Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; State of Wyoming

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