Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2983

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted on October 4, 1995

and October 12, 1995, by the

Commonwealth of Virginia and the

State of Maryland and the District of

Columbia, respectively, for the purpose

of approving a maintenance plan and a

request to redesignate the Metropolitan

Washington area; including the

Counties of Alexandria and Arlington,

Virginia; Prince Georges and

Montgomery Counties in Maryland, and

the District of Columbia (the

‘‘Washington Carbon Monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area’’) from

nonattainment to attainment for CO. In

the Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the State’s

SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. 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.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by February 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Marcia L.

Spink, Associate Director, Air Programs,

Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the Air,

Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;

District of Columbia Department of

Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 2100

Martin Luther King Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20020; Maryland

Department of the Environment, 2500

Broening Highway, Baltimore,

Maryland, 21224; Virginia Department

of Environmental Quality, 629 East

Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly A. Sheckler, (215) 597–6863.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action, titled, Approval and

Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Redesignation of the

Washington Metropolitan Carbon

Monoxide Area to Attainment and

Approval of the Area’s Maintenance

Plan and Emission Inventory;

Commonwealth of Virginia, States of

Maryland and the District of Columbia,

which is located in the Rules and

Regulations Section of this Federal

Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: October 23, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–1591 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[NJ001; FRL–5403–8]

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim

Approval of Operating Permit Program;

New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes source

category-limited interim approval of the

operating permit program submitted by

the State of New Jersey for the purpose

of complying with federal requirements

which mandate that states develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

February 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Steven C.

Riva, Chief, Permitting/Toxics Supports

Section, Air Compliance Branch, at the

EPA Region 2 office listed below. Copies

of New Jersey’s submittal and other

supporting information used in

developing the proposed interim

approval are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following location: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290

Broadway, 21st Floor, New York, NY

10007–1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Suilin Chan, Air and Waste

Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 21st Floor,

New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the Clean

Air Act (‘‘the Act’’) as amended by the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA

promulgated rules on July 21, 1992 (57

FR 32250), that define the minimum

elements of an approvable state

operating permit program and the

corresponding standards and

procedures by which EPA will approve,

oversee, and withdraw approval of state

operating permit programs. These rules

are codified at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 70. Title V and

Part 70 require that states develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources.

The Act requires states to develop and

submit these programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and EPA to approve

or disapprove such program within one

year after receiving the complete

submittal. If the State’s submission is

materially changed during the one-year

review period, 40 CFR § 70.4(e)(2)

allows EPA to extend the review period

for no more than one year following

receipt of the additional materials. EPA

reviews state operating permit programs

pursuant to section 502 of the Act and

40 CFR Part 70, which together outline

the 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.

Additionally, where a state can

demonstrate to the satisfaction of EPA

that reasons exist to justify granting a

source category-limited interim

approval, EPA may so exercise its

authority. A program with a source

category-limited interim approval is one

that substantially meets the

requirements of Part 70 and that applies

to at least 60% of all affected sources

which account for 80% of the total

emissions within the state. If EPA has

not fully approved a program by

November 15, 1995, or by the end of an

interim program, it must establish and

implement a federal operating permit

program for that state.

EPA received New Jersey’s title V

operating permit program submittal

initially on November 19, 1993.

However, EPA found that submittal to

be incomplete. In a February 4, 1994

letter to the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (NJDEP), EPA

informed New Jersey of the

incompleteness determination and

listed the deficiencies that must be

corrected. EPA received New Jersey’s
2984 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

August 10th, 1995, revised program

submittal on August 21, 1995 which

EPA determined to be complete on

September 5, 1995.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

Following the granting of final interim

approval, if New Jersey failed to submit

a complete corrected program for full

approval by the date six months before

expiration of the interim approval or if

EPA disapproved New Jersey’s corrected

program submittal, EPA would start an

18-month clock for mandatory sanctions

in either situation. If and when the 18

months expire and New Jersey fails to

submit a complete corrected program to

address the deficiencies identified in

the interim approval or identified in the

disapproval, whichever the case may be,

EPA would be required to apply one of

the sanctions in section 179(b) of the

Act. In either case, the sanction would

remain in effect until EPA determines

that New Jersey had corrected the

deficiencies that triggered the

mandatory sanctions clock. If six

months after application of the first

sanction, New Jersey still had not

submitted the requisite complete

program, a second sanction would be

applied. Moreover, if the Administrator

found a lack of good faith on the Part

of New Jersey, both sanctions under

section 179(b) would apply after the

expiration of the 18-month period until

the Administrator determines that New

Jersey had come into compliance.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after an interim approval expires

and a state has failed to submit a timely

and complete corrected program or EPA

has disapproved a corrected program.

Moreover, if a state does not have in

place an approved full program by the

expiration date of its interim approval

or an approved program by the time the

federal operating permit program, to be

codified at 40 CFR Part 71, is

promulgated, EPA is mandated to

administer and enforce the federal

program for that state.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

EPA has concluded that the operating

permit program submitted by New

Jersey substantially meets the

requirements of title V and Part 70.

Based upon EPA’s review of New

Jersey’s request for source categorylimited interim approval and the

substantiation submitted thereto and of

New Jersey’s operating permit program

in its entirety, EPA proposes to grant

source category-limited interim

approval to the New Jersey program. For

detailed information on the analysis of

the State’s submission, please refer to

the Technical Support Document (TSD)

contained in the docket at the address

noted above.

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Support Materials

Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Act,

each state must develop and submit to

the Administrator an operating permit

program under state or local law or

under an interstate compact meeting the

requirements of title V of the Act. On

November 19, 1993, EPA received the

title V operating permit program

submitted by the State of New Jersey

and supplemental information

submitted on August 10, 1995, and

August 28, 1995. The New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

(NJDEP) requested, under the signature

of the New Jersey Governor’s designee,

Commissioner Robert C. Shinn Jr. of the

NJDEP, a source category-limited

interim approval of New Jersey’s

operating permit program with full

authority to administer the program in

all areas of the State of New Jersey.

The following documents which were

submitted by the State of New Jersey in

support of its request for a source

category-limited interim approval have

been reviewed by EPA and have been

found to substantially meet the Part 70

requirements.

1. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(1), a

complete program description is

presented under Chapter 3 of Volume I

providing detailed discussions on how

the state intends to carry out its title V

responsibilities.

2. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(2), the

regulations that comprise the permitting

program is submitted under Appendix A

of Volume II and copies of all applicable

state or local statutes and regulations are

included in Appendix C of Volume II.

3. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(3), a

legal opinion from the State Attorney

General is presented in Appendix B of

Volume II. New Jersey has demonstrated

that the NJDEP has adequate authority

to carry out all aspects of New Jersey’s

operating permit program.

4. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(4),

copies of the permit application forms

and relevant guidance that will assist in

the State’s implementation of the

operating permit program are presented

in Appendices F and G of Volume II. No

permit form has been submitted by New

Jersey since each permit will be issued

with conditions specific to the source’s

operation. The contents of an operating

permit is listed in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.16.

5. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(5), a

complete description of the State’s

compliance tracking and enforcement

program is presented in Chapter 6 of

Volume I. This document describes how

New Jersey will use its data

management system (AIMS) to track and

report enforcement activities. It also

reaffirms New Jersey’s commitment to

continue to follow air enforcement

strategies stipulated in previous

enforcement agreements it has entered

with the EPA.

6. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(6) and

§ 70.4(b)(8), a description of the state

permit procedures and a statement on

adequate personnel and funding is

presented in Chapter 4 of Volume I.

This chapter describes how the permit

application reviews will be coordinated

with the other offices with NJDEP and

what the duties of the agency personnel

will be for implementing the program.

7. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(7), a

fee demonstration and a workload

analysis are presented in Appendices D

and E of Volume II. New Jersey adopted

the presumptive minimum fee of $25

per ton of pollutant per year (adjusted

by the Consumer Price Index based on

the 1989 value) and is presumed to have

adequate funding for the development

and implementation of its operating

permit program.

8. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(9),

New Jersey committed to provide

quarterly reports on enforcement

activities via its data management

system as discussed in Chapter 5 of

Volume I.

9. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(11), a

transition plan is presented in Chapter

2 of Volume I describing the application

submittal schedule and the permitting

timeframe for the initial permits. Also

discussed in this chapter is New Jersey’s

rationale for requesting source categorylimited interim approval. New Jersey

has demonstrated in this chapter that its

operating permit program will meet the

60/80 percent tests which require that

the interim program applies to at least

60% of the total number of Part 70-

affected sources in New Jersey and that

these sources account for at least 80%

of the total emissions.

2. Regulations and Program

Implementation

The State of New Jersey adopted

regulations in Subchapter 22 of Chapter

27 of the New Jersey Administrative

Code (N.J.A.C. 7:27–22) for the

implementation of the requirements of

40 CFR Part 70. This rule, which was

initially adopted on October 3, 1994,

was re-proposed with changes and

adopted in August 10, 1995. There is

sufficient evidence such as responses to

comments showing that the rule

adoptions were procedurally correct as

required by 40 CFR § 70.4(b)(2). The

New Jersey operating permit rule which
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2985

contains the lists of exempt activities,

insignificant operations, and two tables

of excluded emissions are included in

Appendix A of Volume II. The other

applicable state statutes and regulations

are included in Appendix C of Volume

II. Based on EPA’s review, none of the

applicable state statutes or regulations

restricts implementation of the New

Jersey operating permit program. New

Jersey’s rule meets the main

requirements of Part 70 as described

below:

a. Applicability (40 CFR § 70.2 and

§ 70.3):

(1) New Jersey’s rule requires facilities

with the potential-to-emit of any

pollutants at major source threshold

levels to obtain operating permits.

Facilities subject to requirements that

are not listed in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.2(a)

will not be subject to the New Jersey

operating permit program (i.e., nonmajor sources subject to § 111 or § 112

of the Act (NSPS or NESHAP)). New

Jersey has elected to defer these nonmajor sources until EPA completes

rulemaking with respect to future

applicability. This is consistent with 40

CFR § 70.3(b)(1). However, 40 CFR

§ 70.3(b)(2) states that non-major

sources subject to standards

promulgated after July 21, 1992 are

required to obtain an operating permit

unless the standard itself contains

specific language that would exempt

them from Part 70 requirements. EPA

interprets this Part 70 provision to mean

that if the standard were promulgated

without the exemption clause, a Part 70

exemption for non-major sources is

assumed not to exist and all sources

covered under that standard are

required to obtain an operating permit.

Although New Jersey’s rule in N.J.A.C.

7:27–22.2(b) alludes to an EPA

rulemaking as the triggering factor for

title V applicability to non-major

sources, it does provide NJDEP with the

necessary regulatory authority to permit

under Part 70 those non-major sources

that are not exempt from post-1992

standards based on its reference to 40

CFR § 70.3(b)(2). Therefore, EPA does

not find this to be a problem for granting

interim approval. In addition, section

22.5(i) of New Jersey’s rule provides the

mechanism under which non-major

sources would be required to submit an

application. To ensure that national

consistency is maintained in the

implementation of 40 CFR § 70.3(b)(2),

EPA will require New Jersey to submit

a commitment in the corrected program

asserting that New Jersey will require

non-major sources subject to section 111

and 112 standards promulgated after

July 21, 1992 to apply for an operating

permit as required by the Administrator.

Applications from these sources should

be submitted in accordance with the

schedule specified in the standard and/

or rulemaking. This commitment must

be submitted in order to receive full

program approval.

(2) New Jersey’s rule excludes

activities such as office equipment,

water storage tanks, and other

minimally emitting facilities from the

operating permit application. The entire

list of exempt activities is included in

the definition section of the New Jersey

rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.1). Since these

facilities either do not emit any air

pollutants or are not part of a source’s

production process, EPA finds it

appropriate to exclude them from the

operating permit application. EPA

believes exclusion of the listed activities

from the application is highly unlikely

to interfere with determining

applicability of or imposing any

applicable requirements. In addition,

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.6(f)(5) requires that

permit applications contain all

information needed to determine the

applicability of or to impose any

applicable requirement. Therefore, EPA

proposes to approve the list of exempt

activity as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.1

from New Jersey’s operating permit

program. This list may be expanded

with prior EPA input and approval

during the state rulemaking process for

the rule revision consistent with 40 CFR

§ 70.4(i).

(3) Consistent with the Part 70

regulations, New Jersey’s rule requires

inclusion of fugitive emissions only if

the source belongs to one of the 27

source categories listed in 40 CFR

§ 70.2.

(4) New Jersey’s rule at N.J.A.C 7:27–

22.2 did not include the ‘‘support

facility test’’ as an additional criterion

for separating the R & D facility from the

primary source operation. EPA does not

find this to be an issue for program

approval since New Jersey’s R&D

definition requires that the R&D facility

not be ‘‘engaged in the manufacture of

products for commercial sale, except in

a de minimis manner’’. However, it is

EPA’s understanding of New Jersey’s

intention that if the R&D facility is not

connected to the manufacturing process

except in a de minimis capacity that the

R&D facility would not be a support

facility to the manufacturing process.

Thus, if the R&D facility is contributing

to the manufacturing process in a

material, rather than de minimis

capacity, it would be a support facility

to the manufacturing process. Under the

support facility test, co-located and

commonly owned sources would be

considered one source (and therefore

their emissions aggregated) if the output

of one is more than 50 percent devoted

to support the other.

(5) New Jersey’s rule at N.J.A.C.7:27–

22.2(d) allows sources with equipment

that can be operated in both R&D and

manufacturing modes to segregate

emissions attributable to the R&D

operation from the source’s potential to

emit when determining whether the

source is major. In many cases, the

segregation could result in separating a

facility into a minor facility and a R&D

facility which would render the source

as a whole not subject to Part 70. In

order for the entire facility to be

excluded from the Part 70 requirements,

federally enforceable permit conditions

must be obtained by the source. As in

other synthetic minor situations, New

Jersey plans to use its SIP-approved new

source review preconstruction permit

program to provide the federally

enforceable permit limitations necessary

to cap source emissions at below the

title V major source threshold levels.

New Jersey provided a supplement to

the August 10, 1995 title V operating

permit program which describes in

detail how these sources will be capped

out of the New Jersey operating permit

program. Based upon EPA’s review, the

mechanism to be used by New Jersey to

limit emissions from such ‘‘dual

equipment’’ is federally and practicably

enforceable and is sufficient to prevent

Part 70 circumvention.

The ‘‘dual equipment’’ type sources

are subject to federally enforceable NSR

requirements if the source (and its

associated process units) meets the

criteria set out in the NSR regulations of

New Jersey’s rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27–8).

Most of these types of sources become

subject to New Jersey’s NSR

requirements because they process more

than 50 pounds per hour of all materials

combined with the exclusion of air and

water. The permit issued to such

sources is called a ‘‘Dual Permit’’ which

consists of two sections, one specific to

the R&D operation and the other to the

manufacturing operation. The permit

also contains common emission caps for

each pollutant with recordkeeping

requirements to monitor when the

emission limits will be reached. When

the emission limits are reached, the

source is required to cease operation of

all equipment or process covered under

the permit or apply for a permit revision

to raise the emission limits, at which

time additional requirements such as

installation of the state-of-the-art

controls may be required. Although it

has the legal authority to do so, NJDEP

has not issued a dual permit that covers

the entire facility. It is EPA’s belief that

in situations where the facility has the

flexibility to change operation at will,
2986 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

facility-wide emission caps or

summation of individual permits at a

source is essential to prevent

circumvention of the Part 70

regulations.

b. Permit Application (40 CFR § 70.5):

(1) Consistent with EPA’s policy as

discussed in the July 10th, 1995 ‘‘White

Paper for Streamlined Development of

Part 70 Permit Applications’’, New

Jersey’s rule streamlines the application

requirements for emitting activities that

meet the definition of insignificant

source operations. Such emitting

activities or units are not required to be

listed individually on the application;

they may be listed by source type. On

the application, an estimate of the total

emissions from all of the insignificant

source operations shall be listed for

each criteria pollutant with the

applicable requirements which

generally apply to them. The list of

insignificant source operations which

EPA hereby approves is defined in

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.1. This list may be

changed with prior EPA input and

approval during the state rulemaking

process for the rule revision consistent

with 40 CFR § 70.4(i).

(2) New Jersey’s rule also provides for

some streamlining for significant source

operations that have extremely small

emissions. For emitting activities or

units that meet the definition of

significant source operations and have

emission rates that are less than those

listed in Tables A and B of Appendix I

of New Jersey’s operating permit rule,

their emissions are only required to be

listed as ‘‘de minimis’’. The emissions

levels listed under these tables are so

small that EPA does not have any

objections to requiring a listing of these

emission units without their specific

emission rates.

c. Permit Content (40 CFR § 70.6):

(1) Part 70 requires prompt reporting

of deviations from the permit

requirements. 40 CFR § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B)

requires the permitting authority to

define ‘‘prompt’’ in relation to the

degree and type of deviation likely to

occur and the applicable requirements.

Where ‘‘prompt’’ is defined in the

individual permit but not in the

program regulations, EPA may veto

permits that do not contain sufficiently

prompt reporting of deviations. The

State of New Jersey has defined

‘‘prompt’’ in its regulations at N.J.A.C.

7:27–22.19 in the manner discussed

below. Immediate reporting on the

NJDEP hotline is required if the air

contaminants are released in a quantity

or concentration which poses a

potential threat to public health, welfare

or the environment. Where the air

contaminants are released in a quantity

or concentration which poses no

potential threat to public health,

welfare, or the environment but the

permittee intends to assert an

affirmative defense for the deviation, the

instance must be reported within 2

days. Deviations that were discovered

during source emissions testing must be

reported in 30 days as part of the testing

report. Other reporting obligations

required by the permit including

deviations recorded by the emissions

monitors are to be submitted semiannually. EPA finds New Jersey’s

definition of ‘‘prompt’’ reporting of

deviations as delineated above to be

inadequate. In order for EPA to consider

this definition adequate for protecting

public health and safety, New Jersey

must add a provision requiring

reporting of deviations within 10 days

where the air contaminants are released

in a quantity or concentration that pose

no potential threat to public health,

welfare, or the environment and the

permittee does not intend to assert

affirmative defense for the deviation.

(2) Alternative operating scenarios

may be made part of the initial permit

or added via a significant modification,

a minor modification or a 7-day notice

change. Sources that are allowed to

operate under different scenarios are

required to operate within the range or

limit specified for each operating

parameter in the approved operating

scenario. The New Jersey rule (N.J.A.C.

7:27–22.27(a)(2)) allows the addition of

new alternative operating scenarios to

an existing operating permit via a 7-day

notice change provided the emission

limit for the source operation included

in the scenario does not exceed the

maximum allowable emission limits in

the existing permit. Another provision

in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.22(b)(5) disallows

Title I modifications from being

incorporated into the existing permit via

the 7-day notice procedure. These two

provisions in effect assure that a new

NSR permit could not be added to the

existing permit through the 7-day notice

procedure by calling it an alternative

operating scenario bypassing the minor

or significant permit modification

procedures. In addition, N.J.A.C. 7:27–

22.26(b) rules out the possibility that a

source might try to incorporate a MACT

standard into the existing permit via a

7-day notice change by calling it an

alternative operating scenario. Based on

EPA’s review of the New Jersey rule, the

alternative operating scenario

provisions are consistent with 40 CFR

§ 70.6(a)(9).

(3) New Jersey’s Act permits an

affirmative defense for start-ups, shutdowns, equipment maintenance and

malfunctions. New Jersey’s legislation

(N.J.S.A. 26:2C–19.1 and 19.2) allows

such a defense and sections 22.3(nn)

and 22.16(l) of the rule discuss when it

can be used. The Part 70 regulations

allows an affirmative defense in

emergency situations only and do not

extend this defense to start-ups, shutdowns, equipment maintenance or

malfunctions per se. Because start-up,

shut-down, and malfunction events will

not always qualify as an ‘‘emergency,’’

as defined in part 70, NJ’s rule and

legislation are inconsistent with 40 CFR

§ 70.6(g). EPA finds this to be an

impediment to full program approval. In

addition, both NJ’s legislation and rule

are also inconsistent with 40 CFR

§ 70.6(g) because they do not limit the

application of the affirmative defense to

technology-based emission limits. 40

CFR § 70.6(g) provides that the

emergency affirmative defense is only

applicable to technology-based emission

limits and not health-based emission

limits. Therefore, EPA has determined

that the NJ legislation as stated in

N.J.S.A. 26:2C–19.1 and 19.2 and/or the

NJ rule provisions on affirmative

defenses as stated in N.J.A.C. 7:27–

22.3(nn) and 22.16(l) must be revised to

clarify its law to conform with 40 CFR

§ 70.6(g).

d. Public Participation (40 CFR

§ 70.7): Consistent with the Part 70

regulations, the public will be provided

with notice of, and an opportunity to

comment on, draft permits related to

initial permit issuance, permit renewals,

and significant modifications (N.J.A.C.

7:27–22.11).

e. Permit Modification (40 CFR 70.7):

(1) New Jersey’s rule provides the

following mechanism for modifying an

operating permit: administrative

amendments, changes to insignificant

source operations (these are similar to

Part 70’s off-permit changes), 7-day

notice changes, minor modifications,

and significant modifications. Each of

these procedures requires a different

level of review/processing time to

complete. Public review is required for

significant modifications but is

discretionary for minor modifications.

No public review is afforded within the

other types of permit modification

procedures. The criteria for determining

the proper procedure for a modification

are addressed in the specific sections of

the New Jersey rule for each type of

modification (N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.20,

22.21, 22.22, 22.23, and 22.24). These

procedures are consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7 and the

provisions of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) and 40

CFR 70.4(b)(14).

(2) Under New Jersey’s administrative

amendment procedure (N.J.A.C. 7:27–

22.20(b)(7)), provisions of a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2987

preconstruction permit may be

incorporated into the operating permit if

the preconstruction permit was issued

through public participation

requirements substantially equivalent to

those for operating permits as stipulated

in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.11 (public comment)

and 22.12 (EPA comment). As written,

New Jersey’s rule is inconsistent with 40

CFR § 70.7(d)(1)(v). Instead of requiring

the preconstruction permit to have gone

through procedures of N.J.A.C. 7:27–

22.11 and 22.12, it only requires the

permit to have undergone procedures

that are ‘‘substantially equivalent.’’ This

might allow New Jersey to decide what

‘‘substantially equivalent’’ means on a

case by case basis. This discretion is not

contemplated by 40 CFR § 70.7(d)(1)(v).

In fact, it expressly contravenes the

language of that section, which says that

the preconstruction review ‘‘program’’

can be substantially equivalent. In other

words, incorporation by administrative

amendment can occur even if the

procedures of the NSR program do not

match part 70 exactly, if they are

nevertheless approved by EPA as being

substantially equivalent. Therefore, in

order to receive full program approval,

New Jersey must either:

i. Specify in § 7:27–22.20(b)(7) the

procedures under which

preconstruction permits must have been

issued (§§ 70.7 and .8) and permit

content (§ 70.6) requirements the permit

must meet in order to be eligible for

incorporation by administrative

amendment, or

ii. Codify those procedural and permit

content requirements into the

preconstruction review regulations and

obtain EPA’s approval of those

regulations.

(3) One characteristic of New Jersey’s

minor and significant modification

procedures, which is not prohibited or

required by the Part 70 regulations, is

the integration of the preconstruction

permit review process with the

operating permit review. For significant

modifications, draft permits covering

respectively, the preconstruction and

operating permit requirements will be

issued for public review at the same

time. At the conclusion of the public

comment period, the final

preconstruction approval will be issued

to the applicant and the proposed

operating permit will be submitted to

EPA for a 45-day review. For minor

modifications, public review is not

required but the EPA and affected states

will have 45 days to object to the

proposed minor modification. If no

objection is received, New Jersey will

issue the preconstruction approval and

the revised portion of the operating

permit in final.

f. EPA oversight (40 CFR § 70.8): Each

permit, renewal, and minor or

significant modification is subject to

EPA review/veto prior to issuance. New

Jersey’s rule states that if NJDEP fails to

revise a permit based on an EPA

objection or if EPA objects (in response

to a public petition) to the proposed

permit after final permit issuance, EPA

would take action to issue the revised

permit or re-issue the permits under

federal operating permit regulations to

be promulgated at 40 CFR Part 71. In

these situations, before EPA takes any

action pursuant to the Part 71

regulations, NJDEP must take action to

withdraw approval of the operating

permit upon receipt of EPA’s veto. EPA

will then revise and re-issue such

permits in accordance with 40 CFR Part

71.

g. Enforcement authority (40 CFR

§ 70.11): New Jersey’s Air Pollution

Control Act provides NJDEP with

adequate enforcement authority and

penalties for civil and criminal

violations of permits and rules.

Penalties may be assessed in the

maximum amount of $10,000 per day

per violation. This also covers violations

associated with the applicant’s failure to

pay the required fees.

h. Initial application submittal and

issuance (40 CFR § 70.4(b)(11) (i) and

(ii): While 40 CFR 70 requires all

applications to be submitted within the

first 12 months after state program

approval, New Jersey has divided its

subject sources into seven groups in an

effort to maintain a smooth phase-in at

the beginning of a new program. With

an interim program approval, New

Jersey is required to receive, during the

first year, applications from 60% of the

sources subject to the interim program.

Permits for these sources will be issued

one-third (of the 60%) each year during

the first three years of program

approval. The remaining 40% of the

subject sources will submit applications

during the first year of full program

approval. The permits for these source

will be issued one-third (of the 40%)

each year during the initial three years

after full approval. Based on Table 2–3

of page 2–8 of Chapter 2, New Jersey

would have received four ‘‘waves’’ of

applications from subject sources by

November 15, 1996. This would cover

57.2 percent of all sources as opposed

to 60%. To ensure that the 60% is met,

New Jersey encouraged early

submission of applications in February

1995 (6 months prior to program

submittal). Also, since New Jersey’s

interim approval will not take place

until at least February 1996, two months

into the fifth waves of application

submittal, it is certain that New Jersey

would have received 60% of all

applications by February 1997. As such,

EPA does not consider this to be an

issue for program approval.

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

New Jersey’s title V fee program

consists of four types of fees which

includes an emissions based fee, an

initial application fee, permit

modification fee, and a surcharge for

rebuilding the infrastructure of its Air

Programs. New Jersey has adopted the

presumptive minimum of $25 per ton

per year (to be adjusted by the consumer

price index annually) as its emissions

based fee.

It should be noted, however that the

actual appropriation for the New Jersey

program has been limited by the fee

legislation to $9.51 million dollars per

year from the collected fees. EPA

acknowledges that the program costs

and fee revenue figures submitted in

New Jersey’s fee demonstration are only

projections based on New Jersey’s

current experience with similar

permitting programs. A more accurate

assessment of the actual program costs

will not be possible until the state has

had the opportunity to implement the

program. Therefore, EPA is requiring

New Jersey to re-submit a more refined

fee demonstration that assures sufficient

funding for the operating permit

program prior to EPA granting full

approval. Should the revised fee

demonstration show that the $9.51

million dollar funding level is

insufficient, New Jersey must correct the

deficiency prior to submitting the

corrected program. New Jersey is aware

of the need to revisit the fee

demonstration and has committed to reevaluate the fee program during the

interim approval period and take all

necessary steps to ensure sufficient

funding for the operating permit

program.

With respect to New Jersey’s intention

to use fees collected in excess of $9.51

million in reengineering NJDEP’s Air

Program, EPA does not find that to be

a problem for interim approval for two

reasons. First of all, based on the

restricted use of the ‘‘Air Surcharge

Reengineering Fund’’ as stipulated in

New Jersey’s legislation, the ‘‘excess

title V fees are not used for activities

that are totally unrelated to title V. EPA

has thoroughly reviewed the activities

listed in the legislation that are

earmarked for the ‘‘Air Surcharge

Reengineering Fund’’ and found them to

be related to the development and

maintenance of the infrastructure for

implementing New Jersey’s operating

permit program. The costs associated

with those activities are indirect costs to
2988 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the title V program. Therefore, EPA

finds it acceptable for New Jersey to use

‘‘excess’’ title V fees to fund those

activities. In addition, this is consistent

with guidance issued by EPA on August

4, 1993 and July 21, 1994, which stated

that ‘‘Title V does not limit a

jurisdiction’s discretion to collect fees

pursuant to independent state authority

beyond the minimum amount required

by Title V’’. These guidance documents

clearly allow a state to charge fees in

excess of that which are needed to run

the operating permit program.

EPA also notes that New Jersey

requires fee payments from all title V

affected sources including title IV Phase

I units. There is one Phase I unit in the

State of New Jersey. The Part 70

regulation (40 CFR § 70.9(b)(4)) states

that ‘‘during the years 1995 through

1999 inclusive, no fee for purposes of

title V shall be required to be paid with

respect to emissions from any affected

unit under section 404 of the Act’’. This

Part 70 provision, however, does not

restrict the state from collecting title V

fees from Phase I units based on

emissions that occurred prior to January

1, 1995 or after December 31, 1999. It

also does not restrict a state from

collecting non-title V related emissions

based fee or non-emission based title V

related fees from these units. Therefore,

in this notice, EPA is proposing to grant

interim approval to New Jersey’s fee

program. New Jersey may assess fees

from any title IV Phase I units provided

these fees are not used for purposes of

title V.

4. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority for Section 112

Implementation

New Jersey has demonstrated in its

program submittal adequate legal

authority to implement and enforce all

section 112 requirements through its

title V operating permit program. The

implementing rule which is found in

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22 includes section 112

requirements in the definition of

applicable federal requirements with

which all subject sources must comply.

New Jersey has sufficient legislative and

regulatory authorities to issue permits

that assure compliance with the

following section 112 requirements:

i. Early reductions: N.J.A.C 7:27–22.34

authorizes New Jersey to allow sources

that achieved sufficient early reductions

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

emissions to delay compliance with the

MACT or GACT standard for six years

from the original compliance date if all

of the conditions of the operating permit

are met and the reductions are

maintained throughout the six-year

period.

ii. Case-by-case MACT

determinations: In the event that no

applicable emissions limitations have

been established by the Administrator,

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.26 allows New Jersey

to make case-by-case MACT

determinations as required under

section 112 (g) and (j) of the Act.

iii. Implementation of section 112(r):

N.J.A.C 7:27–22.9 requires applicants

submitting an initial operating permit

application to include in its proposed

compliance plan a statement certifying

that the permittee will ensure the

compliance of the facility with the

accidental release provisions at 42

U.S.C. 7412(r). Annual certification of

compliance with each applicable

requirement that pertains to the facility

is required under N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.19.

b. Implementation of Section 112(g)

Upon Program Approval

Case-by-case MACT determinations:

In the event that no applicable

emissions limitations for the hazardous

air pollutants have been established by

the Administrator, NJDEP will make

case-by case Maximum Achievable

Control Technology (MACT)

determinations as required under

Sections 112(j) and (g) of the Act. The

EPA issued an interpretive notice on

February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which

outlines EPA’s revised interpretation of

112(g) applicability. 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. NJDEP has provided

broad language in its regulation that will

allow the implementation of 112(g)

immediately after EPA promulgates its

rule. The permitting mechanism to be

used by the state of New Jersey to

implement these requirements during

the period before EPA promulgates the

final federal rule and after New Jersey’s

title V program becomes effective is the

State’s preconstruction process (as

stated in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.33). In the

event that EPA’s final rulemaking under

§ 112(g) requires changes in New

Jersey’s operating permit rule/program

to assure compliance with federal

requirements, New Jersey has

committed to making all necessary

changes in a timely manner.

In this notice, EPA proposes to

approve New Jersey’s preconstruction

review program found in N.J.S.A.26:2C–

1 et. seq. under the authority of title V

and Part 70 solely for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) of the Act.

However, this approval does not have

any effect on previous actions taken by

EPA on the New Jersey preconstruction

review program found in N.J.S.A.26:2C–

1 et. seq. Also, 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 section 112(g) rule to provide

adequate time for the State to adopt

regulations consistent with the federal

requirements.

c. Program for Delegation of Section 112

Standards as Promulgated

Section 112(l): Requirements for

approval specified in 40 CFR § 70.4(b),

encompass Section 112(l)(5) approval

requirements for delegation of Section

112 standards as they apply to Part 70

sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that

the state’s program contain adequate

authorities, adequate resources for

implementation, an expeditious

compliance schedule, and adequate

enforcement ability, which are also

requirements under Part 70. In a letter

dated November 15, 1995, from William

O’Sullivan, Administrator of the Air

Quality Permitting Program of the

NJDEP requested delegation through

112(l) of all existing 112 standards for

Part 70 sources and infrastructure

programs. With respect to future section

112 standards, NJDEP intends to review

every standard within 45 days of

receiving notice from EPA and

determine whether to accept the

delegation of a standard on a case-bycase basis. In this letter, NJDEP

demonstrated that it has sufficient legal

authorities, adequate resources,

capability for automatic delegation of

future standards, and adequate

enforcement ability for implementation

of Section 112 of the Act for Part 70

sources. Therefore, the EPA is proposing

to grant approval under Section

112(l)(5) and 40 CFR Part 63.91 to New

Jersey for its program mechanism for

receiving delegation of all existing and

future 112(d) standards for Part 70

sources.

d. Commitment To Implement Title IV

of the Act

As stated in N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.29, the

state of New Jersey has already adopted
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2989

and incorporated by reference the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 72, and any

subsequent amendments thereto, for

purposes of implementing an acid rain

program that meets the requirements of

title IV of the Act. It further stated that

if provisions or requirements of 40 CFR

Part 72 conflict with or are not included

in New Jersey’s rule that the Part 72

provision and requirements shall apply

and take precedence.

B. Proposed Actions

EPA proposes source category-limited

interim approval of the operating permit

program initially submitted by the state

of New Jersey on November 15, 1993,

and revised on August 10, 1995. Under

this approval, New Jersey may collect

fees from any title IV Phase I facilities,

provided that these are not used to meet

the presumptive title V fee level for the

interim program.

In accordance with 40 CFR § 70.4(b),

this approval encompasses EPA’s

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40

CFR § 63.91 to the state of New Jersey

for its program mechanism for receiving

delegation of all existing and future

section 112(d) standards for all Part 70

sources. In order to receive full program

approval, the State of New Jersey must

submit a corrected program that

addresses the following deficiencies six

months before expiration of the interim

approval:

1. Deferral of Non-Major Sources

As a condition for full program

approval, New Jersey must submit a

commitment in the corrected program

asserting that New Jersey will require

non-major sources subject to § 111 or

§ 112 standards promulgated after July

21, 1992 to apply for an operating

permit under New Jersey’s full program

unless EPA exempts such sources in

future rulemaking or promulgation of

future requirements. Applications from

these sources should be submitted in

accordance with the schedule found

under N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.5(i).

2. Definition of Prompt Reporting of

Deviations

In order to receive full program

approval, the reporting requirement in

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.19 must be revised to

ensure adequate protection of public

health and safety. New Jersey must add

a provision requiring reporting of

deviations within 10 days if the air

contaminants are released in a quantity

or concentration that poses no potential

threat to public health, welfare, or the

environment and the permittee does not

intend to assert an affirmative defense

for the deviation.

3. Affirmative Defense

In order to receive full program

approval, the New Jersey legislation as

stated in N.J.S.A. 26:2C–19.1 and 19.2

and/or the New Jersey rule provisions

on affirmative defenses as stated in

N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.3(nn) and 22.16(l) must

be revised to clarify its law to conform

with 40 CFR § 70.6(g).

4. Administrative Amendments

In order to receive full program

approval, New Jersey must revise its

operating permit rule to ensure that the

administrative amendment procedure is

properly used for incorporating

preconstruction permits into the

operating permit. Specifically, New

Jersey must either:

i. Specify in § 7:27–22.20(b)(7) the

procedures under which

preconstruction permits must have been

issued (§§ 70.7 and .8) and permit

content (§ 70.6) requirements the permit

must meet in order to be eligible for

incorporation by administrative

amendment, or

ii. Codify those procedural and permit

content requirements into the

preconstruction review regulations and

obtain EPA’s approval of those

regulations. the following changes must

be made to N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.20(b)(7)(i)

and (ii):

5. Permit Fees

In order to receive full program

approval, New Jersey must submit a

revised fee demonstration showing that

$9.51 million is adequate to administer

the operating permit program during the

initial four years of full program

implementation. Should the cap of

$9.51 million fall short of the actual

program costs, New Jersey must take all

necessary actions (including legislative

changes) to correct the problem prior to

submitting the corrected program.

C. Options for Approval/Disapproval

and Implications

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends for a period of up

to two years. During the interim

approval period, New Jersey is protected

from sanctions for failure to have a

program, and EPA is not obligated to

promulgate a federal operating permit

program in the State. 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 interim

approval, as does the three-year time

period for processing the initial permit

applications.

The scope of New Jersey’s Part 70

program that EPA proposes to grant

interim approval in this notice would

apply to all Part 70 sources as listed in

New Jersey’s operating permit rule

(N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.5) and transition plan.

As discussed above in section

II.A.4.c., EPA also proposes to grant

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40

CFR 63.91 to New Jersey’s program for

receiving delegation of section 112

standards that are unchanged from

federal standards as promulgated. In

addition, EPA proposes to delegate

existing standards under 40 CFR Parts

61 and 63.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

EPA requests comments on all aspects

of this proposed interim approval.

Copies of the State’s submittal and other

information relied upon for the

proposed interim approval are

contained in docket number NJ–95–01

maintained at the 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

so that they can effectively participate

in the approval process; and

(2) To serve as the record in case of

judicial review. EPA will consider any

comments received by February 29,

1996.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA’s actions under section 502 of the

Act do not create any new requirements,

but simply address operating permit

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 Act

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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most cost

effective and least burdensome
2990 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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

proposed approval action promulgated

today 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 18, 1996.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1712 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[Region II Docket No.147; NJ24–1–7249b,

FRL–5404–9]

Air Quality Designations: Deletion of

TSP Designations From New Jersey,

New York, Puerto Rico and Virgin

Islands

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to delete

from the State-by-State lists contained

in 40 CFR part 81 the attainment status

designations, including designations of

attainment, unclassifiable and

nonattainment, affected by the original

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter

measured as total suspended particulate

(TSP). In accordance with section

107(d)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act, the

Administrator has determined that the

selected area designations for TSP are

no longer necessary for implementing

the requirements for prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) of air

quality for particulate matter since EPA

has adopted equivalent PSD increments

for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than 10

microns (PM10), which became effective

on June 3, 1994. In the Final Rules

Section of this Federal Register, the

EPA is deleting the TSP area

designations for New Jersey, New York,

Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands, as

identified therein, as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for this action is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If the

EPA receives adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this document. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: William S. Baker, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following address:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New

York 10278, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: December 18, 1996.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1587 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 260 through 265, and 270

[FRL–5468–8]

Military Munitions Rule: Hazardous

Waste Identification and Management;

Explosives Emergencies; Redefinition

of On-Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of Public Comment

Period for Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is today extending the

public comment period on its proposed

military munitions rule (60 FR 56468,

November 8, 1995) to February 2, 1996.

DATES: Written comments on these

proposed rules will be accepted until 4

pm, February 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments [one

original and two copies] should be

addressed to: EPA RCRA Docket #F–95–

MMP-FFFFF, Mail Code 5305W, 401 M

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments also may be submitted

electronically by sending electronic

mail (e-mail) through the Internet

system to: RCRADocket@epamail.epa.gov. All electronic

comments must be submitted as an ascii

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

The comments should be identified

with the above docket number.

The official action for this record will

be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA

will convert all documents 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 kept

in the RCRA Docket. (Comments

submitted on paper will not be

transferred to electronic format. These

comments may be viewed only in the

RCRA Docket as described here.)

Public comments and the supporting

information used for this rule are

available for public inspection and

copying in the RCRA Information Center

(RIC) located in Crystal Gateway, First

Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is open

from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding federal

holidays. To review docket materials,

the public must make an appointment

by calling 703–603–9230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

RCRA Hotline between 9 am - 6 pm

EST, toll-free, at 800–424–9346; 703–

412–9810 from Government phones or if

in the Wash, DC local calling area; or

800–553–7672 for the hearing impaired;

or Ken Shuster, U.S. EPA (5303W),

Washington, DC 20460, 703–308–8759.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority

These regulations are proposed under

authority of sections 2002, 3001–3007

(including 3004(y)), 3010, 7003, and

7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of

1965, as amended, including

amendments by RCRA and the FFCA