[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3766-3771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-928]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[WY-001; FRL-5134-4]
Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits
Program; State of Wyoming
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final interim approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating
Permits Program submitted by the State of Wyoming for the purpose of
complying with Federal requirements for an approvable State Program to
issue operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain
other sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting
information used in developing the final interim approval are available
for inspection during normal business hours at the following location:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 3767]]
Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Farris, 8ART-AP, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500,
Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 294-7539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of
the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 (part 70) require that States
develop and submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15,
1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1
year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs
pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which
together outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years.
If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2 years after the November
15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim program, it must establish
and implement a Federal program.
On September 23, 1994, EPA published a direct final rule in the
Federal Register promulgating interim approval of the Operating Permits
Program for the State of Wyoming (PROGRAM). See 59 FR 48802. The EPA
received adverse comments on the direct final rule, which are
summarized and addressed below. As stated in the Federal Register
notice, if adverse or critical comments were received by October 24,
1994, the effective date would be delayed and timely notice would be
published in the Federal Register. Therefore, due to receiving adverse
comments within the comment period, EPA withdrew the final rule (59 FR
60561, Nov. 25, 1994), and a proposed rule also published in the
Federal Register on September 23, 1994 served as the proposed rule for
this action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
document.
In this rulemaking EPA is taking final action to promulgate interim
approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM, and correct a typographical error
contained in 59 FR 48802 (see section II.B. below).
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
The Governor of Wyoming submitted an administratively complete
title V Operating Permit Program for the State of Wyoming on November
19, 1993. The Wyoming PROGRAM, including the operating permit
regulations (Section 30 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations (WAQSR)), substantially meets the requirements of 40 CFR
70.2 and 70.3 with respect to applicability; 40 CFR 70.4, 70.5, and
70.6 with respect to permit content including operational flexibility;
40 CFR 70.5 with respect to complete application forms and criteria
which define insignificant activities; 40 CFR 70.7 with respect to
public participation and minor permit modifications; and 40 CFR 70.11
with respect to requirements for enforcement authority.
A letter sent to the State dated May 10, 1994, identified areas in
which the Wyoming PROGRAM was deficient and the corrective actions that
were to be completed either prior to interim PROGRAM approval or prior
to full PROGRAM approval. In a letter dated June 7, 1994, which
included an Attorney General's opinion dated June 6, 1994, the State
addressed all EPA issues that would have prevented EPA from issuing
interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM. The State must address those
issues that require corrective action prior to full PROGRAM approval
within 18 months of EPA's interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM.
At the time of this notice, the State had not made an affirmative
showing of legal authority to regulate sources within the exterior
boundaries of Indian Reservations in Wyoming under the Act. Therefore,
interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM will not extend to lands within
the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations. Until the State makes
such a showing, part 70 sources within the exterior boundaries of
Indian Reservations in Wyoming will be subject to the federal operating
permit program to be promulgated in 40 CFR part 71, or subject to the
program of any Tribe delegated such authority under section 301(d) of
the Act. The EPA anticipates promulgating an Indian Air Regulation, at
which time how the State defines Indian lands could become an approval
issue.
B. Response to Comments
The comments received on the September 23, 1994 direct final rule
in the Federal Register promulgating interim approval of the Wyoming
PROGRAM, and EPA's response to those comments, are as follows:
Comment #1: The commenter objected to EPA's proposed approval of
Wyoming's preconstruction permitting program for purpose of
implementing section 112(g) of the Act during the transition period
between title V program approval and adoption of a State rule
implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations. The commenter argued
that there is no legal basis for delegating to Wyoming the section
112(g) program until EPA has promulgated a section 112(g) regulation
and the State has a section 112(g) program in place. In addition, the
commenter argued that the Wyoming program fails to address critical
threshold questions of when an emission increase is greater than de
minimis and when, if it is, it has been offset satisfactorily.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that
section 112(g) cannot take effect until after EPA has promulgated
implementing regulations. The statutory language in section 112(g)(2)
prohibits the modification, construction, or reconstruction of a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) source after the effective date of a
title V program unless maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
(determined on a case-by-case basis, if necessary) is met. The plain
meaning of this provision is that implementation of section 112(g) is a
title V requirement of the Act and that the prohibition takes effect
upon EPA's approval of the State's PROGRAM regardless of whether EPA or
a state has promulgated implementing regulations.
The EPA has acknowledged that states may encounter difficulties
implementing section 112(g) prior to the promulgation of final EPA
regulations and has provided guidance on the 112(g) process (see April
13, 1993 memorandum entitled, ``Title V Program Approval Criteria for
Section 112 Activities'' and June 28, 1994 memorandum entitled,
``Guidance for Initial Implementation of Section 112(g),'' signed by
John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.) In addition, EPA has issued guidance, in the form of a
proposed rule, which may be used to determine whether a physical or
operational change at a source is not a modification either because it
is below de minimis levels or because it has been offset by a decrease
of more hazardous emissions. See 59 FR 15004 (April 1, 1994). EPA
believes the proposed rule provides sufficient guidance to Wyoming and
its sources until such time as EPA's section 112(g) rulemaking
[[Page 3768]]
is finalized and subsequently adopted by the State.
The EPA is aware that Wyoming lacks a program designed specifically
to implement section 112(g). However, Wyoming does have a
preconstruction review program that can serve as a procedural vehicle
for establishing a case-by-case MACT or offset determination and making
these requirements federally enforceable. The EPA approval of Wyoming's
preconstruction review program clarifies that it may be used for this
purpose during the transition period to meet the requirements of
section 112(g).
The EPA believes that Wyoming's preconstruction review program will
be adequate because it will allow Wyoming to select control measures
that would meet MACT, as defined in section 112 of the Act, and
incorporate these measures into a federally enforceable preconstruction
permit. Wyoming's preconstruction permitting program allows permit
requirements to be established for all air contaminants (which is
broadly defined at Section 21 of the WAQSR) and includes all of the
HAPs listed in Section 112(b) of the Act.
Another consequence of the fact that Wyoming lacks a program
designed specifically to implement section 112(g) is that the
applicability criteria found in its preconstruction review program may
differ from the criteria in section 112(g). EPA will expect Wyoming to
utilize the statutory provisions of section 112(g) and the proposed
rule as guidance in determining when case-by-case MACT or offsets are
required. As noted in the June 28, 1994 guidance, EPA intends to defer
wherever possible to a State's judgement regarding applicability
determinations. This deference must be subject to obvious limitations.
For instance, a physical or operational change resulting in a net
increase in HAP emissions above 10 tons per year could not be viewed as
a de minimis increase under any interpretation of the Act. The EPA
would expect Wyoming to be able to issue a preconstruction permit
containing a case-by-case determination of MACT in such a case even if
review under its own preconstruction review program would not be
triggered.
Comment #2: The commenter questioned the need for Wyoming's title V
program enforcement authority to be based on State law defining civil
individual and corporate liability and asserted that EPA's requirement
that the State program include strict liability for corporate officers,
directors or agents in civil actions is not compelled by the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
EPA Response: The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (WEQA) states
in section 35-11-901(a) that ``Any person who violates, or any
director, officer or agent of a corporate permittee who willfully and
knowingly authorizes, orders or carries out the violation of any
provision of this act * * * is liable to either a penalty of not to
exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for each day during which
violation continues * * *.'' On its face, section 35-11-901(a)
establishes a more stringent burden of proof for civil violations for
corporate directors, officers, or agents than for other persons. Based
on EPA's position that this distinction is inconsistent with title V of
the Act and part 70, EPA stated in the Federal Register notice
proposing interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM that section 35-11-
901(a) needs to be revised to include language that provides strict
liability for corporate officers, directors or agents in civil actions.
The commenter stated that ``the federal statutory standard for
approval of state permit programs does not require strict corporate
liability in civil actions. Under 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(5)(E), Congress
mandated only that states seeking approval of permit programs have
``adequate authority'' to ``enforce permits * * * including authority
to recover civil penalties in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000
per day of violation.'' There is nothing in the State's statutory or
regulatory scheme that suggests that Wyoming lacks either the will or
the ability to impose civil penalties to enforce operating permits, as
mandated by the Act. EPA's insistence on statute revision is,
therefore, an example of Agency overreaching.''
However, section 502(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires the EPA to
promulgate ``* * * regulations establishing the minimum elements of a
permit program to be administered by any air pollution control agency.
These elements shall include each of the following: * * * (5) A
requirement that the permitting authority have adequate authority to: *
* * (E) enforce permits, permit fee requirements, and the requirement
to obtain a permit, including authority to recover civil penalties in a
maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day for each violation, and
appropriate criminal penalties * * *.''
Pursuant to section 502(b)(5)(E), EPA promulgated 40 CFR
70.11(a)(3) which requires that the state's part 70 programs contain
the enforcement authority ``To assess or sue to recover in court civil
penalties * * * according to the following: (i) Civil penalties shall
be recoverable for the violation of any applicable requirement; any
permit condition; any fee or filing requirement; any duty to allow or
carry out inspection, entry or monitoring activities or, any regulation
or orders issued by the permitting authority. These penalties shall be
recoverable in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day per
violation. State law shall not include mental state as an element of
proof for civil violations.''
It is well established that the Act imposes a strict liability
standard for assessing compliance violations. United States v. JBA
Motorcars, 839 F. Supp. 1572 (D.C.Fla. 1993). Further, strict liability
is essential to meet the purpose of the Act to protect and improve the
quality of the nation's air. United States v. B & W Investment
Properties, No. 94-1892, (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 1994), LEXIS 29713.
Wyoming's provision which requires a mental state as an element of
proof for corporate civil violations is inconsistent with the general
purpose of the Act. More specifically, Wyoming's provision is
inconsistent with the basic framework for effective enforcement of the
title V program established at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i) which does not
distinguish between corporate and personal liability. The commenter's
objection to a requirement clearly articulated in part 70 should have
been raised in a challenge to the rule itself, rather than in the
context of an action to approve a state program pursuant to that rule.
Finally, it is EPA's view that requiring a mental state as an element
of proof for civil violations significantly hinders corporate
compliance enforcement. As such, the provisions are insufficient to
meet section 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(i) which requires Wyoming to issue
permits and assure compliance with each applicable requirement and the
requirements of part 70.
Based on the above, it is EPA's position that section 35-11-901(a)
of the WEQA must be revised to require strict liability for civil
violations for corporate entities. Because this provision is
inconsistent with the Act and the regulations thereunder and adversely
affects the Permitting Authority's ability to enforce title V
requirements against corporate entities, this issue is a basis for
granting Wyoming interim approval for the PROGRAM. Accordingly,
Wyoming's PROGRAM must be revised to reflect strict liability for
corporate entities to receive full PROGRAM approval.
Comment #3: The commenter objected to EPA's proposed action related
to Wyoming's special rule exempting Research and Development (R&D)
facilities and contended that EPA has not offered a compelling basis
for
[[Page 3769]]
changing the Agency's current rules governing R&D facilities.
EPA Response: The part 70 final rule (57 FR 32250, July 21, 1992)
provides no special treatment or exemption from applicability for R&D
facilities. The preamble to the proposed part 70 rule took comment on
how to interpret the section 501(2) definition of ``major source'' (see
56 FR 21724, May 10, 1991). The preamble included a statement that
aggregation of sources by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
at the source site to determine whether a source would be major is the
approach intended by Congress and that aggregation by SIC code should
be done in a manner consistent with New Source Review (NSR) procedures.
The preamble further clarified that NSR procedures include the
requirement that any equipment used to support the main activity at a
site would also be considered as part of the same major source
regardless of the 2-digit SIC code for that equipment.
The preamble to the final rule (57 FR 32264) stated that ``Although
EPA is not exempting R&D operations from title V requirements at this
time, in many cases states will have the flexibility to treat an R&D
facility as separate from the manufacturing facility with which it is
co-located.'' EPA wishes to clarify that this is the case only where
the R&D facility is not a support facility. If the R&D facility is a
support facility (co-located with a separate source, under common
ownership or control and 50% of the output of the R&D facility was used
by the main activity), the emissions from this R&D facility must be
included, along with all other emissions at the source, to determine if
the source is ``major'' and thus applicable to Section 30 of the
Wyoming rule. Prior to full PROGRAM approval, Wyoming must revise their
rule to be consistent with part 70.
Comment #4: The commenter objected to EPA's dismissal of the
Wyoming variance provision as not having any effect on the compliance
requirements of the source or on enforcement actions against a source
that has obtained such a variance from the State.
EPA Response: The EPA recognizes that Wyoming has the authority to
use variances as a mechanism for establishing compliance schedules. The
EPA wishes to clarify that it cannot recognize procedures for the
issuance of state variances in the title V program and that, although
the terms of a variance may be incorporated into a title V permit as a
compliance schedule, a title V compliance schedule does not sanction
noncompliance with an applicable requirement. Wyoming has the
responsibility under title V to establish a compliance schedule for
sources that are out of compliance and place that schedule into the
permit. The title V compliance schedule is properly established through
appropriate enforcement action and not necessarily through variances.
Wyoming does not need to take any action on this provision as it has
not been identified as an approval issue.
Comment #5: The commenter objected to EPA's decision to grant
interim approval to a program that does not provide emission trading
under a permit cap in accordance with 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii) and
contends that EPA has no authority to grant interim approval to any
program that lacks this authority.
EPA Response: The EPA agrees that Wyoming must provide emission
trading under a permit cap in its part 70 program. The EPA has
determined that this deficiency is an issue that must be corrected
before full approval may be granted and that this deficiency does not
interfere with the EPA's ability to grant interim approval. 40 CFR
70.4(d)(3)(viii) requires that programs provide operational flexibility
consistent with 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) before the program may be granted
interim approval. The EPA notes that the Wyoming program does implement
another required type of operational flexibility, 40 CFR
70.4(b)(12)(i). In addition, Wyoming has submitted a letter, dated
November 16, 1994, which clarifies their authority to provide emission
trading under a permit cap. Specifically, the State's November 1994
letter stated that Sections 30(h)(i)(H) and 30(h)(i)(J) of the State's
operating permit regulations provide authority for the State to issue
permits ``allowing for the trading of emissions increases and decreases
in the permitted facility solely for the purpose of complying with a
federally enforceable emissions cap that is established in the permit
independent of otherwise applicable requirements.'' Thus, the State has
provided clear authority to implement emissions trading under a permit
cap. The EPA has determined that the Wyoming PROGRAM substantially
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) because it implements the
mandatory operational flexibility provision of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(i)
and has adequate authority to issue permits to implement 40 CFR
70.4(b)(12)(iii).
Comment #6: The commenter stated that they did not have a problem
with the way ``prompt'' is defined for deviation reporting in the
Wyoming program but added that they did have a problem with the way the
definition has been handled in other interim approval notices.
EPA Response: The Wyoming PROGRAM allows the State to define
``prompt'' for deviation reporting in each individual permit. Since the
commenter did not have a problem with the way ``prompt'' reporting of
deviations is handled in Wyoming, EPA will not respond to that comment.
In addition, it would be inappropriate in this notice to comment on how
the definition of ``prompt'' was handled in notices for other states'
part 70 approvals.
Comment #7: The commenter noted a typographical error in the
Federal Register notice proposing interim approval of the Wyoming
PROGRAM (59 FR 48802) on page 48804 under paragraph #4 titled
``Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the
Act.'' Part b of this paragraph titled ``Implementation of 112(g) Upon
Program Approval'' refers to Wyoming's preconstruction permitting
program found in section 24, which is an incorrect reference. The
correct reference to the Wyoming preconstruction permitting program
should be section 21.
EPA Response: The reference to section 24 was incorrect and should
have read ``section 21''.
C. Final Action
The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits
program submitted by the State of Wyoming on November 19, 1993. The
State must make the following changes to receive full approval: (1)
Section 30(a)(ix) must be revised to assure R&D support facilities are
included in major source determinations; (2) Sections 35-11-901(a), (m)
and (n) of the WEQA, which appear to reduce the penalty for civil
violations committed by surface coal mine operations from a maximum of
ten thousand dollars per day to five thousand dollars per day, must be
revised, or clarified in an Attorney General's Opinion, to indicate
that the five thousand dollar penalty relates only to activities
subject to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act; (3) Section
35-11-901(a) of the WEQA must be revised to include language that
provides strict liability for corporate officers, directors or agents
in civil actions; (4) Section 35-11-901(j) of the WEQA must be revised
to provide for a per day, per violation penalty for false statements or
tampering with monitoring devices; (5) Section 30(c)(ii)(A)(III)(1)
must be revised to include language similar to the general provision in
40 CFR 70.5(c), or the State must provide an Attorney General's
[[Page 3770]]
opinion, to clarify that the State will ensure that all applicable
requirements are identified for any insignificant activities; (6)
Section 30(i)(ii) regarding general permits must be revised, or the
State must provide an Attorney General's Opinion, to clarify the public
notice and comment requirements for general permits; (7) In the Federal
Register notice proposing interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM, EPA
stated that, prior to full PROGRAM approval, the State must clarify
that Section 30(h)(i)(J) provides the State with authority to implement
emissions trading under a permit cap, which is required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(12)(iii), or revise Section 30 to provide such authority. In a
letter dated November 16, 1994, the State of Wyoming clarified that it
has the authority to implement the emissions trading under permit caps
provision of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii). EPA concurs with the State's
authority to implement this provision; however, we are currently
reevaluating the State's regulations to determine if a regulatory
revision is also needed, prior to full PROGRAM approval, to assure
consistency with the provisions of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii); (8) The
State must provide a definition of ``Indian lands.''
Refer to the technical support document accompanying this
rulemaking for a detailed explanation of each PROGRAM deficiency.
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until
February 19, 1997. During this interim approval period, the State of
Wyoming is protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to
promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal operating permits program
in the State of Wyoming. 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.
If the State of Wyoming fails to submit a complete corrective
program for full approval by August 19, 1996, EPA will start an 18-
month clock for mandatory sanctions. If the State of Wyoming then fails
to submit a corrective program that EPA finds complete before the
expiration of that 18-month period, EPA will be required to apply one
of the sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which will remain in
effect until EPA determines that the State of Wyoming has corrected the
deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if
the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of the State
of Wyoming, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply after the
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined
that the State of Wyoming had come into compliance. In any case, if,
six months after application of the first sanction, the State of
Wyoming still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has found
complete, a second sanction will be required.
If EPA disapproves the State of Wyoming's complete corrective
program, EPA will be required to apply one of the section 179(b)
sanctions on the date 18 months after the effective date of the
disapproval, unless prior to that date the State of Wyoming has
submitted a revised program and EPA has determined that it corrected
the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if the
Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of the State of
Wyoming, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall apply after the
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determines
that the State of Wyoming has come into compliance. In all cases, if,
six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the State of Wyoming
has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined corrects
the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.
In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted
any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if the
State of Wyoming 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 State of Wyoming program by
the expiration of this interim approval and that expiration occurs
after November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a
Federal permits program for the State of Wyoming upon interim approval
expiration.
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program contain
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part
70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating approval under section
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal
standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to
sources covered by the part 70 program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon
for the final interim approval, including public comments received and
reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are maintained in a docket 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 permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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: December 27, 1994.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 70, chapter I, 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.
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding the entry for Wyoming
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
Wyoming
(a) Department of Environmental Quality: submitted on November 19,
1993; effective on February 21, 1995;
[[Page 3771]]
interim approval expires February 19, 1997.
(b) Reserved.
[FR Doc. 95-928 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P