59284 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

analysis of the specific factual

information intended to be presented in

support of the objection in the event

that a hearing is held. Failure to include

such a description and analysis for any

particular objection shall constitute a

waiver of the right to a hearing on the

objection. Three copies of all documents

shall be submitted and shall be

identified with the docket number

found in brackets in the heading of this

document. Any objections received in

response to the regulation may be seen

in the Dockets Management Branch

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

VI. References

The following references have been

placed on display in the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

and may be seen by interested persons

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

1. Barbesgaard, P., H. P. Heldt-Hansen, and

B. Diderichsen, ‘‘On the Safety of Aspergillus

oryzae: A Review,’’ Applied Microbiology

and Biotechnology, 36:569–572, 1992.

2. ‘‘Biotechnologies and Food: Assuring the

Safety of Foods Produced by Genetic

Modification,’’ Regulatory Toxicology and

Pharmacology, 12 (3):S114–S128, 1990.

3. Memorandum from J. Madden, FDA, to

D. Keefe, FDA, April 11, 1994.

4. Gray, W. D., The Use of Fungi as Food

and in Food Processing, pp. 42–100, CRC

Press, Cleveland, OH, 1970.

5. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on

Food Additives. ‘‘Toxicological Evaluation of

Certain Food Additives,’’ 31st Meeting,

Geneva, February 16–25, 1987.

6. Memorandum from H. C. A. Chang,

FDA, to D. Keefe, FDA, March 14, 1994.

7. Shipper, M. A. A., ‘‘On the Genera

Rhizomucor and Parasitella,’’ Studies in

Mycology, 17:53–65, 1978.

8. Cristensen, T. et al., ‘‘High Level

Expression of Recombinant Genes in

Aspergillus oryzae,’’ Bio/Technology,

6:1419–1422, 1988.

9. Herrman, J. L. et al., ‘‘Bacterial

Glycoproteins: A Link Between Glycosylation

and Proteolytic Cleavage of a 19 kDa Antigen

from Mycobacterium tuberculosis,’’ EMBO

Journal, 15:3547–3554, 1996.

10. Grinna, L. S., and J. F. Tschopp, ‘‘Size

Distribution and General Structural Features

of N-linked Oligosaccharides from the

Methylotrophic Yeast, Pichia pastoris,’’

Yeast, 5 (2):107–115, 1989.

11. Memorandum from S. E. Carberry,

FDA, to D. Keefe, FDA, January 5, 1995.

12. Memorandum from H. C. A. Chang,

FDA, to D. Keefe, FDA, February 6, 1995.

13. Memorandum from T. A. Cebula, FDA,

to D. Keefe, FDA, April 4, 1995.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 173

Food additives.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Director, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 173 is

amended as follows:

PART 173—SECONDARY DIRECT

FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN

FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 173 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.

2. Section 173.150 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 173.150 Milk-clotting enzymes, microbial.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(5) Aspergillus oryzae modified by

recombinant deoxyribonucleic (DNA)

techniques to contain the gene coding

for aspartic proteinase from Rhizomucor

miehei var. Cooney et Emerson as

defined in paragraph (a)(4) of this

section, and classified as follows: Class,

Blastodeuteromycetes (Hyphomycetes);

order, Phialidales (Moniliales); genus,

Aspergillus; species oryzae.

Dated: October 20, 1997.

L. Robert Lake,

Director, Office of Policy, Planning and

Strategic Initiatives, Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 97–29048 Filed 10–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 083–0053a; FRL–5911–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern rules from the San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District (SDCAPCD) and the Ventura

County Air Pollution Control District

(VCAPCD). This approval action will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of

approving these rules is to regulate

emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

The revised rules control VOC

emissions from metal container, metal

closure, and metal coil coating

operations and marine vessel coating

operations. Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of these revisions into the

California SIP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: This action is effective on

January 2, 1998 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

December 3, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Andrew Steckel at the

Region IX office listed below. Copies of

the rule revisions and EPA’s evaluation

report for each rule are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rule revisions

are available for inspection at the

following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 92123–1095

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123–1096

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 702 County Square Drive,

Ventura, California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office,

AIR–4, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1226

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the

California SIP include SDCAPCD’s Rule

67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure,

and Metal Coil Coating Operations, and

VCAPCD’s Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel

Coating Operations. These rules were

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on

October 18, 1996 and May 24, 1994,

respectively.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 59285

1Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

2Both San Diego and Ventura counties retained

their designation of nonattainment and were

classified by operation of law pursuant to sections

107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the

CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 Act or

pre-amended Act), that included San

Diego and Ventura counties, see 43 FR

8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988,

EPA notified the Governor of California,

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

1977 Act, that the San Diego and

Ventura county portions of the

California SIP were inadequate to attain

and maintain the ozone standard and

requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their deficient reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for

ozone and established a deadline of May

15, 1991 for states to submit corrections

of those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as marginal or above as of the

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt and correct RACT rules

pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b)

as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.1 EPA’s SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary

corrections for specific nonattainment

areas. San Diego County is classified as

‘‘serious’’ and Ventura County as

‘‘severe’’.2 As a result, these areas were

subject to the RACT fix-up requirement

and the May 15, 1991 deadline.

The State of California submitted

many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on October 18,

1996 and May 24, 1994, including the

rules being acted on in this document.

This document addresses EPA’s directfinal action on SDCAPCD’s Rule 67.4,

Metal Container, Metal Closure, and

Metal Coil Coating Operations, and

VCAPCD’s Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel

Coating Operations. SDCAPCD adopted

revisions to Rule 67.4 on July 25, 1995

and May 15, 1996. This submitted rule

was found to be complete on December

19, 1996 pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.3

VCAPCD adopted Rule 74.24 on March

8, 1994. EPA found this submitted rule

complete on July 14, 1994.

EPA’s review of SDCAPCD Rule 67.4

addresses two adopted revisions of the

rule, one from July 25, 1995 and May

15, 1996. These two adopted versions of

SDCAPCD 67.4 were submitted by

CARB to EPA on October 18, 1996.

Because the July 25, 1995 revisions to

Rule 67.4 are reflected in the later May

15, 1996 revision and adoption, this

rulemaking concerns substantively the

latest adopted submittal of Rule 67.4,

the May 15, 1996 rule revision.

SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 and VCAPCD

Rule 74.24 are prohibitory rules

governing the use and application of

coating compounds containing

photochemically reactive volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) in their

respective industries, metal container,

closure, and coil manufacturing and

marine vessel building, painting, and

repair. VOCs contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. These rules were originally

adopted as part of both the SDCAPCD

and VCAPCD’s respective efforts to

achieve the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone

and in response to EPA’s SIP-Call and

the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. EPA’s evaluation and final

action for these rules follow below.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

1. Among those provisions is the

requirement that a VOC rule must, at a

minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

‘‘fix-up’’ their RACT rules. See section

182(a)(2)(A). The CTGs applicable to

these rules are as follows: ‘‘Control of

Volatile Organic Emissions from

Existing Stationary Sources Volume II:

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper,

Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light Duty

Trucks,’’ USEPA, May 1977, EPA–450/

2–77–008; and, ‘‘Control Technique

Guidelines (CTG) for Shipbuilding and

Ship Repair Operations (Surface

Coating), USEPA, 61 FR 44050–44057,

August 27, 1996. Further interpretations

of EPA policy are found in the Blue

Book, referred to in footnote one. In

general, these guidance documents have

been set forth to ensure that VOC rules

are fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

On May 2, 1995, EPA approved into

the SIP a version of SDCAPCD’s Rule

67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure,

and Metal Coil Coating Operations, that

had been adopted by SDCAPCD on

September 27, 1994. The revised version

of SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 under

consideration today includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP rule:

—Lowered VOC limits for end sealing

compound for food and beverage

containers, from 440 grams/liter (gr/l)

to 20 gr/l;

—Added VOC limits for exterior and

interior spray coating of new (as

opposed to reconditioned) drums,

pails, and lids at 340 and 420 gr/l;

—Added requirements for equipment

cleaning operations;

—Exempted the use of cleaning material

in quantities of less than 10 gallons

per month from the prohibition of

VOC containing materials;

—Updated several definitions;

—Updated and added test methods;

and,

—Revised the exempt compound

definition to reference Rule 2, a rule

defining exempt compounds for all

rules regulating VOC emissions.

EPA has reviewed and approved Rule

2 and similar changes to other VOC

related rules for incorporation into the

California SIP (see 62 FR 14659, March

27, 1997.)

EPA has evaluated SDCAPCD Rule

67.4 and has determined that it is

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,
59286 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SDCAPCD’s Rule 67.4, Metal Container,

Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

Operations, is approved under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and part

D.

There is no version of VCAPCD’s Rule

74.24, Marine Vessel Coating

Operations, in the SIP. The submitted

rule includes the following provisions:

applicability, general and specialty

coating emission limits, add-on

emission control equipment

requirements; allowable exemptions

from the rule, recordkeeping

requirements, appropriate test methods,

violations under the rule, and a list of

definitions operable within the rule.

EPA has evaluated VCAPCD Rule

74.24 as submitted and has determined

that it is consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

VCPCD’s Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel

Coating Operations, is approved under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting

the requirements of section 110(a) and

part D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this document

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective January 2, 1998,

unless, by December 3, 1997, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective January 2, 1998.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by January 2, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

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, 1982.

Dated: September 26, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 59287

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(197)(i)(D) and

(c)(241)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(197) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 74.24, adopted on March 8,

1994.

* * * * *

(241) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Rule 67.4, revised on May 15,

1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–29050 Filed 10–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 260

[FRL–5916–3]

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for Molex, Inc., 700 Kingbird Road

Facility, Lincoln, NE

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

implement a project under the Project

XL program for the Molex, Inc. (Molex)

facility located at 700 Kingbird Road,

Lincoln, NE. The terms of the project are

defined in a draft Final Project

Agreement (FPA) which is being made

available for public review and

comment by this document. Also, EPA

is making available for informational

purposes a draft variance by the

Nebraska Department of Environmental

Quality necessary for implementation of

the project. In addition, EPA is today

promulgating a direct final site-specific

rule, applicable only to the Molex

facility, to facilitate implementation of

the project. Also in today’s Federal

Register, EPA is publishing a proposed

rule identical to this direct final rule. By

this document, EPA solicits comment

on the direct final rule, the draft

variance, the draft FPA, and the project

generally. Public notice is also being

provided locally.

This direct final site-specific rule is

intended to provide regulatory changes

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) to implement

Molex’s XL project, which will result in

superior environmental performance

and, at the same time, provide Molex

with greater operational flexibility. The

flexibility provided by Project XL will

allow the facility to segregate waste

streams which had previously been comingled into a single waste stream. By

changing the process lines to generate

separate waste streams (nickel, copper,

tin/lead), the facility can optimize the

precipitation of each metal more

effectively before the effluent is sent to

the POTW. The environmental benefit

from the project will be a substantial

reduction in the mass loading of metals

entering the City of Lincoln’s POTW. In

addition, the resultant mono-metal

sludges will be commodity-like

materials suitable for recycling by

smelters. A secondary environmental

benefit will be increased recycling and

reducing the amount of material that

would otherwise be landfilled. The sitespecific rule, applicable only to the

Molex facility, would change certain

RCRA requirements so the

implementing agency, the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality,

may issue a temporary variance from

classifying as solid waste nickel, copper,

and tin/lead non-precious metals

containing sludges generated by Molex.

DATES: This action will be effective

January 2, 1998, unless adverse

comments are received by December 3,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

Public Hearing. A public hearing will

be held, if requested, to provide

interested persons an opportunity for

oral presentation of data, views, or

arguments concerning this direct final

rule to implement Molex’s XL project. If

anyone contacts the EPA requesting to

speak at a public hearing by November

24, 1997, a public hearing will be held

at 7:00 p.m. on December 15, 1997. EPA

will determine no later than November

28, 1997 whether a public hearing will

be held. Additional information is

provided in the section entitled

ADDRESSES.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact Mr. David Doyle at the EPA by

November 24, 1997. Additional

information is provided in the section

entitled ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted in

duplicate to: Mr. David Doyle, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, Air, RCRA & Toxics

Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551–7667.

Docket. A docket containing

supporting information used in

developing this direct final rulemaking

is available for public inspection and

copying at U.S. EPA, Region VII, Air,

RCRA & Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, during normal business hours,

and at EPA’s Water docket (Docket

name ‘‘XL–Molex’’); 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. For access to the

Water docket materials, call (202) 260–

3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

(Eastern time) for an appointment. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying. A docket is also available for

public inspection at the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality,

Lincoln, NE.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at 7:00 p.m. on

December 15, 1997 at the following

location: Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality, Lincoln, NE.

Persons interested in whether a hearing

will be held should contact Mr. David

Doyle, (913) 551–7667, after November

28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David Doyle, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, Air,

RCRA & Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)

551–7667.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of This Document

I. Authority

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL

B. Overview of the Molex XL Project

1. Introduction

2. Molex XL Project Description

3. Environmental Benefits

4. Stakeholder Involvement

III. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Requirements

IV. Additional Information

A. Public Hearing

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Regulatory Flexibility

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Authority

This regulation is being promulgated

under the authority of sections 1004,

2002, 3001–3007, and 3010 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended

by the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

6903, 6912, 6921–6927, and 6930).

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL

This site-specific rule is designed to

implement a project developed under

Project XL, an important EPA initiative

to allow regulated entities to achieve

better environmental results at less cost.