Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permits Program; Jefferson County, Kentucky

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[KY-JEFF-95-01; FRL-5334-6]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permits

Program; Jefferson County, Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval, or proposed interim approval in the

alternative.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to grant full approval to the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the Jefferson County, Kentucky Air Pollution

Control District (District) located in the geographic area of Jefferson

County, Kentucky. Alternatively, EPA proposes to grant interim approval

if specified changes are not adopted prior to final promulgation of

this rulemaking. The Jefferson County, Kentucky program was submitted

for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements which mandate

that state and local agencies 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

December 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Carla

E. Pierce, Chief, Air Toxics Unit/Title V Program Development Team, Air

Programs Branch, at the EPA Region 4 office listed below.

Copies of the District's submittal and other supporting information

used in developing the proposed full approval are available for

inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE,

Atlanta, GA 30365. Interested persons wanting to examine these

documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at

least 24 hours before the visiting day.

[[Page 58034]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonardo Ceron, Title V Program

Development Team, Air Programs Branch, Air Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,

345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-3555 extension

4196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

As required under title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(Clean Air Act (``Act'') sections 501-507), EPA has promulgated rules

that define the minimum elements of an approvable operating permits

program and the corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA

will approve, oversee, and withdraw approval of state or local agency

operating permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). These

rules are codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70.

Title V and part 70 require states or authorized local agencies to

develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to

all major stationary sources and to certain other sources.

The Act requires that states or authorized local agencies develop

and submit these programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act

to approve or disapprove each program within one year after receiving

the submittal. If the state's or authorized local agency'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 material. EPA received the

District's title V operating permit program submittal on February 1,

1994. The District provided EPA with additional materials in

supplemental submittals dated November 15, 1994; May 3, 1995; and July

14, 1995. Because these supplements materially changed the District's

title V program submittal, EPA extended the review period and will work

expeditiously to promulgate a final decision on the District's program.

EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and

the part 70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval

or disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program interim approval for

a period of up to two years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by

November 15, 1995, or by the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal operating permits program.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of District Submission

The District has requested full approval of its part 70 operating

permits program, which covers the partial geographic area of Jefferson

County, Kentucky within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. EPA has concluded

that the operating permit program submitted by the District meets the

requirements of title V and part 70, and proposes to grant full/interim

approval to the program.

What follows are brief explanations indicating how the submittal

meets the requirements of part 70. The reader may consult the Technical

Support Document (TSD) contained in the docket at the address noted

above for a more detailed explanation of these topics.

1. Program Support Materials

Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Act, the Governor of each state

must develop and submit to the Administrator an operating permits

program under state or local law or under an interstate compact meeting

the requirements of title V of the Act. The Governor of the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Brereton C. Jones, requested full approval of

the District's operating permits program through the Commonwealth's

title V submittal. The Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County

has full authority to administer the District's program for the

geographic area of Jefferson County, Kentucky.

The District's part 70 program submittal includes section II

entitled ``Complete Program Description'' which addresses the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(1) by describing how the District

intends to carry out its responsibilities under the part 70

regulations. The program description has been deemed to be appropriate

for meeting the requirement of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(1).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3), the Governor is required to submit a

legal opinion from the Attorney General (or the attorney for the state/

local air pollution control agency that has independent legal counsel)

demonstrating adequate authority to carry out all aspects of a title V

operating permits program. The District submitted a legal opinion from

the Commissioner of the Department of Law at the Kentucky Natural

Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet and a supplemental legal

opinion demonstrating adequate legal authority as required by Federal

law. See section V of the District's submittal dated January 31, 1994,

and section II.2 of the submittal dated July 14, 1995.

Section 70.4(b)(4) requires the submission of relevant permitting

program documentation not contained in the regulations, such as permit

application forms, permit forms and relevant guidance to assist in the

District's implementation of its permit program. Section II of the

District submittal dated January 31, 1994, includes the permit

application forms and permit forms. It has been determined that the

application forms and the permit forms meet the requirements of 40 CFR

70.5 and 40 CFR 70.6, respectively.

2. Regulations and Program Implementation

The District has submitted regulation 2.16 entitled ``Title V

Operating Permits'' and Regulation 2.08 entitled ``Emissions Fees,

Permit Fees, And Permit Renewal Procedures'' for implementing the part

70 program as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2). Sufficient evidence of

their procedurally correct adoption is included in Section I of the

District's title V program submittal. Copies of all applicable state

statutes and regulations which authorize the part 70 program, including

those governing the District administrative procedures, were submitted

with the District's program.

The District's operating permits regulations closely follow the

Federal part 70 regulations. The following requirements set out in the

part 70 program are met by the District's program and are specifically

addressed in the following sections of Regulation 2.16: (A)

applicability requirements, (40 CFR 70.3(a)): Section 1; (B) permit

applications requirements, (40 CFR 70.5): Section 3, (c) provisions for

permit content, (40 CFR 70.6): Section 4; (D) operational flexibility

provisions,(40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)): Section 5.8; (E) permit review by EPA

and affected states, (40 CFR 70.8): Section 5; (F) provisions for

permit issuance, renewals, reopenings and revisions, (40 CFR 70.7):

Section 5.

Regarding the District's rules for permit revisions, it is EPA's

understanding that any changes that affect a federally enforceable term

or would change a federally enforceable term must be processed through

the ``Minor Permit Revision'' provisions as specified in the District's

Regulation 2.16, and therefore would be federally approvable. EPA

further understands the District's regulations provide for emissions

trading under federal enforceable permit caps, as required by

70.4(b)(12)iii.

[[Page 58035]]

The District has established an enforcement agreement with the

Commonwealth of Kentucky to carry out provisions for the enforcement

authority requirements of 40 CFR 70.11. The Commonwealth's KRS 77.235

and 77.240, satisfy the requirements of part 70. The District has also

established Regulation 2.07, which satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR

70.7(h), for the public participation requirements.

Section 70.4(b)(2) requires state and local agencies to include in

their part 70 programs any criteria used to determine insignificant

activities or emission levels for the purpose of determining complete

applications. Section 70.5(c) states that an application for a part 70

permit may not omit information needed to determine the applicability

of, or to impose, any applicable requirement, or to evaluate

appropriate fee amounts. Section 70.5(c) also states that EPA may

approve, as part of a state or local program, a list of insignificant

activities and emissions levels which need not be included in permit

applications. Under part 70, a state or local agency must request and

EPA may approve as part of that state or local's program any activity

or emission level that the state or local wishes to consider

insignificant. Part 70, however does not establish emissions thresholds

for insignificant activities. EPA has accepted emissions thresholds of

five tons per year for criteria pollutants and the lesser of 1000

pounds per year or section 112(g) de minimis levels for HAPs as

reasonable.

The District established Regulation 2.02, section 2, entitled

``Exemptions'' which specifically provide for certain exemptions for

emission units and activities, as listed in this regulation, from

application and permit requirements. Notwithstanding Regulation 2.02,

the District's Regulation 2.16 requires title V permit applications to

include all information needed to determine the applicability of or to

impose an applicable requirement. Information is also required for the

collection of any permit fees owed under the approved fee schedule. For

insignificant activities which are exempt because of size or production

rate, a list of such insignificant activities must be included in the

permit application according to Regulation 2.16. The District has

defined insignificant activities as: ``those facilities exempted from

permitting requirements pursuant to Regulation 2.02, provided that such

facilities are not subject to an affected facility category-specific

applicable requirement.'' EPA has determined that the District's

insignificant activities provisions will not interfere with

implementation of an adequate title V program.

Part 70 requires prompt reporting of deviations from any permit

requirements. Section 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. Although the

permit program regulations should define ``prompt'' for purposes of

administrative efficiency and clarity, an acceptable alternative is to

define ``prompt'' in each individual permit. EPA believes that

``prompt'' should generally be defined as requiring reporting within

two to ten days of the deviation. Two to ten days is sufficient time in

most cases to protect public health and safety as well as to provide a

forewarning of potential problems. For sources with a low level of

excess emissions, a longer time period may be acceptable. However,

``prompt'' reporting must be more frequent than the semiannual

reporting requirement, given that this is a distinct reporting

obligation under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Where ``prompt'' is defined

in the individual permit but not in the program regulations, EPA may

veto permits that do not require sufficiently prompt reporting of

deviations.

The District's Regulation 1.07 ``Emissions During Shutdowns,

Malfunctions, Startups, and Emergencies'' specifies how a source should

notify the District in the event of a planned shutdown or startup,

malfunction, and/or emergency. Prompt reporting for a planned shutdown

or startup is required three days prior to a planned event. If a

shutdown or startup is required by a facility where the owner or

operator could not reasonably notify the District three days before the

event then the facility is required to report such an event to the

District no later than one day after such an event has begun. During

emergency or malfunction events a facility is required to report by

telephone to the District no later than one hour following the start of

the malfunction or emergency. Additionally, the District should also be

notified in writing of a malfunction or emergency within two days of

such event.

The provisions addressing shutdowns, malfunctions, startups, and

emergencies in Regulation 1.07, section 2.1, provide sources the legal

mechanism of affirmative defense, to address enforcement actions

brought about as a result of excess emissions from shutdowns, startups,

or malfunctions which temporarily exceed standards. However, 40 CFR

70.6(g) only allows sources to use the legal mechanism of affirmative

defense when excess emissions are emitted from a source during an

emergency situation. Based on the District's deviation from the Federal

requirements, EPA will not recognize or approve the affirmative defense

provisions in the District's Regulation 1.07, section 2.1. However, the

District has committed to the adoption of language which clarifies

Regulation 1.07, section 2.1 by only allowing sources to use the

affirmative defense in situations where excess emissions are a result

of emergency situations, as specified in 40 CFR 70.6(g).

Additionally, Regulation 1.07, section 2.2 provides for the

classification of excess emissions from emergencies to be deemed not in

violation of specified standards. However, 40 CFR Part 70 requires any

emissions not permitted at a source to be in violation of permit terms

and conditions. Specifically, 40 CFR 70.6(g) classifies excess

emissions due to emergency situations as a violation of an existing

permit. Based on the District's deviation from this Federal requirement

in part 70, EPA will not recognize or approve the classification of

emergency emissions as not in violation of a permit within the

District's Regulation 1.07, section 2.2. However, the District has

committed to the adoption of language which clarifies Regulation 1.07,

section 2.2 by classifying excess emissions due to emergencies as

violations in section 2.2.

Based on the District's proposed adoption of changes to Regulation

1.07 which were outlined in a letter to EPA dated November 6, 1995, and

as a condition of full approval, the District plans to expeditiously

adopt the proposed changes to Regulation 1.07, prior to EPA's final

action on the District's title V program. Alternatively, the District

will be required to modify Regulation 1.07 during the specified interim

approval period.

In accordance with procedures specified in the Commonwealth of

Kentucky KRS 77.225-77.230 and 77.245-77.270, and as specified in the

District's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Regulation 1.08, section 4,

entitled ``Variance Procedures,'' the District maintains authority to

grant individual variances. This authority may be exercised by the

District upon request by any person or if the time necessary to correct

unlawful emissions is anticipated to exceed 30 days. The EPA regards

this provision as wholly external to the program submitted for approval

under part 70, and consequently is proposing to take no

[[Page 58036]]

action on this provision of the District's regulations. The EPA has no

authority to approve provisions of the District's law, such as the

variance provisions referred to, which are inconsistent with the Act.

The EPA does not recognize the ability of a permitting authority to

grant relief from the duty to comply with a Federally enforceable part

70 permit, except where such relief is granted through procedures

allowed by part 70. A part 70 permit may be issued or revised

(consistent with part 70 permitting procedures) to incorporate those

terms of a variance that are consistent with applicable requirements. A

part 70 permit may also incorporate, via part 70 issuance or

modification procedures, the schedule of compliance set forth in a

variance. However, EPA reserves the right to pursue enforcement of

applicable requirements notwithstanding the existence of a compliance

schedule in a permit to operate. This is consistent with 40 CFR

70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule of compliance ``shall

be supplemental to, and shall not sanction noncompliance with, the

applicable requirements in which it is based.''

The District's title V program submittal and TSD are available for

review for more detailed information. The aforementioned TSD contains

the detailed analysis of the District's program and describes the

manner in which the program meets all of the operating permit program

requirements of 40 CFR part 70.

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each permitting

authority collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and

indirect costs required to develop and administer a title V operating

permits program. Each title V program submittal must contain either a

detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that

aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per

ton per year (tpy), as adjusted annually for inflation. The $25 per ton

amount is presumed, for program approval, to be sufficient to cover all

reasonable program costs and is thus referred to as the ``presumptive

minimum.''

The District has elected to assess the annual presumptive minimum

fee as adjusted by the CPI each year beginning in the year of program

approval by EPA. The total assessed fee will be calculated by

multiplying the presumptive minimum amount by the total actual

emissions of a source. For the fiscal year of 1996 (July 1, 1995,

through June 30, 1996) a presumptive amount of $37.70 shall be used to

calculate emissions fees. A maximum of 4,000 tpy of actual emissions of

a single pollutant will be counted toward the total emissions of a

source. EPA has determined that the District's assessed fees will

adequately fund the anticipated cost of the program consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.9.

4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority and/or Commitments for Section 112 Implementation. In

its program submittal, the District has demonstrated adequate legal

authority to implement and enforce section 112 requirements through the

title V permit. The District has also committed to ``adopt Federal rule

or standard when the Federal rule is promulgated.'' EPA has determined

that this commitment, in conjunction with the District's broad

statutory and regulatory authority, adequately assures compliance with

all section 112 requirements. For further rationale on this

interpretation, please refer to the TSD.

b. Implementation of Section 112(g) Upon Program Approval. EPA

issued an interpretive notice on February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which

outlines EPA's revised interpretation of section 112(g) applicability.

The notice postpones the effective date of section 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) interpretative notice explains that EPA is

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 and local agencies time to adopt rules implementing the

Federal rule, and that EPA will provide for any such additional delay

in the final section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides

for such an additional postponement of section 112(g), the District

must have a Federally enforceable mechanism for implementing section

112(g) during the period between promulgation of the Federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of the implementing District regulations.

EPA is aware that the District lacks a program designed

specifically to implement section 112(g). However, the District

currently has a preconstruction program that can serve as an adequate

implementation vehicle during the transition period because it would

allow the District to select control measures that would meet the

maximum achievable control technology (MACT), as defined in section

112, and incorporate these measures into a Federally enforceable

preconstruction permit.

For this reason, EPA proposes to approve the use of the District's

preconstruction program found in Regulation 2.03 under the authority of

title V and part 70, solely for the purpose of implementing section

112(g) to the extent necessary during the transition period between

section 112(g) promulgation and adoption of a District rule

implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations. Although section 112(l)

generally provides authority for approval of state and local air

programs to implement section 112(g), title V and section 112(g)

provide for this limited approval because of the direct linkage between

the implementation of section 112(g) and title V. The scope of this

approval is narrowly limited to section 112(g) and does not confer or

imply approval for purposes of any other provision under the Act (e.g.,

section 110). This approval will be without effect if EPA decides in

the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not subject to the

requirements of the rule until District 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 District to adopt regulations consistent with the Federal

requirements.

c. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated.

The requirements for part 70 program 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 title V sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the

District's program contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for

implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also

requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA also proposes to grant

approval, under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, of the District's

program for receiving delegation of future section 112 standards and

programs that are unchanged from the Federal requirements as

promulgated. In addition, EPA proposes delegation of all existing

standards and programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for part 70 sources

and non-part 70 sources.1

\1\ The radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section 112 regulation and therefore,

also an applicable requirement under the District's operating

permits program for part 70 sources. There is not yet a Federal

definition of ``major'' for radionuclide sources. Therefore, until a

major source definition for radionuclide is promulgated, no source

would be a major section 112 source solely due to its radionuclide

emissions. However, a radionuclide source may, in the interim, be a

major source under part 70 for another reason, thus requiring a part

70 permit. EPA will work with the District in the development of its

radionuclide program to ensure that permits are issued in a timely

manner.

[[Page 58037]]

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

The District has informed EPA that it intends to accept the

delegation of future section 112 standards using the mechanisms of

adoption-by-reference and case-by-case delegation. The details of the

District's use of these delegation mechanisms are set forth in a letter

dated August 9, 1995, submitted by the District as a title V program

addendum.

d. Commitment to Implement Title IV of the Act. On June 21, 1995,

the District's acid rain rule for the Phase II permitting of acid rain

sources became District-effective. The District incorporated by

reference 40 CFR part 72 into Regulation 6.47 and 7.82, which was

submitted to EPA on July 11, 1995. The District has also committed to

the incorporation of amendments or additions to the Federal Acid Rain

rule as promulgated by EPA.

B. Proposed Actions

1. Full Approval

EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permits program

submitted to EPA by the Jefferson County, Kentucky Air Pollution

Control District, if appropriate revisions consistent with 40 CFR

70.6(g) are incorporated into the District's Regulation 1.07, sections

2.1 & 2.2, and adopted prior to the final promulgation of this

rulemaking. EPA has determined that the District's program is otherwise

adequate to meet the minimum elements of the part 70 requirements for

an operating permits program in a partial geographic area.

2. Interim Approval

Alternatively, EPA is proposing to grant interim approval under 40

CFR 70.4(d) to the District's operating permits program if the changes

required for full approval, as described above, are not made prior to

final promulgation of this rulemaking. EPA can grant interim approval

because the District's program substantially meets the requirements of

part 70 as discussed in section II(A) of this notice. The interim

approval issues noted above will not prevent the District from issuing

permits that are consistent with the part 70 program.

If EPA grants interim approval to the District's program, the

interim approval would extend for two years following the effective

date of final interim approval, and could not be renewed. During the

interim approval period, the District would be protected from

sanctions, and EPA would not be obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal permits program for the District. Permits issued

under a program with interim approval are fully effective with respect

to part 70. The 12-month time period for submittal of permit

applications by sources subject to part 70 requirements and the three-

year time period for processing the initial permit applications begin

upon the effective date of final interim approval.

Following the granting of final interim approval, if District fails

to submit a complete corrective program for full approval by the date

six months before expiration of the interim approval, EPA would start

an 18-month clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District then fails

to submit a corrective program that EPA finds complete before the

expiration of that 18-month period, EPA is required to apply one of the

sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which will remain in effect

until EPA determines that the District has corrected the deficiencies

by submitting a complete corrective program.

3. Other Actions

EPA proposes to approve the District's preconstruction review

program found in Regulation 2.03, under the authority of title V and

part 70 solely for the purpose of implementing section 112(g) to the

extent necessary during the transition period between 112(g)

promulgation and adoption of the District's regulation implementing

EPA's section 112(g) regulations.

As discussed above in section II.A.4.c, EPA is proposing to grant

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, to the District's

program for receiving delegation of section 112 standards and programs

that are unchanged from Federal rules as promulgated. In addition, EPA

proposes to delegate existing standards and programs under 40 CFR parts

61 and 63 for both part 70 sources and non-part 70 sources.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed full/interim

approval. Copies of the District's submittal and other information

relied upon for the proposed full/interim approval are contained in

docket number KY-JEFF-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 full/interim approval. The principal purposes of the

docket are:

To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate

documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval

process; and

To serve as the record in case of judicial review. EPA will

consider any comments received by December 26, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

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 permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this action does

not impose any new requirements, it does not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under 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 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.

[[Page 58038]]

Dated: November 8, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-28489 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P