Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24457

request, that party shall file with the

Commission a request for a hearing

within the time allowed in the notice of

proceeding. The request for a hearing

shall state with specificity the fact or

facts set forth in the Postal Service’s

filing that the party disputes, and when

possible, what the party believes to be

the true fact or facts and the evidence

it intends to provide in support of its

position. The Commission will hold

hearings on a Postal Service request

made pursuant to this subpart when it

determines that there is a genuine issue

of material fact to be resolved, and that

a hearing is needed to resolve that issue.

§ 3001.174 Rule for decision.

The Commission will issue a decision

on the Postal Service’s proposed

provisional service in accordance with

the policies of the Postal Reorganization

Act, but will not recommend

modification of any feature of the

proposed service which the Postal

Service has identified in accordance

with § 3001.172(a)(3). The purpose of

this subpart is to allow for consideration

of proposed provisional services within

90 days, consistent with the procedural

due process rights of interested persons.

§ 3001.175 Data collection and reporting

requirements.

In any case in which the Commission

has issued a recommended decision in

favor of a provisional service of limited

duration requested by the Postal

Service, and the Board of Governors has

put the provisional service

recommended by the Commission into

effect, the Postal Service shall collect

and report data pertaining to the

provisional service during the period in

which it is in effect in accordance with

the periodic reporting requirements

specified in § 3001.102. If the Postal

Service’s regular data reporting systems

are not revised to include the

provisional service during the period of

its effectiveness, the Postal Service shall

perform, and provide to the Commission

on a schedule corresponding to

§ 3001.102 reports, special studies to

provide equivalent information to the

extent reasonably practicable.

§ 3001.176 Continuation or termination of

provisional service.

At any time during the period in

which a provisional service

recommended by the Commission and

implemented by the Board of Governors

is in effect, the Postal Service may

submit a formal request that the

provisional service be terminated, or

that it be established, either as originally

recommended by the Commission or in

modified form, as a permanent mail

classification. Following the conclusion

of the period in which the provisional

service was effective, the Postal Service

may submit a request to establish the

service as a mail classification under

any applicable subpart of the

Commission’s rules.

5. Sections 3001.181 and 3001.182 are

added as Subpart K, to read as follows:

Subpart K—Rules for Use of Multi-Year Test

Periods

Sec.

3001.181 Use of multi-year test period for

proposed new services.

3001.182 Filing of formal request and

prepared direct evidence.

Subpart K—Rules for Use of Multi-Year

Test Periods

§ 3001.181 Use of multi-year test period for

proposed new services.

(a) The rules in §§ 3001.181 and

3001.182 apply to Postal Service

requests pursuant to section 3623 for the

establishment of a new postal service,

with attendant rates, which in the

estimation of the Postal Service cannot

generate sufficient volumes and

revenues to recover all costs associated

with the new service in the first full

fiscal year of its operation. In

administering these rules, it shall be the

Commission’s policy to adopt test

periods of up to 5 fiscal years for the

purpose of determining breakeven for

newly introduced postal services where

the Postal Service has presented

substantial evidence in support of the

test period proposed.

(b) This section and § 3001.182 are

effective May 15, 1996 through May 15,

2001.

§ 3001.182 Filing of formal request and

prepared direct evidence.

In filing a request for establishment of

a new postal service pursuant to section

3623, the Postal Service may request

that its proposal be considered for a test

period of longer duration than the test

period prescribed in § 3001.54(f)(2).

Each such request shall be supported by

the following information:

(a) The testimony of a witness on

behalf of the Postal Service, who shall

provide:

(1) A complete definition of the multiyear test period requested for the

proposed new service;

(2) A detailed explanation of the

Postal Service’s preference of a multiyear test period, including the bases of

the Service’s determination that the test

period prescribed in § 3001.54(f)(2)

would be inappropriate; and

(3) A complete description of the

Postal Service’s plan for achieving an

appropriate contribution to institutional

costs from the new service by the end

of the requested test period.

(b) Complete documentary support

for, and detail underlying, the test

period requested by the Postal Service,

including:

(1) Estimated costs, revenues, and

volumes of the proposed new service for

the entire requested test period;

(2) Return on Investment projections

and all other financial analyses

prepared in connection with

determining the cost and revenue

impact of the proposed new service; and

(3) Any other analyses prepared by

the Postal Service that bear on the

overall effects of introducing the

proposed new service during the

requested test period.

Issued by the Commission on May 7, 1996.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12130 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH16–3–7264a; FRL–5439–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 23, 1994, the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) granted conditional

approval of revisions to the emission

limitations, compliance methodologies,

and compliance time schedules in

Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for sulfur dioxide (SO2) as it applies to

Hamilton County. The outstanding

condition has been addressed, and

USEPA is now fully approving the

Hamilton County, Ohio, SO2 SIP.

Submitted by Ohio in response to

modeling analyses which predicted

violations of the SO2 National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to

Hamilton County sources, this SIP has

been demonstrated to provide for

attainment and maintenance of the SO2

NAAQS in Hamilton County.

DATES: This action will be effective on

July 15, 1996 unless adverse or critical

comments not previously addressed by

the State or USEPA are received by June

14, 1996. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
24458 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State’s submittal and

USEPA’s analysis (Technical Support

Document) are available for inspection

at the following location: United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that

you telephone Mary Onischak at (312)

353–5954 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Onischak at (312) 353–5954.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 16, 1991, Ohio submitted

SO2 SIP revisions to USEPA for

Hamilton County, Ohio. The State

submitted a package on March 17, 1993,

which further amended these SIP

revisions. The SIP revisions were

intended to provide for attainment of

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for SO2, in

response to a December 22, 1988, letter

in which USEPA notified the Governor

of Ohio that the SO2 SIP was

substantially inadequate to maintain the

SO2 NAAQS in Hamilton County.

USEPA’s notification was based on

predicted violations of the SO2

standards due to SO2 sources located in

Hamilton County, Ohio. Ohio’s SIP

package included revisions to Ohio

Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–18–03

Attainment Dates and Compliance Time

Schedules, OAC 3745–18–04

Measurement Methods and Procedures,

and OAC 3745–18–37 Hamilton County

Emission Limits, supplemented by an

administrative order for Cincinnati Gas

and Electric’s Miami Fort facility.

Ohio’s submittal, including the

background information, attainment

demonstration, and compliance

methodologies, is discussed in detail in

the January 27, 1994, proposed

conditional approval (59 FR 3809).

Comments on the proposed conditional

approval were addressed in the August

23, 1994, final conditional approval (59

FR 43287).

II. Conditional Approval Issue

The Hamilton County SO2 SIP was

conditionally approved by USEPA

because of an issue related to the air

dispersion modeling analysis submitted

by Ohio to demonstrate that the revised

SO2 SIP limits would ensure attainment

of the SO2 NAAQS in the Hamilton

County area. The State’s modeled

attainment demonstration is discussed

in detail in USEPA’s 1994 proposed and

final rulemaking actions. The

techniques used in the attainment

demonstration were set forth in a

modeling protocol approved by USEPA.

Because Hamilton County borders

Indiana and Kentucky, the attainment

demonstration considered the air

quality impacts of SO2 sources in those

States, as well as SO2 sources in Ohio.

During the development of the

attainment demonstration, a modeled

violation was predicted near the Joseph

E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., (Seagram)

facility in adjacent Dearborn County,

Indiana. The Seagram facility was

determined to be the main contributor

to the modeled violation, but facilities

located in Hamilton County also

contributed to the violation. Since the

Ohio sources were partially implicated

in the Indiana violation, USEPA could

not accept Ohio’s attainment

demonstration until the predicted

violation had been addressed.

A solution to the attainment problem

involved a restriction on the usage of

sulfur-bearing fuels at the Seagram

facility. Preliminary modeling showed

that when Seagram’s Boilers 5 and 6

were not simultaneously burning such

sulfur-bearing fuels as coal or fuel oil,

the SO2 standards would not be

violated. Seagram had, in fact, been

operating in this manner for several

years. Seagram agreed, in a September 1,

1992 letter to Ohio and Indiana, that it

would not operate the two boilers

simultaneously on sulfur-bearing fuels

without written approval from both

State Agencies (the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency and the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management). However, because

Seagram’s letter did not create a

federally enforceable limitation, USEPA

required that the State of Indiana adopt

the Seagram restriction and submit it to

USEPA as a revision to the Indiana SO2

SIP.

On the basis of Seagram’s September

1, 1992 commitment, Ohio submitted

supplementary modeling data to USEPA

which demonstrated that if the Seagram

facility did not operate the two boilers

simultaneously on coal or fuel oil, the

predicted SO2 NAAQS violation in

Dearborn County would be eliminated.

USEPA has reviewed this modeling and

determined that it is acceptable.

Because USEPA had determined that

the emission limits and control

measures in the SO2 SIP revision for

Hamilton County would be enforceable

and would provide for attainment of the

SO2 NAAQS, USEPA proposed to

conditionally approve the Hamilton

County SO2 SIP while the State of

Indiana proceeded with the Seagram

rulemaking.

USEPA’s proposal to conditionally

approve the Hamilton County, Ohio SIP

revisions was published on January 27,

1994 (59 FR 3809). USEPA finalized the

conditional approval action on August

23, 1994 (59 FR 43287). USEPA

indicated in the final conditional

approval that the Hamilton County,

Ohio SIP revisions would be approved

in full if Indiana submitted a federally

approvable SIP revision for Seagram by

September 23, 1995. It was anticipated

that an approvable Indiana limit would

be formalized in the allotted time and as

a result, the Ohio revised rules would

remain a part of the SIP.

The USEPA notified the State of

Indiana in a January 5, 1994, letter that

the Seagram limits must be incorporated

into the Indiana SO2 SIP. On August 25,

1995, Indiana submitted to USEPA a

site-specific SO2 SIP revision request

which provided that when Seagram’s

Boilers 5 and 6 were being operated

simultaneously, only one boiler would

use coal or fuel oil. USEPA published a

direct final approval of Indiana’s SIP

revision for Seagram on February 9,

1996 (61 FR 4897). Therefore, USEPA is

now able to fully accept Ohio’s modeled

attainment demonstration and finalize

the Hamilton County SO2 SIP approval.

(Adverse or critical comments received

on the Seagram SIP revision may affect

the effective date of approval of the

Hamilton County, Ohio SO2 SIP.)

III. Final Rulemaking Action

The USEPA is approving Ohio’s

October 16, 1991, and March 17, 1993,

Hamilton County SO2 SIP revisions

because the approval condition cited in

the Federal Register on August 23, 1994

(59 FR 43287) has been satisfied. The

State of Indiana submitted acceptable

SO2 SIP revisions, as required, and

USEPA approved them in a direct final

action on February 9, 1996 (61 FR 4897).

As indicated in the August 23, 1994,

conditional approval, the USEPA has

determined that the Ohio SO2 SIP

revisions for Hamilton County satisfy

section 110(A)(2) of the Clean Air Act

and are fully approvable at this time. It

is important to note that if USEPA

receives adverse or critical comments on

the SO2 SIP revision for Seagram, the

receipt of such comments may affect the

effective date of USEPA’s approval of

the Hamilton County, Ohio SO2 SIP.

The USEPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because USEPA

views this action as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, the rulemaking

will not be deemed final if timely

unaddressed adverse or critical
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24459

comments are filed. The ‘‘direct final’’

approval shall be effective on July 15,

1996, unless USEPA receives such

adverse or critical comments by June 14,

1996. The USEPA is now soliciting

public comments on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. In the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register, USEPA is publishing a

separate document which constitutes a

‘‘proposed approval’’ of the requested

SIP revision. If warranted by comments

adverse to or critical of the approval

discussed above, which have not been

addressed by the State or USEPA,

USEPA will publish a Federal Register

document which withdraws the final

action. The USEPA will then address

public comments received in a

subsequent rulemaking document based

on the proposed approval.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The

USEPA shall consider each request for

revision to the SIP in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-forprofit 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, I

certify 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

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of the State

action. The Clean Air Act forbids

USEPA to base its actions concerning

SIPs on such grounds.Union Electric Co.

v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, requires

that the USEPA prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the USEPA to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the USEPA must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The USEPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the USEPA explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

This rule only approves the

incorporation of existing state rules into

the SIP. It imposes no additional

requirements. Because this final rule is

estimated to result in the expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of less then $100

million in any one year, the USEPA has

not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments

will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the USEPA is not

required to develop a plan with regard

to small governments.

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 July 15, 1996.

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, Incorporation by

reference, Sulfur oxides.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Ohio was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 14, 1996.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble 40 CFR part 52 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.

Subpart KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(92) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(92) On October 16, 1991, and March

17, 1993, the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted

revisions to the State Implementation

Plan for sulfur dioxide for sources in

Hamilton County, Ohio.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

Rule 3745–18–03 Attainment dates and

compliance time schedules, Sections

(A)(2)(c); (B)(7)(a); (B)(7)(b); (C)(8)(a);

(C)(8)(b); (C)(9)(a); (C)(9)(b); (D)(1);

(D)(2); dated October 11, 1991, and

effective on October 31, 1991.

(B) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

Rule 3745–18–04 Measurement methods

and procedures, Sections (D)(7);

(D)(8)(a) to (D)(8)(e); (E)(5); (E)(6)(a);

(E)(6)(b); (F); (G)(1) to (G)(4); (I); dated

October 11, 1991, and effective on

October 31, 1991.

(C) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

Rule 3745–18–37, Hamilton county

emission limits, dated February 22,

1993, and effective on March 10, 1993.

(D) Director’s Final Findings and

Order for Cincinnati Gas and Electric

Company, Miami Fort Station, dated

February 22, 1993.

* * * * *

3. Section 52.1919 is revised to read

as follows.
24460 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 52.1919 Identification of plan-conditional

approval.

(a) The plan commitments listed

below were submitted on the dates

specified.

(1) [Reserved]

(2) On April 20, 1994, Ohio submitted

Rule 3745–35–07, entitled ‘‘Federally

Enforceable Limitations on Potential to

Emit,’’ and requested authority to issue

such limitations as conditions in State

operating permits. On June 16, 1994,

Ohio submitted a commitment to revise

Rule 3745–35–07 to clarify that the rule

provides for USEPA objection to permits

after issuance. The revisions are

approved provided Ohio fulfills this

commitment by October 25, 1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule 3745–35–07, adopted April

4, 1994, effective April 20, 1994.

(b) (Reserved)

[FR Doc. 96–12119 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL–5461–6]

Clean Air Act Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program;

Delegation of Section 112 Standards;

State of Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On February 2, 1996, the

Environmental Protection Agency

published a proposed and direct final

rule promulgating interim approval of

the Operating Permits Program

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts for the purpose of

complying with the Federal

requirements of an approved program to

issue operating permits to all major

stationary sources, and to certain other

sources, with the exception of Indian

Lands. This submittal for the operating

permits program was made by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts on

April 28, 1995. The 30-day comment

period for these documents concluded

on March 4, 1996. Also in this

document, EPA is correcting the date for

the interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program for the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on May 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida

E. Gagnon, Air Permits Program, CAP,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 1, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

MA 02203–2211, (617) 565–3500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 2, 1996, EPA published a

direct final rule (61 FR 3827) which

announced that this rule would take

effect in 60 days, or April 2, 1996,

unless EPA received adverse comment

on the rule within 30 days of

publication in response to a notice of

proposed rulemaking published on the

same day (61 FR 3893). EPA also

committed to withdraw the direct final

rule in the event it received adverse

comment, and to respond to any adverse

comments in a subsequent final

rulemaking action. EPA did receive a

timely adverse comment on this rule.

EPA failed, however, to withdraw the

final rule within the 60 days given in

the direct final rule, and the rule took

effect on April 2, 1996.

In this document, EPA is responding

to the comment it received, but for the

reasons stated below, EPA is not

changing the final rule in response to

that comment. For reasons unrelated to

the comment, EPA is correcting a

clerical error in the effective date of the

rule, as explained below. Had EPA

withdrawn the direct final rule prior to

its going into effect, EPA would have

taken final action based on the proposal

to promulgate a rule identical to the

direct final rule that went into effect.

Rather than now take the action of

withdrawing the direct final rule only to

repromulgate simultaneously an

identical rule, however, EPA in this

action is deciding to maintain the rule

unchanged. EPA believes that

withdrawal and repromulgation are

unnecessary since the results would be

identical to that obtained simply by

leaving the rule unchanged and

responding to the comments in this

document. This document provides

interested parties an opportunity to

review how EPA addressed the

comment, and to petition for review of

EPA’s action in this final rulemaking

within 60 days of publication of this

document, as provided in section

307(b)(1) of the Act.

I. Summary of Comments and

Responses

EPA received two comments from the

National Environmental Development

Association’s Clean Air Regulatory

Project (NEDA/CARP). First, NEDA/

CARP disagrees with EPA’s statement

that ‘‘prompt reporting [of deviations]

must be more frequent than the semiannual reporting requirement, given this

is a distinct reporting obligation under

Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).’’ NEDA/CARP

believes there is no legal basis for such

a statement. Therefore, NEDA/CARP

asserts EPA has no basis for expecting

deviations to be reported more often

than every 6 months.

EPA disagrees that there is no legal

basis for this statement. Section

503(b)(2) of the Act requires a permittee

‘‘to promptly report any deviations from

permit requirements to the permitting

authority.’’ This requirement to report

deviations promptly is distinct from

section 504(a) of the Act which requires

the results of all monitoring to be

submitted no less often than every six

months. The Act clearly distinguishes

between the routine semi-annual

reporting of all monitoring, whether or

not deviations have occurred, from the

requirements to report deviations that

may be violations of the Act and that at

least provide an indication of potential

compliance problems. It makes sense

that Congress would expect permittees

to report potential Act violations more

quickly than routine monitoring that

confirms compliance. Additionally, the

statute has a clear requirement for

prompt reporting of deviations and EPA

believes that six months is not prompt

when dealing with information that may

document a violation of the Clean Air

Act.

Second, in the February 2, 1996

rulemaking, EPA proposes interim

approval of the program regulation

unless the Commonwealth changes its

rule to ensure that all ‘‘significant’’

monitoring changes, not just

‘‘relaxations’’ are processed as

significant changes. NEDA/CARP points

out that this change may not be required

when the proposed changes to Part 70

are finalized and requests EPA take this

issue into consideration before the state

revises its procedures.

EPA understands the concerns of

NEDA/CARP, but EPA is obligated to

evaluate the Commonwealth’s program

based on Part 70 rules promulgated on

July 21, 1992. Once the proposed

changes to Part 70 are finalized, EPA

and the Commonwealth will revisit this

matter and address it consistent with

the program transition provisions of the

revised Part 70 regulations.

II. Final Rulemaking Action

Except for the effective date, as

explained below, EPA is not modifying

the interim approval to the operating

permits program associated with the

February 2, 1996 direct final rulemaking

in response to the comments EPA

received. The State must make the

changes specified in the proposed

rulemaking, under II.A.2., Regulations

and Program Implementation, in order

to be granted full approval.

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends for a period of up

to 2 years. During the interim approval

period, the Commonwealth is protected

from sanctions for failure to have a