Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval Of Operating Permit Program; New Jersey

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NJ001; FRL-5505-7]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval Of Operating Permit Program;

New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating final interim approval of the

operating permit program which the State of New Jersey had submitted in

accordance with Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and its

implementing regulations codified at Part 70 of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 70). This approved interim program

allows New Jersey to issue federally enforceable operating permits to

all major stationary sources and to certain other sources for a period

of two years, at which time it must be replaced by a fully approved

program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This interim program will be effective June 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the final interim approval as well as

the Technical Support Document are available for inspection during

normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 21st Floor,

[[Page 24716]]

New York, New York 10007-1866; Attention: Steven C. Riva.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suilin Chan, Permitting and Toxics

Support Section, at the above EPA office in New York or at telephone

number (212) 637-4019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

The Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 70 require

that states develop and submit operating permit programs to the EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that the EPA act to approve or disapprove each

program within one year after receiving the complete submittal. The EPA

reviews state programs pursuant to Section 502 of the Act and the Part

70 regulations, 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

the granting of a source category-limited interim approval, EPA may so

exercise its authority. A source category-limited interim program is

one that substantially meets the requirements of Part 70 and applies to

at least 60% of all affected sources which account for 80% of the total

emissions within the state. If a state does not have an approved

program by the end of an interim program, EPA must establish and

implement a federal operating permit program for that state.

On January 30, 1996, EPA proposed to approve the source category-

limited operating permit program submitted by New Jersey (see 61 FR

2983). During the 30-day public comment period which ended on February

29, 1996, six comment letters were received on the Proposed Approval

Notice. Five of the comments regarded the list of deficiencies that NJ

has to correct in order to receive full program approval. These

commenters opined that the NJ program is not deficient in those areas

and therefore should not be required to address them in the full

program submittal. One commenter argued that NJ has no authority to

collect emissions-based Title V fees from two Title IV-affected Phase I

units. A response to all of the comments received is included in

Section II.B. of this notice. Based upon EPA's review, none of the

comments received changes EPA's decision to approve NJ's source

category-limited interim program. Therefore, in this notice, the EPA is

taking final action to promulgate interim approval of the New Jersey

Operating Permit Program.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

On January 30, 1996, the EPA proposed interim approval of NJDEP's

Title V Operating Permit Program. The program elements discussed in the

proposed notice are unchanged from the analysis in the Interim Approval

Notice and continue to substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR

Part 70.

B. Response to Public Comments

1. Deferral of Non-major Sources. Two comments were received on

this issue, from the Industrial Operating Permit Legislative/Regulatory

Workgroup (IOPLRW) and NJDEP.

IOPLRW argues that non-major sources subject to NJ's NSR program

should not be required to go through the ``formalities'' of obtaining

an operating permit because (1) it is inconsistent with EPA's ``White

Paper'' policies and (2) NJDEP already imposes substantial requirements

to control emissions of pollutants from such sources. The NJDEP,

however, acknowledges that its current rule is deficient in not

requiring non-deferred non-major sources subject to Section 111 of the

Act to obtain operating permits and agrees to amend its rule in the

next revision. NJDEP asserts that this deficiency, however, does not

exist for non-deferred non-major sources subject to Section 112 of the

Act since its rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.26(b), (c), and (d)) contains the

necessary requirements.

Response. EPA agrees with NJDEP that its rule is adequate in

addressing the requirements for non-deferred non-major sources subject

to Section 112 of the Act. Therefore, in the final approval of NJ's

interim program, EPA is only requiring NJDEP to revise its rule to

address non-major sources subject to Section 111 of the Act. With

respect to the comments submitted by the IOPLRW, EPA disagrees with the

commenter that no rule revision was necessary. This comment conflicts

with the provision of 40 CFR Sec. 70.3(b)(2) which is not affected by

guidance established in EPA's ``White Paper''.

2. Definition of Prompt Reporting. Four comments were received on

this issue, from IOPLRW, Bayway Refining Company, National

Environmental Development Association (NEDA), and Du Pont Chemicals.

All four commenters echoed the same arguments; therefore, their

comments will be grouped together and responded to as a single comment.

The commenters argued that 40 CFR Sec. 70.6 provides the permitting

authority the flexibility to ``define prompt in relation to the degree

and type of deviation likely to occur and the applicable

requirements''. As such, the commenters questioned EPA's basis and

authority for requiring a 10-day reporting of deviations where the air

contaminants are released in a quantity or concentration that pose no

potential threat to the public health, welfare, or the environment and

the permittee does not intend to assert affirmative defense for the

deviation. All commenters felt that NJ's current requirement of

immediate reporting for deviation resulting in air contaminants

released in a quantity or concentration which poses a potential threat

to public health, welfare or the environment or which might reasonably

result in citizen complaints is adequate. Further, a two-day reporting

requirement was asserted to be adequate where the quantity or

concentration of the releases poses no potential threat to the public

health, welfare or environment and which will not likely result in

citizen complaints but that the permittee intends to assert an

affirmative defense. The ten-day reporting requirement is unilaterally

considered an unnecessary administrative burden to both NJDEP and the

regulated community resulting in no commensurate improvement to the

environment.

Response. EPA reconsidered its initial proposal to require a 10-day

reporting on deviations that do not pose a potential threat to the

public health, welfare, or the environment and for which the permittee

does not intend to assert an affirmative defense. Although EPA

acknowledges that NJ's reporting rules have worked fairly well in the

past, EPA does not find that to be grounds for ruling out the ten-day

reporting requirement altogether. There may be circumstances where such

reporting timeframe is warranted. Therefore, after considering the

concerns brought forth by the commenters, EPA has decided not to

require NJ to incorporate the 10-day reporting provision in its

operating permit rule. Rather, EPA will determine the appropriateness

of imposing this requirement on an as-needed basis.

3. Affirmative Defense. Five comments were received on this issue,

from IOPLRW, Bayway Refining Company, NEDA, NJDEP, and Du Pont

Chemicals.

Since all five commenters voiced the same concerns on this issue,

their comments are grouped together and treated as one. While EPA cited

the affirmative defense provisions found in N.J.S.A.26:2C-19.1 through

19.5 to be in conflict with the provisions of 40 CFR

[[Page 24717]]

Sec. 70.6(g), all five commenters asserted that the NJ provisions have

worked well in the past by allowing reasonable excursions during

startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and equipment maintenance without

compromising protection to the environment and public health and

welfare. All commenters maintained that the NJ Law could be interpreted

to be in conformance with Part 70. In its proposed approval notice, EPA

stated that the NJ Law was deficient in (1) not restricting the use of

an affirmative defense to violations of technology-based emission

limitations which potentially allows the use of an affirmative defense

for violations of health-based emission limitations and (2) allowing an

affirmative defense for startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and

equipment maintenance. The commenters argued that although the NJ Law

does not restrict the affirmative defense to technology-based emission

limitations, it nevertheless provides the same degree of protection for

health-based emission limitations by ensuring that the violations do

not potentially threaten the environment or public health or welfare.

For this same reason, the commenters argued that allowing an

affirmative defense for startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and

equipment maintenance does not pose more of a threat to the environment

than what Part 70 provides.

Response. EPA has thoroughly reviewed the arguments presented by

the commenters and maintains that the inconsistencies between the NJ

Law and Part 70 must still be resolved in order for EPA to grant full

program approval on this provision. In promulgating the Part 70

regulations, EPA intended to restrict the emergency affirmative defense

to actions brought for noncompliance with a technology-based emission

limitation to ensure greater protection for health-based emission

standards (such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),

etc.). The NJ Law, however, does not contain similar restrictions.

After reviewing the arguments presented by the commenters on this

particular issue, however, EPA agrees with the commenters that the NJ

Law may be interpreted to provide the same degree of protection for the

health-based emission limitations. Therefore, in lieu of making changes

to the NJ operating permit rule, EPA will accept an opinion from the

Attorney General which affirms that any violation resulting in a

``potential threat to public health'' as used in N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19.1

through 19.5 equates to a violation of a health-based emission

standard, such that the affirmative defense created in New Jersey's

legislation is not available for violations of health-based emission

limits. The Attorney General's opinion should point to either court

decisions or legislative history interpreting the ``potential threat to

public health'' language. With respect to the issue of restricting the

affirmative defense to emergency situations arising from sudden and

reasonably unforeseeable events that are beyond the control of the

source including the acts of God, NJ's Law is clearly inconsistent with

40 CFR 70.6(g). Although NJ's criteria for asserting an affirmative

defense in N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19.2 are similar to the criteria established

in 40 CFR Sec. 70.6(g), NJ's affirmative defense in N.J.S.A 26:2C-19.1

and 19.2 goes beyond sudden and unforeseeable events. As stated in the

proposed approval, 40 CFR Sec. 70.6(g) only allows an affirmative

defense for Title V purposes for sudden and unforeseeable events. NJ's

law not only applies to unforeseeable malfunctions, but also to

equipment start-up or shut-down and equipment maintenance, activities

of which are usually pre-scheduled. Therefore, EPA sees no grounds for

finding the NJ approach substantially equivalent to that in 40 CFR

Sec. 70.6(g). This is beyond the scope of 40 CFR Sec. 70.6(g) and must

be changed before full approval can be granted for this provision. NJ

may either change its legislation or its operating permit rule to

address this deficiency. As to the comments that Part 70 should be

changed to provide more flexibility on this issue, we appreciate the

commenters' desire for more flexibility, but program approval is judged

on the existing requirements of 40 CFR Part 70, not on any possible

future changes to Part 70. EPA is treating this issue consistently

nationally by only granting interim approval to states with similar

inconsistencies to 40 CFR Sec. 70.6(g). EPA is not aware of any other

state programs being treated differently on this issue.

4. R&D Support Facility Test. Two comments were received on this

issue, from NEDA and IOPLRW.

Both commenters argued that the issue of whether an R&D operation

is eligible for separate treatment under the operating permit program

should not depend on where the products and processes developed in the

R&D operation are used. Rather, eligibility for separate treatment

should simply depend on whether the R&D operation produces more than a

de minimis quantity of products for commercial use.

Response. In its proposal to approve NJ's program, EPA did not

identify the application of the support facility test in determining

the major source status of a stationary source with an R&D operation to

be a condition for full program approval. The support facility test

will ensure that only true R&D facilities are properly separated from

the source. Under the support facility test, even where neighboring,

commonly controlled sources have different 2-digit SIC codes, they

should be aggregated to determine whether a major source is present if

the output of one is more than 50 percent devoted to the support of the

other. However, EPA believes that R&D operations should not generally

be considered support facilities, since the ``support'' provided is

directed towards development of new processes or products and not to

current production. EPA acknowledges that the product of an R&D

operation is information potentially useful to create a new industrial

process or to improve the process ongoing at the facility, but not to

directly support the process in which the industrial activity is

currently engaged or capable of engaging in any significant commercial

fashion. To the extent an activity bears some resemblance to R&D but in

fact contributes to the ongoing product produced or service rendered at

a facility in a more than de minimis manner, those activities should be

considered part of the source. Pilot plants often present instances of

activities that are conducted on a trial basis, but which are

nevertheless dedicated to producing a product for commerce to a more

than de minimis extent, and so would not be considered R&D. Whether or

not an R&D facility meets the support facility test is a case-by-case

determination. As provided in the Preamble of Part 70, R&D operations

are not exempt from Title V requirements, but the state is given the

flexibility to treat the R&D facility separate from the manufacturing

facility with which it is co-located. The definition of R&D in N.J.A.C.

7:27-22-1 establishes the criteria for determining whether or not an

operation will be given separate treatment as an R&D facility and is

reflective of the federal definition as discussed in the foregoing.

Under N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1, an R&D facility cannot be engaged in the

``manufacture of products for commercial sale, except in a de minimis

manner.'' This is a close approximation of the support facility test.

EPA is not adding any further burden of proof upon the facility in the

event of alleged noncompliance with 40 CFR Part 70,

[[Page 24718]]

than what is already established by the state in N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 and

7:27-22.2(d).

5. Administrative Amendment. Two comments were received on this

issue, from IOPLRW and NJDEP.

IOPLRW asserted that the administrative amendment section of NJ's

rule meets the requirements of Part 70. NJDEP clarified that the

interpretation EPA read into the language at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.20(b)(7)

as explained in the proposed interim approval was not intended. NJDEP

agreed to revise its rule to address EPA's comments.

Response. EPA appreciates the comment from IOPLRW; however, a

revision to NJ's rule is nonetheless necessary.

6. Title IV Fees. One comment was received on this issue from

Atlantic Electric (AE).

AE argued that NJ should not be allowed to assess Title V

emissions-based fees during 1995 to 1999 from any Title IV-affected

Phase I units even if the emissions occurred outside of the 5-year

grace period (prior to 1/1/95).

Response. EPA agrees with the commenter and consequently hereby

corrects a statement made in the notice of proposed interim approval.

The language in the register incorrectly alluded to allowing a state to

collect during 1995 to 1999 Title V fees from Title IV-affected Phase I

units based on emissions that occurred prior to January 1, 1995. The

correct reading and the actual meaning of Section 408(c)(4) should be a

state is allowed to use emissions-based fees for Title V purposes

during 1995 and 1999 if such fees were already collected from the Phase

I units prior to January 1, 1995 for program ramp-up or the like.

Alternatively, the state may collect Title V emissions-based fees after

December 31, 1999 from the Phase I units. Finally, the state can

collect non-emissions based Title V fees from any Phase I units during

the 5-year period. Along with its comments, AE also urged EPA to

require NJDEP to submit adequate documentation confirming that the NJ

operating permit program will be sufficiently funded without accounting

fee revenues from the Phase I units in NJ. EPA appreciates AE's

concerns over the funding aspect of the NJ program. As EPA has

discussed in details in the proposed approval, NJ is required to re-

submit a more refined fee demonstration to assure sufficient funding

for the operating permit program before EPA would consider granting

full approval. EPA acknowledges that the Title V program is a new

program with many uncertainties and variables in the area of cost

assessment, in particular. Therefore, EPA finds it appropriate to allow

a state to put the program into practice for a short duration (during

an interim approval) so that the state may accurately determine the

amount of funding needed for successful program implementation provided

the state has collected sufficient fee revenues to start the program.

EPA's initial proposal to require a more refined fee demonstration in

the full program submittal remains unchanged.

C. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating Permit

Program submitted by the NJDEP on November 15, 1993, as revised on

August 10, 1995, and supplemented on August 28, 1995, November 15,

1995, December 4, 1995, and December 6, 1995. Among other things, the

NJDEP has demonstrated that the program substantially meets the minimum

requirements for a state operating permit program as specified in 40

CFR Part 70 and the criteria for a source category-limited interim

program as discussed in EPA's Guidance entitled ``Interim Title V

Program Approvals'' issued by John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards on August 2, 1993. This interim approval

which may not be renewed, extends until June 16, 1998. Under the

approved interim operating permit program, New Jersey is allowed to

issue federally enforceable operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources for the duration of this approval.

During this interim approval period, the State of New Jersey is

protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate,

administer and enforce a federal operating permit program in New

Jersey. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have full

standing with respect to Part 70, and the 1-year time period for

submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the

effective date of this interim approval, as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit applications. In order to ensure that

a fully approved program will be in place by the expiration date of the

interim approval, New Jersey must submit a modified program to EPA by

December 16, 1997 that addresses the following deficiencies:

1. Deferral of Non-Major Sources

New Jersey must revise its operating permit rule to require non-

major sources subject to Section 111 standards promulgated after July

21, 1992 to apply for an operating permit 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. Affirmative Defense

The New Jersey legislation as stated in N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19.1 through

19.5 and 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 or

clarified to ensure conformance with 40 CFR Sec. 70.6(g). Specifically,

New Jersey needs to limit the use of affirmative defense to 1)

violations of technology-based emission limitations, not health-based

emission limitations and 2) to sudden and unforeseeable events. To

address the first deficiency, New Jersey has the option of either

changing its legislation at N.J.S.A.26:2C-19.1 through 19.5 to specify

that the affirmative defense can only be used in emergency situation

resulting in violations of technology-based emission limitations or

submitting an opinion from the State Attorney General (AG). The AG's

opinion must demonstrate how the State Law has clearly equated the term

``potential harm to public health'' to violations of health-based

emission limitations. The AG's opinion must also clarify that the NJ

Law prohibits the use of an affirmative defense for violations of

health-based emission limitations and must be supported by court

decisions or legislative history interpreting the ``potential threat to

public health'' language. To address the second deficiency, the NJ Law

at N.J.S.A.26:2C-19.1 through 19.5 and the NJ rule at N.J.A.C. 7:27-

22.3(nn) and 22.16(l) must be changed to limit the use of an

affirmative defense, for Title V purposes, to sudden and unforeseeable

events that are beyond the control of the source.

3. Administrative Amendments

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 Sec. 7:27-22.20(b)(7) the procedures under which

preconstruction permits must have been issued (40 CFR Sec. 70.7 and 40

CFR Sec. 70.8) and permit content requirements the permit must meet (40

CFR Sec. 70.6) in order to be eligible for incorporation by

administrative amendment, or

ii. codify those procedural and permit content requirements into

the

[[Page 24719]]

preconstruction review regulations and obtain EPA's approval of those

regulations.

4. 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

corrective actions (including legislative changes) prior to submitting

the corrected program.

If NJ fails to submit a complete corrective program for full

approval by December 16, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If NJ then fails to submit a complete corrective

program before the expiration of that 18-month period, EPA will apply

sanctions as required by Section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which will

remain in effect until EPA determines that NJ has corrected the

deficiencies by submitting a complete corrective program.

If EPA disapproves NJ's complete corrected program, EPA will apply

sanctions as required by Section 502(d)(2) on the date 18 months after

the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to that date, NJ

has submitted a revised program and EPA has determined that it

corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if NJ has

not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has

disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to the NJ program by the expiration of this

interim approval, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a federal

operating permit program for the State of New Jersey upon interim

approval expiration.

It should be noted that this interim approval is granted based on

the information submitted by the NJDEP on August 10, 1995 and

supplements subsequently received. Should the program approvability

status of NJ's program change in the future for any reasons including

changes in state laws or regulations or procedures which limit the

NJDEP's enforcement authority or program administration and

enforcement, EPA will revisit this approval and exercise its authority

as provided under 40 CFR Sec. 70.10 (b) or (c) to afford NJ an

opportunity to correct its program deficiencies or withdraw program

approval.

Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR Sec. 70.4(b),

encompass Section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for

delegation of Section 112 standards as promulgated by the 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, an expeditious compliance schedule, and adequate

enforcement ability, which are also requirements under Part 70. In a

letter dated November 15, 1995, NJDEP requested delegation through

112(l) of all existing 112 standards for Part 70 sources and

infrastructure programs. With respect to future 112 standards, NJDEP

intends to accept delegation of most, if not all, of the standards.

NJDEP will review each standard within 45 days of receiving notice from

EPA prior to accepting delegation. In the letter, NJDEP demonstrated

that they have sufficient legal authorities, adequate resources, the

capability for automatic delegation of future standards, and adequate

enforcement ability for implementation of Section 112 of the Act for

all Part 70 sources. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating interim

approval under Section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR Part 63.91 to grant New

Jersey approval for its program mechanism for receiving delegation of

all existing and future Section 112(d) standards for all Part 70

sources, and Section 112 infrastructure programs that are unchanged

from federal rules as promulgated.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the NJ submittal and other information relied upon for

the final interim approval, including the public comments received and

reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are contained in the docket 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 final interim approval. The docket is

available for public inspection at the location listed under the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this 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 permit programs

submitted to satisfy 40 CFR Part 70. Since these operating permit

programs were already adopted at the state level and today's action

does not introduce any additional requirements that are new to the

state program already in effect, no significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities is expected to occur as a result of today's

action.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual 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

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent

with statutory requirements. Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act

requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today

does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual

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.

Dated: May 5, 1996.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

Part 70, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

[[Page 24720]]

2. Appendix A to Part 70 is amended by adding the entry for New

Jersey in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating

Permit Programs

* * * * *

New Jersey

(a) The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

submitted an operating permit program on November 15, 1993, revised

on August 10, 1995, with supplements on August 28, 1995, November

15, 1995, December 4, 1995, and December 6, 1995; interim approval

effective on June 17, 1996; interim approval expires June 16, 1998.

(b) (Reserved)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-12347 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P