30904 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

detailed survey is approximately $517

to $762 per site (depending on the type

of respondent). The estimated cost for

the follow-up activities is approximately

$50 to $67 per site. The estimated total

industry cost for the information

collection burden is $0.6 million.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the addresses listed above.

Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1988.01 in

any correspondence.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–14480 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[Docket A–2001–13; FRL 6992–9]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit

Program; Petitions for Objection to

State Operating Permit for Orange

Recycling and Ethanol Production

Facility Pencor-Masada Oxynol, LLC;

Orange County; Middletown, NY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on

petitions to object to State operating

permit.

SUMMARY: This document announces

that the EPA Administrator has partially

granted and partially denied petitions to

object to a State operating permit issued

by the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

to the Orange Recycling and Ethanol

Production Facility (Facility), proposed

by Pencor-Masada Oxynol, LLC

(Masada) for construction and operation

in Middletown, NY. Pursuant to section

505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act),

petitioners may seek judicial review of

those portions of the petitions which

EPA denied in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit

within 60 days of this decision under

section 307 of the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of

the final order, the petitions, and other

supporting information at the EPA,

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York,

New York 10007–1866. If you wish to

examine these documents, you should

make an appointment at least 24 hours

before visiting day.

The final order is also available

electronically at the following address:

http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/

artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/

masada_decision2000.pdf

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven C. Riva, Chief, Permitting

Section, Air Programs Branch, Division

of Environmental Planning and

Protection, EPA, Region 2, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, telephone (212) 637–

4074.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act

affords EPA a 45-day period to review,

and object to as appropriate, operating

permits proposed by State permitting

authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act

authorizes any person to petition the

EPA Administrator within 60 days after

the expiration of this review period to

object to State operating permits if EPA

has not done so. Petitions must be based

only on objections to the permit that

were raised with reasonable specificity

during the public comment period

provided by the State, unless the

petitioner demonstrates that it was

impracticable to raise these issues

during the comment period or the

grounds for the issues arose after this

period.

Between June and September, 2000,

the EPA received 35 petitions from 29

different petitioners, requesting that

EPA object to the issuance of the title V

operating permit to the Facility owned

and operated by Masada and located in

the city of Middletown, Orange County,

New York. Robert C. LaFleur, president

of Spectra Environmental Group, Inc.

(Spectra), submitted the most detailed

petition. Spectra’s petition raised many

of the same issues posed by other

petitioners. Other petitions were

submitted by Lois Broughton, Wanda

Brown, Louisa and George Centeno with

Leslie Mongilia, Maria Dellasandro, R.

Dimieri, Lori Dimieri, Dawn Evesfield,

Marvin Feman, Deborah Glover, Anne

Jacobs, Barbara Javalli-Lesiuk, Marie

Karr, June Lee, Ruth MacDonald,

Bernice Mapes, Donald Maurizzio, Alice

Meola, Daniel Nebus, Jeanette Nebus,

Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Ragin, M.

Schoonover, Mildred Sherlock,

LaVinnie Sprague, Matthew Sprague,

Hubert van Meurs, Alfred and Catherine

Viggiani, Paul Weimer and Leonard

Wodka.

The petitions with respect to this

facility raised a number of distinct

claims, characterized as either

administrative/public participation

issues or technical/regulatory issues.

The petitioners alleged that the

NYSDEC did not comply with the

applicable public participation

requirements in issuing the Masada

permit because NYSDEC did not: (1)

Notify the public of the extended

opportunity for comment; (2) make

available to the public requisite

information necessary to review the

permit; (3) offer the public an

opportunity to comment on significant

changes to the draft permit; (4) properly

inform the public of its right to petition

to the EPA Administrator; (5)

substantively review public comments;

(6) grant requests for a second public

hearing, and (7) translate the public

notices and key documents for the nonEnglish speaking members of the

community. The petitioners also assert

that the Masada permit did not comply

with the applicable technical/regulatory

requirements in that the permit: (1) Fails

to assure compliance with major source

preconstruction permitting

requirements under the Act; (2) does not

assure compliance with several

allegedly applicable federal emissions

standards, (3) omits required provisions

governing chemical accident prevention

requirements, namely section 112(r) of

the Act and EPA’s implementing

regulations at 40 CFR part 68, and (4)

does not comply with the Executive

Order 12898 on environmental justice.

On May 2, 2001, the Administrator

issued an order partially granting and

partially denying the petitions. The

order explains the reasons behind EPA’s

conclusion that NYSDEC must provide

an opportunity for public review of

certain operational requirements in the

final permit issued to Masada, namely

the methodology which limits the

potential annual emissions of NOX and

SO2 from the facility. The order also

requires the inclusion of certain

provisions of the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

Steam Generating Units, specifically the

applicable reporting and recordkeeping

requirements of NSPS Subpart Db. The

order provides an explanation on the

reasons for denying the petitioners’

remaining claims.

Date: May 24, 2001.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 01–14482 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P