Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 64403

testing, and procurement of equipment,

and the providing of other services, for

purposes of tax administration.’’

Existing regulations promulgated

under this section prescribe the persons

who may make such disclosures, the

situations under which such disclosures

may be made and the notification and

safeguarding procedures to be followed

when such disclosures are made.

Among the persons who may make such

disclosures are officers and employees

of the Tax Division of the Department of

Justice. The amendments would

authorize such disclosures by the

Department of Justice (not solely the

Tax Division) to third parties who

provide services for tax administration

purposes under the conditions and

restrictions of the regulations. The

amendments would provide that, for the

purpose of this section, the ‘‘Department

of Justice’’ includes offices of United

States Attorneys.

The amendments would also conform

the regulation to the language of section

6103(n), which was amended by the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990 to clarify that the disclosures

authorized by this section included

those in connection with ‘‘the providing

of other services’’ (i.e., services other

than those related to the mechanical

processing of returns and return

information).

Explanation of Provisions

As currently written, 26 CFR

301.6103(n)–1 authorizes the Tax

Division of the Department of Justice,

among other entities and individuals, to

make disclosures of returns and return

information pursuant to section 6103(n)

of the Internal Revenue Code. This

authority allows the Tax Division to

disclose tax information incident to its

contracts to private parties for, among

other purposes, automated litigation

support services.

The Department of Justice has

indicated its intention to establish an

expanded automated tracking system for

all monetary judgments in favor of the

United States, which will be operated

by a private company under contract

with the Department. Although the

majority of tax cases are handled by the

Tax Division, there are several United

States Attorneys’ offices that also have

litigation responsibility in the civil tax

area. In addition, the Tax Division refers

some judgments in tax cases to the

United States Attorneys for collection.

Existing regulations arguably would not

permit these offices, which are

technically not part of the Tax Division,

to disclose tax information incident to

their inclusion of tax judgments in the

automated tracking system.

The proposed amendment would

authorize the Department of Justice,

including offices of United States

Attorneys, to make disclosures to

procure property and services for tax

administration purposes. Any such

disclosures will be made under the

same conditions and restrictions already

set forth in the existing regulations. By

definition, any office within the

Department of Justice without tax

administration duties will not have

occasion or authority pursuant to these

regulations to make such disclosures.

The proposed amendment would also

authorize disclosures in connection

with ‘‘the providing of other services,’’

i.e., services not related to the strict

mechanical processing or manipulation

of tax returns or return information.

This would conform the regulations to

the language of the statute, as amended

by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508, 104 Stat.

1388–353).

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory

assessment is not required. It has also

been determined that section 553(b) of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do

not apply to these regulations, and,

therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis is not required. Pursuant to

section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue

Code, this notice of proposed

rulemaking will be submitted to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration for comment

on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public

Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

written comments that are submitted

timely (preferably a signed original and

eight copies) to the IRS. All comments

will be available for public inspection

and copying. A public hearing may be

scheduled if requested in writing by any

person that timely submits written

comments. If a public hearing is

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and

place for the hearing will be published

in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these

proposed regulations is Donald Squires,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel

(Disclosure Litigation), IRS. However,

other personnel from the IRS,

Department of Justice and Treasury

Department participated in their

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes,

Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND

ADMINISTRATION

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 301 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Para. 2. Section 301.6103(n)–1 is

amended as follows:

1. The first sentence of paragraph (a)

introductory text is amended by

removing the language ‘‘Tax Division,’’.

2. Paragraph (a)(2) is amended by

removing the language ‘‘or to’’.

3. Paragraph (a)(2) is further amended

by adding the language ‘‘or the

providing of other services,’’

immediately following the text ‘‘other

property,’’.

4. The concluding text following

paragraph (a)(2) is amended by

removing the language ‘‘Tax Division,’’.

5. The second sentence of paragraph

(d) introductory text is amended by

removing the language ‘‘Tax Division,’’.

6. Paragraph (d)(2) is amended by

removing the language ‘‘Tax Division,’’.

7. Paragraph (e)(1) is amended by

removing the language ‘‘, and’’ at the

end of the paragraph and adding a

semicolon in its place.

8. Paragraph (e)(2) is amended by

removing the period at the end of the

paragraph and adding ‘‘; and’’ in its

place.

9. Paragraph (e)(3) is added.

10. The authority citation

immediately following § 301.6103(n) is

removed.

The addition reads as follows:

§ 301.6103(n)–1 Disclosure of returns and

return information in connection with

procurement of property and services for

tax administration purposes.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) The term Department of Justice

includes offices of the United States

Attorneys.

Margaret Milner Richardson,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 95–30505 Filed 12–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U
64404 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5346–6]

Clean Air Act (CAA) Proposed Interim

Approval of Operating Permits

Program and Delegation of 112(l)

Authority; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the operating permits

program submitted by the state of

Missouri for the purpose of complying

with Federal requirements for states

which develop, and submit to EPA,

programs for issuing operating permits

to all major stationary sources and to

certain other sources. This notice

explains EPA—s rationale for the

proposed action, and identifies

revisions to the program which must be

made before EPA can take final action

to fully approve it.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Joshua A. Tapp, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Copies of the Missouri submittal and

other supporting information used in

developing the proposed interim

approval are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua Tapp at (913) 551–7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under Title V of the Clean

Air Act (the Act) as amended (1990),

EPA has promulgated rules which

define the minimum elements of an

approvable state operating permits

program, and the corresponding

standards and procedures by which EPA

will approve, oversee, and withdraw

approval of state operating permits

programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July 21,

1992). These rules are codified at 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

70. Title V requires states to develop,

and submit to EPA, programs for issuing

these operating permits to all major

stationary sources and to certain other

sources.

The Act requires that states develop

and submit these programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within one year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to two years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by two years

after the November 15, 1993, date, or by

the end of an interim period, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

If EPA were to finalize this proposed

interim approval, it would extend for 18

months following the effective date of

final interim approval and could not be

renewed. During the interim approval

period, the state of Missouri would be

protected from sanctions for failure to

have an approved program, and EPA

would not be obligated to promulgate,

administer, and enforce a Federal

permits program for Missouri. Permits

issued under a program with interim

approval have full standing with respect

to part 70, and the one-year time period

for submittal of permit applications by

subject sources begins upon the

effective date of interim approval, as

does the three-year time period for

processing the initial permit

applications.

Following the final interim approval,

if Missouri has failed to submit a

complete corrective program for full

approval by the date six months before

expiration of the interim approval, an

18-month clock for mandatory sanctions

would commence. If Missouri then

failed to submit a corrective program

that EPA found complete before the

expiration of that 18-month period, EPA

would apply sanctions as required by

section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which

would remain in effect until EPA

determined that the state of Missouri

had corrected the deficiency by

submitting a complete corrective

program.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove Missouri’s

complete corrective program, EPA

would be required under section

502(d)(2) to apply sanctions on the date

18 months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date

Missouri had submitted a revised

program and EPA had determined that

it corrected the deficiencies that

prompted the disapproval.

If EPA has not granted full approval

to Missouri’s program by the expiration

of an interim approval, EPA must

promulgate, administer, and enforce a

Federal permits program for Missouri

upon interim approval expiration.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of Submission by State

Authority

The analysis contained in this notice

focuses on specific elements of the

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR) Title V operating

permits program that must be corrected

to meet the minimum requirements of

part 70. The full program submittal; the

Technical Support Document (TSD),

which contains a detailed analysis of

the submittal; and other relevant

materials are available for inspection as

part of the public docket. The docket

may be viewed during regular business

hours at the address listed above.

1. Support Materials

The Governor of Missouri submitted

an administratively and technically

complete Title V Operating Permit

Program on January 13, 1995. The EPA

deemed the program submittal complete

on March 2, 1995. At EPA’s request, the

State provided supplemental program

information on August 14, 1995;

September 19, 1995; and October 16,

1995.

The program submittal includes a

legal opinion from the Attorney General

of Missouri stating that the laws of the

State provide adequate legal authority to

carry out all aspects of the program, and

a description of how the state intends to

implement the program. The submittal

additionally contains evidence of proper

adoption of the program regulations,

permit application forms, a data

management system, and a permit fee

demonstration.

2. Program Description

The Governor’s letter states that the

entire geography of Missouri will be

covered by this program. There are no

Indian tribal lands in Missouri. The

letter also states that MDNR will be the

official permitting authority responsible

for implementation of the program.

Finally, the state requested approval

and delegation of authority to

implement section 112(l) of the Act.

In addition to the state’s part 70

permit rules, the state has established a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) based

permit system for creating Federally

enforceable limitations, called the

intermediate program. This permit

mechanism will allow qualifying

sources to avoid having to obtain a part
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 64405

70 operating permit. The EPA published

a direct final approval of this program

in the Federal Register on September

25, 1995 (60 FR 49340). Finally,

Missouri will issue a third class of

permit to all other air emission sources

that meet or exceed the de minimis

levels, yet fall below the major source

threshold. This third class of source will

require a basic permit. The basic

operating permit program is not a

Federal program and has not been

submitted to EPA for approval.

The state has been collecting emission

fees for two years, which have been

used for ‘‘ramp-up’’ activities, including

the hiring of additional staff. The state

emissions fee is currently set at $25.70

per ton, which may be adjusted by the

Missouri Air Conservation Commission

through an administrative revision of

rule 10 CSR 10–6.110. The state

provided a resource demonstration,

discussed later, to justify deviating from

the presumptive minimum of $25 per

ton, Consumer Price Index (CPI)

adjusted. The state is also authorized

under its statute to collect fees for nonTitle V program activities.

The program submittal also contains

information on the organizational

structure and function of the

components of the air program,

including the regional and local offices

which are available to assist in

implementation of the program.

3. Regulations and Program

Implementation

The Missouri program, including the

core operating permit regulations, 10–

CSR 6.065 (Division 10, Chapter 6,

MDNR) substantially meets the

minimum requirements for interim

approval as they are denoted in 40 CFR

part 70.4(d)(3). These requirements

pertain to: (1) Adequate fees, (2)

applicable requirements, (3) fixed terms,

(4) public participation, (5) EPA and

affected state review, (6) permit

issuance, (7) enforcement, (8)

operational flexibility, (9) streamlined

procedures, (10) permit application, and

(11) alternative scenarios.

However, Missouri must make the

following program revisions for full

approval: (1) Revise its definitions rule,

10 CSR 10–6.020 to: (a) revise (2)(I)7 to

update a reference to the Standard

Industrial Classification Manual, and (b)

revise (3)(B), Table 2—List of Named

Installations, to make it consistent with

the list in the definition of major source

in 70.2; (2) revise rule 10 CSR 10–6.065,

Operating Permits by: (a) revising

(1)(D)2 to clarify the meaning of

‘‘fugitive air pollutant’’ as it relates to

part 70 installations; (b) revise (3)(D) to

clarify part 70 applicability with respect

to emissions from exempt installations

and emission units; (c) revise

(6)(C)1.C.(II)(b) to clarify the retention of

record requirements in permits,

consistent with 70.6(a)(3); (d) revise

(6)(C)1.G.(I) to clarify the general

requirements for permit compliance and

noncompliance, consistent with

70.6(a)(6); (e) revise (6)(C)4.A. to correct

a citation error and to clarify that the

requirement for EPA and affected state

review applies to general permits,

consistent with 70.6(d)(1); (f) revise

(6)(C)7.B.(IV) to make the emergency

provision notice consistent with

70.6(g)(3); (g) revise (6)(C)8, operational

flexibility provisions, to clarify the term

‘‘emissions allowable under the

permit’’; (h) revise (6)(E)5.B.(I), minor

permit modification criteria, to be

consistent with 70.7(e)(2)(I)(A)(3); (i)

revise (6)(E)5.B.(I) to add a paragraph (b)

to incorporate the economic incentive

provisions consistent with

70.7(e)(2)(I)(B); (j) revise (6)(E)5.C.(I)(b)

to correct the threshold for group

processing of minor permit

modifications to be consistent with

70.7(e)(2)(I)(B); and (k) revise

(6)(E)5.D.(II)(a), significant permit

modification procedures, to be

consistent with 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c),

and make minor citation corrections to

rules (6)(B)3.I.(IV), (6)(E)5.B.(II)(a),

(6)(E)5.C.(V), and (6)(E)6.C. A detailed

discussion of the necessary rule

revisions is included in the TSD, and in

the docket for this rulemaking. In

addition, the rule changes proposed by

Missouri to meet the requirements noted

above are included in the docket.

Missouri has the authority to issue a

variance from state requirements under

section 643.110 of the state statutes.

This provision was not included by the

state in its operating permit program

submittal, and EPA regards this

provision as wholly external to the

program submitted for approval under

part 70, and consequently is proposing

to take no action on this provision of

state law. The EPA has no authority to

approve provisions of state law, such as

the variance provision referred to,

which are inconsistent with the Act.

The EPA does not recognize the ability

of a permitting authority to grant relief

from the duty to obtain or comply with

a Federally enforceable part 70 permit,

except where such relief is granted

through the procedures allowed by part

70. A part 70 permit may be issued or

revised (consistent with part 70

permitting procedures) to incorporate

those terms of a variance that are

consistent with applicable

requirements. A part 70 permit may also

incorporate, via part 70 permit issuance

or modification procedures, the

schedule of compliance set forth in a

variance. However, EPA reserves the

right to pursue enforcement of

applicable requirements,

notwithstanding the existence of a

compliance schedule in a permit to

operate. This is consistent with

70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a

schedule of compliance ‘‘shall be

supplemental to, and shall not sanction

noncompliance with, the applicable

requirements on which it is based.’’

4. Fee Demonstration

The state provided a detailed fee

demonstration because the emissions

fee, $25.70 per ton (not adjusted), is

below the presumptive minimum of $25

plus CPI. The fee demonstration

included a detailed analysis of projected

hourly program requirements and costs

for each of the next four years. An

emission inventory of Title V sources

for two preceding years (1993 and 1994)

and emissions fees collected was also

provided. Missouri describes a cash

receipts system that identifies Title V

fee receipts, a time accounting system

that tracks Title V program labor costs,

and an accounts payable system that

tracks Title V program expenses.

5. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority and/or commitments for

section 112 implementation. Missouri

has demonstrated in its program

submittal adequate legal authority to

implement and enforce all section 112

requirements through the Title V

permit. This legal authority is contained

in Missouri’s enabling legislation and in

regulatory provisions defining

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ and states

that the permit must incorporate all

applicable requirements. EPA has

determined that this legal authority is

sufficient to allow Missouri to issue

permits that ensure compliance with all

section 112 requirements. The EPA is

interpreting the above legal authority to

mean that Missouri is able to carry out

all section 112 activities. For further

rationale on this interpretation, please

refer to the TSD accompanying this

rulemaking and the April 13, 1993,

guidance memorandum titled ‘‘Title V

Program Approval Criteria for Section

112 Activities,’’ signed by John Seitz.

b. Section 112(g) Case-by-Case

Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT) For Modified/

Constructed and Reconstructed Major

Toxic Sources.

The EPA issued an interpretive notice

on February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333),

which outlines EPA’s revised

interpretation of 112(g) applicability.
64406 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The notice postpones the effective date

of 112(g) until after EPA has

promulgated a rule addressing that

provision. The notice sets forth in detail

the rationale for the revised

interpretation.

The section 112(g) interpretive notice

explains that EPA is still considering

whether the effective date of section

112(g) should be delayed beyond the

date of promulgation of the Federal rule

so as to allow states time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule, and that

EPA will provide for any such

additional delay in the final section

112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until

EPA provides for such an additional

postponement of section 112(g),

Missouri must have a Federally

enforceable mechanism for

implementing section 112(g) during the

period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption

of implementing Federal regulations.

The EPA is aware that Missouri lacks

a program designed specifically to

implement section 112(g). However,

Missouri does have a program for

review of new and modified hazardous

air pollutant sources that can serve as an

adequate implementation vehicle during

the transition period, because it would

allow Missouri to select control

measures that would meet MACT, as

defined in section 112, and incorporate

these measures into a Federally

enforceable preconstruction permit.

The EPA is proposing to approve

Missouri’s preconstruction permitting

program under the authority of Title V

and part 70, solely for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) to the

extent necessary during the transition

period between 112(g) promulgation

and adoption of a state rule

implementing EPA’s section 112(g)

regulations. Although section 112(l)

generally provides authority for

approval of state air programs to

implement section 112(g), Title V and

section 112(g) provide for this limited

approval because of the direct linkage

between the implementation of section

112(g) and Title V. The scope of this

approval is narrowly limited to section

112(g) and does not confer or imply

approval for purposes of any other

provision under the Act (e.g., section

110). This approval will be without

effect if EPA decides in the final section

112(g) rule that sources are not subject

to the requirements of the rule until

state regulations are adopted. The

duration of this approval is limited to 18

months following promulgation by EPA

of the 112(g) rule to provide adequate

time for the state to adopt regulations

consistent with the Federal

requirements.

c. Section 112(l)—State Air Toxics

Programs.

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) approval requirements for

delegation of section 112 standards as

promulgated by EPA as they apply to

part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5)

requires that the state’s program contain

adequate authorities, adequate resources

for implementation, and an expeditious

compliance schedule, which are also

requirements under part 70. Missouri

has demonstrated that it meets these

requirements. Therefore, EPA is

proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91

to Missouri for its program mechanism

for receiving delegation of all existing

and future section 112(d) standards for

both part 70 and non-part 70 sources,

and section 112 infrastructure programs,

that are unchanged from Federal rules

as promulgated. Missouri has informed

EPA that it intends to accept delegation

of section 112 standards through

adoption by reference. In addition, EPA

is also proposing delegation of all

existing standards and programs under

40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for part 70 and

non-part 70 sources.

d. Title IV/Acid Rain. The legal

requirements for approval under the

Title V operating permits program for a

Title IV program were cited in EPA

guidance distributed on May 21, 1993,

titled ‘‘Title V-Title IV Interface

Guidance for States.’’ Missouri has met

the criteria of this guidance and has

adopted by reference acid rain rules at

40 CFR 72.

B. Options for Approval/Disapproval

and Implications

1. The EPA is proposing to grant

interim approval for two years to the

operating permits program submitted by

the state of Missouri. In order to receive

full approval, the state must adopt and

submit to the EPA the rule changes

identified above within 18 months of

receiving final interim approval.

Specifically, the state must amend rules

10 CSR 10–6.020, Definitions, and 10

CSR 10–6.065, Operating permits, for

consistency with part 70.

2. Program for Straight Delegation of

Section 112 Standards.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing

to grant approval under section 112(l)(5)

and 40 CFR part 63.91 to Missouri for

its program mechanism for receiving

delegation of all existing and future

section 112(d) standards for both part 70

and non-part 70 sources, and

infrastructure programs under section

112 that are unchanged from Federal

rules as promulgated. In addition, EPA

proposes to delegate existing standards

under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for both

part 70 and non-part 70 sources.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the state’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed approval are contained in

a docket maintained at EPA Regional

Office. The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

1. To allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents for

participating in the rulemaking process,

and

2. To serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by Janaury 16,

1996.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

operating permit program the state has

elected to adopt the program provided

for under Title V of the CAA. These

rules may bind the state government to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. To the extent that the rules being

proposed for approval by this action

will impose new requirements, sources

are already subject to these regulations

under state law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. The EPA has
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 64407

also determined that this proposed

action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, and

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 6, 1995.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30554 Filed 12–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS–400097B; FRL–4991–4]

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting;

Community Right-to-Know; Reopening

of Public Comment Period; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reopening of public comment

period; correction.

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of

October 27, 1995, EPA published an

administrative stay of the reporting

requirements under section 313 of the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and

section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention

Act of 1990 (PPA), for 2,2-dibromo-3-

nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA)

(Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) No.

10222–01–2). The administrative stay

also requested comment on EPA’s

review of a petition to delete DBNPA

from the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals. The period for accepting

comments on EPA’s review of the

petition ended on November 27, 1995.

EPA has received a request to extend the

comment period and is granting that

request by reopening the comment

period for 45 days. In addition, this

document corrects an error in the

October 27, 1995 notice. The green algal

toxicity value was incorrectly listed.

DATES: All comments must be received

on or before January 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted in triplicate to : OPPT

Docket Clerk (7407), TSCA

Nonconfidential Information Center

(NCIC), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. NE–B607, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

ncic@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

OPPTS–400097. No CBI should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on the information presented

in this document may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria J. Doa, Project Manager, 202–260–

9592, e-mail:

doa.maria@epamail.epa.gov for specific

information on this action. For general

information on EPCRA section 313,

contact the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Hotline,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

Code 5101, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, Toll free: 1–800–535–0202,

in Virginia and Alaska: 703–412–9877

or Toll free TDD: 1–800–553–7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of October 27, 1995 (60

FR 54949), EPA published an

administrative stay of the reporting

requirements under section 313 of

EPCRA and section 6607 of the

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA)

for DBNPA. EPA issued the

administrative stay because EPA had

incorrectly categorized the effects

observed in certain data relating to

DBNPA prior to promulgation of the

final rule adding DBNPA to the EPCRA

section 313 list of toxic chemicals.

The document also requested

comment on EPA’s review of a petition

to delete DBNPA from the EPCRA

section 313 list of toxic chemicals. EPA

preliminarily determined that DBNPA

can reasonably be anticipated to cause

subchronic gastrointestinal effects, and

can reasonably be anticipated to cause

toxicity to freshwater green algae,

chronic effects on freshwater

invertebrates and chronic effects on

oysters at relatively low concentrations.

The period for accepting comments on

EPA’s review of the petition ended

November 27, 1995. EPA has received a

request to extend the comment period

and is granting that request by

reopening the comment period for 45

days. In addition, this notice corrects an

error in the October 27, 1995 document.

The green algal toxicity value was

incorrectly listed.

I. Reopening of Public Comment Period

In the Federal Register of October 27,

1995, EPA requested public comment

on the information presented in the

document regarding the continued

listing of DBNPA on the EPCRA section

313 list of toxic chemicals. In that

notice, EPA stated that all comments

must be received on or before November

27, 1995. In response to a request from

Dow Chemical Company to extend the

comment period, EPA is reopening the

comment period for an additional 45

days. All comments must be received on

or before January 26, 1996.

II. Green Algal Toxicity Value

Correction

In the October 27, 1995 Federal

Register, on page 54951, first column,

second full paragraph, 24th line, the

green algal 96-hour EC50 (median

effective concentration) for DBNPA was

incorrectly listed as ‘‘0.010 mg/L ’’; the

value should have read 0.08 mg/L.

III. Public Docket

A record has been established for the

administrative stay under docket

number ‘‘OPPTS–400097’’ (including

comments and data submitted

electronically as described below). A

public version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments, which does not include any

information claimed as confidential

business information (CBI), is available

for inspection from noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

the TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center, Rm. NE–B607, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

ncic@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for the

administrative stay, as well as the

public version, as described above will

be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA

will transfer all comments received

electronically into printed, paper form

as they are received and will place the

paper copies in the official record which

will also include all comments

submitted directly in writing. The

official record is the paper record

maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Community right-to-know, Reporting