air Programs Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312] 886-6031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 15,1972 Indiana submitted a

state.wide S02 regulation, revised APC

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 8474 1981