# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofsections 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 ofunleaded 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 ofnot less than 1600 proofadd:

2.50 gallons ofmethyl isobutyl ketone; 0.125 gallon ofpyronate or a compound similar thereto;

0.50 gallon ofacetaldol (bhydroxybutyraldehyde); and

1.00 gallon ofeither kerosene, deodorized kerosene, gasoline or unleaded gasoline.

5. Section 212.12 is revised to provide for the use ofunleaded gasoline, inlieu of automotive-gasoline, as an alternate denaturant. As revised, § 212.12 reads as follows: §212.12 Formula No. 19.

To every 100 gallons ofethyl alcohol ofnot less than 160' proofadd:

4.0 gallons ofmethyl isobutyl ketone; and

1.0 gallon ofeither kerosene, deodorized kerosene, gasoline or unleaded gasoline.

6. Section 212.13 is revised to provide for the use ofunleaded gasoline and rubber hydrocarbon solvent, in lieu of gasoline and automotive-gasoline, as alternate denaturants and two gallons of denaturant inlieu offive gallons. In addition, Formula No. 20 is revised by requiring ethyl alcohol to be ofat least 1950 proof, inlieu of190 ° proof. As revised, §212.13 reads as follows: §212.13 Formula No.20.

(a)Formula. To every 100 gallons of ethyl alcohol ofnot less than 195' proof add:

2.0 gallons, or any combination equaling 2.0 gallons, ofunleaded gasoline, kerosene, deodorized kerosene

or rubber hydrocarbon solvent.

(b)Authorizeduse.Restricted to fuel
use, comparable to specially denatured alcohol "Use CodeNo." 611, 612, 613, 620, and 630.

7. Section 212.38 is amended to provide forthe use ofrubber hydrocarbon solvent and unleaded gasoline, as alternate denaturants inlieu ofautomotive-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 ofgasoline, unleaded gasoline orrubber hydrocarbon solvent.

8. Section 212.80a is revised to provide specifications forunleaded gasoline, in lieu ofautomotive-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 ofA.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 notread more than 250*F.

10. The listingof 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 Listingof denaturants authorized fordenatured 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 TDATF-67 by adding a footnote "1"following Formula No. 28- A. This footnote was already contained in theheading 6fthe 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 (Enforcementand Operations).
[FRDoc. 81-2935 Filed1-26-81; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-31-M



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part52 [A-9-FRL 1724-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Five Air Pollution ControlDistricts 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 AirPollution Control Districts (APCDs) submitted by the California AirResources Board (ARB). The intended effect of these revisions is to update therules 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 AirAct and 40 CFR Part 51, with certain exceptions. Therefore, these revisions are approved, and incorporated into the California SIP, with certain exceptions. EFFECTIVEDATE: February 26, 1981. ADDRESS: A copy ofthe revision is located at: The Office ofthe 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 ofProposed Rulemaking for revisions to rules ofthe 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 ofRule 111, Equipment Breakdown,because the evaluation references a Rule 617,Emergency Variance,ofthe 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) willnot be exceeded during variance periods. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to disapprove this rule.

It is thepurpose ofthis notice to approve the rule revisions listed in the October 2 notice, except forthe rules discussed below.

EPA is taking no action on the deletiQn ofRule 703, Cotton Gin Waste Burning. ofthe Imperial County APCD," because it is notpart-ofthe approved SIP and thus its deletion does not need to be requested.

As proposed, EPA is takingfinal action to disapprove Rule 2:15, Breakdown Conditions; Emergency Variancesofthe Modoc County APCD. Rule 2:15 is disapproved since it does not give adequate assurance that the NAAQS will notbe exceeded during variance periods.

Furthermore, EPA is taking final action to disapprove Section B ofRule 111, Equipment Breakdown and Rule 517,Emergency Varianceofthe Imperial CountyoAPCD. Section B ofRule 111 is disapprovedbecause itreferences Rule 517.However, Rule 517 is disapproved because it lacks therequirement that the NAAQS be attained and maintained during a breakdown condition.

The ARB has certified that the public hearing requirements of40 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 ofExecutive Order 12044. (Secs.110 and 301(a) ofthe Clean AirActas 

### amended (42

### U.S.C. 7410 and7601(a))

Dated: January 19, 1981. 

### Douglas M. Costle, Administrator.

Note.-Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of 

### the Federal Register onJuly 1,1980.

Subpart FofPart 52 ofChapter I,Title 40, ofthe Code ofFederalRegulations 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)Newrule 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) Newrules 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.

[FRDoc. 81-2737 Friled1-26--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: Finalrulemaking.

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 (45FR 58146), USEPA proposed approval ofand 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 ofproposed 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 ofPart D ofthe 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 ofconditional approval was published in the July 2,1979 Federal Register (44FR 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 ofthe 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 forpublic review ofthese 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 ofthe requirements setforth in the conditional approval except those calling for implementor commitments and reasonable further progress (RFP) in elimination ofcarbon 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 ofthe implementor commitments and the carbon monoxide hotspot elimination schedule. As described in the September 22, 1980 Federal Register (45FR 62807), the State ofllinois will submit the implementor commitments to USEPA
upon completion ofits analysis of reasonably available transportation control measures and prior to February 28,1981. The carbon monoxide hotspot 

### inventory and schedule for the elimination ofhotspots 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 ofthe SIP continues until final action on these remaining elements ofthe transportation control plan is published in the Federal Register.

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act,judicial review ofthis final action is available onlyby the-filing ofa petition forreview in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days ofdate of publication. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the requirements which are the subject oftoday's notice
may notbe 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 ofthe 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 ofSections 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 ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State of Illinois was approved by'the Director ofthe FederalRegister onJuly 1, 1980.

Title 40 of the Code ofFederal 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 ofplan

(* * *** (c)***

(25) On April 30, 1980, the State submitted revisions to the transportation control plan fornortheast Illinois (Chicago).

2. Section 52.737(b) is revised to read

as follows:
§52.737 Transportationcontrol 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 ofthe 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 ofSO 2/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 ofthe 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 ofthe public
comment on the proposed revision to the SIP are available at: AirPrograms Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 230 SouthDearborn 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 ofHealth, 1330 W. Michigan, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Robert Miller, Regulatory Analysis Section,Air ProgramsBranch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 230 SouthDearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031.
SUPPLEMENARY INFORMATION: On September 15, 1972 Indiana submitted a statewide SO regulation, revisedAPC 13. This SO regulation was approved by EPA on May 14,1973 (38FR 12711). This regulation required, in part S0 2 emissions from sources 250 MMBTU or larger inJefferson County to be limited
to a specific number between 2.75 and 1.2 pounds ofSOi/MMBTU, depending
upon the size ofthe 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 onMarch 27, 1980 (45 FR 20432).

EPA proposed disapproval ofrevised APC 13 as it applies to Jefferson County because it relaxes the emission
limitation forlarge sources in Jefferson County from 1.2 to 6.0 pounds of S0 2/ MMBTU, even though the technical analysis submitted with therevision predicted violations ofthe secondary NAAQS at the 6.0pound emission limitation. EPAtoday is disapproving revised APC 13 as it applies toJefferson County because the 6.0 pound emissioti limitation does not ensure attainment of the secondary SO 2 NAAQS in Jefferson County. EPA analysis shows that 6.0 pounds of SO2IMBTU emission limitation will assure attainment ofthe primary standards, butthat an emission limitation df4.19pounds of S0 2/ MMBTU (7.54 g/Mcal) is necessary to

ensure attainment of the secondary standard. 

### Inresponse to the March 27,1980 Federal Register proposal, many comments were received onrevised APC13. 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 attainthe NAAQS, themerits ofrevised APC 13 as a whole willnotbe discussed in this notice. Comments on revisedAPC 13 as a whole and on its application to geographical areas-ther than Jefferson County willbe 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 forJefferson County

EPA computer dispersion modeling of Jefferson County predicts that the highest ambient concentrations ofSO 2. 

### occur under stability class Aconditions. The State questions whether stability classA conditions are appropriate in modeling a facility withtall stacks.EPA has determined thatitis appropriate to

use class A stability in modeling tall stacks. This determination is explained in EPA's response to theremand in Cincinnati GasandElectricCompanyv. EPA, 578 F.2d 660 (1978), 

### appearing at 45 FR41501 June 19, 1980). Additionally, the State committed to revising the SIP forJefferson County iftheEPA redesignated Jefferson County under section 107 of theAct from "unclassifiable" to "nonattainment." EPA is proposing for publiccomment such a redesignation elsewhere in this issue oftheFederal Register. Additionally, elsewhere intoday's Federal Register, EPA is issuing a notice under Section 110(a)(2)(H) ofthe Clear AirAct that Indiana's SO2 SIP for Jefferson County is substantially inadequate to achieve the national secondary SO2 

### standard andhas requested Indiana to revise the SIP.

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct,judicial review ofthese actions is available onlyby the filing ofa petition forreview in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit within 60 days oftoday. Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act, the requirements which are the subject of today's notice may notbe challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings broughtbyEPAto enforce these requirements.

Under Executive Order 12044 (43 

### FR 12681, EPA is required tojudge whether

a regulation is "significant" and, therefore, subject to certain procedural requirements ofthe order orwhether it may follow other specialized development procedures. EPA labels these other regulations "specialized." I have reviewed this proposed regulation pursuant to the guidance inEPA's response to Executive Order 12044, "Improving Environmental Regulations" signed March 29,1979 bythe Administrator, and I have determined that itis a specialized regulation not subject to theprocedural requirements ofExecutive Order 12044.

This notice ofFinal Rulemaking is issued under the authority ofSections 110 and 172 ofthe 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 CFRPart 52 [A-5-FRL 1739-61
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice ofSIPDeficiency.

SUMMARY: The Indiana State 

### Implementation Plan (SIP) requires

sources 250 MMBTU (63 Gcal] and largerin Jefferson County to limit their sulfur dioxide (SO2 

### ] emissions. Their emissions arelimited to a specific numberbetween 2.75pounds and 1.2 pounds of sO 2 

### /MMBTU (4.95and 2.16 g/ Mcal), depending upon the size ofthe

source. Indiana repealed in 1974 its regulation on which the SIPis based as state law and is not enforcing the SIP. Therefore, EPA finds under section 110(a)(2)[H) ofthe Clean Air Act (Act) that the SIPforJefferson 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 submitthem as arevision to the SIP to. EPA within 60 days ofthe effective date ofthisnotice. DATES: This action is effective as of February 26, 1981. Therevised SIP is due

onApril 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