94-27683. Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Programs in Washington  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-27683]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: November 9, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 70
    
    [AD-FRL-5103-8]
    
     
    
    Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
    Programs in Washington
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final interim approval.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits 
    program submitted by the State of Washington 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. The Washington program includes submittals by the 
    Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Washington Energy 
    Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), and seven local air 
    authorities: the Benton-Franklin Counties Clean Air Authority (BFCCAA), 
    the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA), the Olympic Air 
    Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA), the Puget Sound Air Pollution 
    Control Agency (PSAPCA), the Spokane County Air Pollution Control 
    Authority (SCAPCA), the Southwest Air Pollution Control Authority 
    (SWAPCA), and the Yakima County Clean Air Authority (YCCAA).
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Copies of Washington'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, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
    Seattle, Washington.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Waddell, U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-082, Seattle, Washington 
    98101, (206) 553-4303
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background and Purpose
    
    Introduction
    
        Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (sections 501-507 
    of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')) and implementing regulations at 40 
    Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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 one year 
    after receiving the submittal. 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 two years after the November 
    15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim program, it must establish 
    and implement a Federal program.
        On August 18, 1994, EPA proposed interim approval of the operating 
    permits program for Ecology, EFSEC, NWAPA, OAPCA, PSAPCA, SCAPCA, and 
    SWAPCA. The same Federal Register notice proposed disapproval of the 
    programs for BFCCAA and YCCAA and, in the alternative, interim approval 
    of these programs if certain regulatory changes were made before EPA 
    took final action on the proposal. See 59 FR 42552 (Aug. 18, 1994). EPA 
    received eleven public comments on the proposal. In this notice EPA is 
    taking final action on its proposal to promulgate interim approval of 
    the operating permits program for Ecology, EFSEC, and all seven local 
    air authorities in Washington (collectively, ``the local air 
    authorities'').
    
    II. Final Action and Implications
    
    A. Analysis of State Submission and Response to Public Comments
    
        Both BFCCAA and YCCAA made the regulatory changes necessary to 
    receive interim approval. The board of directors of BFCCAA repealed 
    BFCCAA Reg. 1, Secs. 4.01, 4.02, 4.04, 4.05, 4.06, and 4.07 on August 
    18, 1994. The revised regulations were submitted to the Washington 
    State register and became effective on September 23, 1994. On September 
    14, 1994, the board of directors of YCCAA repealed YCCAA Reg. 1, 
    Secs. 6.02, 6.04, 6.05, 6.07, and 6.08; revised YCCAA Reg. 1, 
    Sec. 12.01 to provide that the identified provisions of the Washington 
    State Administrative Code are incorporated by reference unless the 
    YCCAA regulation is more stringent; Revised YCCAA Reg. 1, Sec. 12.02 so 
    that the identified provisions of Federal law are incorporated by 
    reference. The revised regulations were submitted to the Washington 
    State register and became effective on October 22, 1994. The revised 
    regulations for BFCCAA and YCCAA were submitted by the State of 
    Washington on September 29, 1994 as an amendment to the Washington 
    Title V program.
        EPA received eleven public comments on the proposed interim 
    approval of the Washington program, including comments from the 
    Washington Department of Ecology and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. No 
    commenters objected to approval of the Washington permit program, 
    although one commenter requested that the program not be approved 
    before November 15, 1994 because of the substantial time needed to 
    complete permit applications.
    1. Insignificant Emissions Units
        Most of the commenters stated that the insignificant emissions 
    units provisions of the State operating permit regulation (WAC 173-401-
    200(16) and 173-401-530) should be granted full approval rather than 
    interim approval. These commenters disagreed with EPA's interpretation 
    that no unit for which there is an applicable requirement could be 
    defined as ``insignificant.'' They further stated that such an 
    interpretation would prevent Washington and most other States from 
    granting any relief for insignificant emission units, which they argue 
    is inconsistent with the intent of Part 70. The result would be that 
    all emissions, regardless of size and environmental impact, would be 
    subject to all Part 70 requirements, including periodic monitoring, 
    reporting, recordkeeping and compliance certification. Permit 
    applications would have to describe emissions from all units and 
    responsible officials would be required to conduct extensive due 
    diligence efforts in order to certify the compliance of emission units 
    that emit very small quantities of pollutants. Commenters emphasized 
    that this was an unreasonable regulatory burden that would result in 
    excessive paperwork and would likely decrease the ability of permitting 
    agencies to effectively enforce Title V permits because inspectors 
    would have to read through numerous pages of specifications and 
    requirements to determine which emission units actually have permit 
    conditions.
        EPA maintains, however, that Title V and the Part 70 rules preclude 
    the exemption of emission units as ``insignificant'' when such units 
    are subject to an applicable requirement. Section 504(a) of the Act 
    requires that ``each permit issued under this title shall include 
    enforceable emission limitations and standards, a schedule of 
    compliance, a requirement that the permittee submit to the permitting 
    authority, no less often than every 6 months, the results of any 
    required monitoring, and such other conditions as are necessary to 
    assure compliance with applicable requirements of the Act, including 
    the requirements of the applicable implementation plan.'' (emphasis 
    added). Section 70.6(a)(1) provides that each permit shall include 
    ``emission limitations and standards, including those operational 
    requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable 
    requirements at the time of permit issuance.'' Furthermore, 
    Sec. 70.6(c)(1) requires that each permit shall contain ``compliance, 
    certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
    requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and 
    conditions of the permit.'' The fact that an emission unit may emit 
    only small quantities of pollutants does not provide a basis to exempt 
    it from the fundamental statutory requirement that the permit 
    specifically include, and ensure compliance with, all applicable 
    requirements.
        EPA understands the implementation concerns expressed by the 
    commenters but disagrees that the Part 70 permit requirements need be 
    unduly burdensome for these smaller emission units with only generally 
    applicable requirements. For example, the requirement to ``describe'' 
    emissions of regulated pollutants in a permit application is not a 
    requirement to quantify those emissions. These smaller units can be 
    aggregated and described in very general terms (e.g. all valves and 
    flanges not otherwise specified). Furthermore, the requirement to 
    include in a permit compliance certification, test, monitoring, 
    reporting, and recordkeeping sufficient to assure compliance with the 
    terms and conditions of the permit does not impose the same level of 
    rigor with respect to small emission units that do not require 
    extensive testing or monitoring in order to determine compliance with 
    the applicable requirements.
        Several commenters also stated it was unreasonable and 
    inappropriate to require Washington to change its provisions for 
    insignificant emission units at this time because this issue is part of 
    ongoing litigation over the part 70 rules and may be revised. EPA 
    acknowledges that it may be both burdensome and confusing if the Part 
    70 rules on insignificant emission units are changed and Ecology is 
    required to revise its rules twice, once to meet EPA's current 
    objection and later if part 70 is revised. EPA has no legal mechanism, 
    however, to either grant a longer interim approval period or to grant 
    full approval under the current part 70 rules based on a possibility 
    that the part 70 regulations may change as a result of notice and 
    comment rulemaking sometime in the future.
    2. Definition of Title I Modification
        In its August 18, 1994 Federal Register notice proposing interim 
    approval for the Washington program, EPA advised the State that it 
    would be required to revise its definition of the term ``title I 
    modification'' to obtain full EPA approval:
    
        Revise WAC 173-401-200(33), the definition of ``Title I 
    modification,'' to include any modification permitted through a 
    minor source preconstruction permit. The EPA believes the phrase 
    ``modification under an[y] provision of title I of the Act'' in 40 
    CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5) is best interpreted to mean literally any 
    change at a source that would trigger permitting authority review 
    under regulations approved or promulgated under Title I of the Act. 
    This would include State preconstruction review programs approved by 
    EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan under section 
    110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act and regulations addressing source 
    changes that trigger the application of NESHAP established pursuant 
    to section 112 of the Act prior to the 1990 amendments. The EPA 
    intends to revise its criteria for interim approval in 40 CFR 
    70.4(d) prior to taking final action on this proposal to grant 
    Washington interim approval so that interim approval may be granted 
    to State programs like Washington's that currently allow a more 
    narrow definition of Title I modification. (59 FR 42557).
    
        On August 29, 1994, EPA proposed revisions to the interim approval 
    criteria in 40 CFR 70.4(d) to, among other things, allow State programs 
    with a more narrow definition of ``title I modification'' to receive 
    interim approval (59 FR 44572). The Agency also solicited public 
    comment on the proper interpretation of ``title I modifications'' (59 
    FR 44573). The Agency stated that if, after considering the public 
    comments, it continues to believe that the phrase ``title I 
    modifications'' should be interpreted as including minor NSR changes, 
    it would revise the interim approval criteria as needed to grant states 
    that adopted a narrower definition interim approval.
        In response to EPA's proposed interim approval of the Washington 
    program, several commenters questioned whether the State's adoption of 
    a narrower ``title I modification'' definition justified anything other 
    than full approval. These commenters asserted that Washington's current 
    definition is the correct one under the existing regulations and the 
    Clean Air Act and that a broader interpretation including minor NSR 
    would be wholly unworkable.
        One commenter, the National Environmental Development Association/
    Clean Air Regulatory Project (NEDA/CARP), further contended that EPA 
    was using the August 29, 1994 proposed rule to effectively require 
    revision of a State operating permits program that was otherwise 
    consistent with current Part 70 and that such an approach was 
    unauthorized, not supported by the Clean Air Act or Part 70, and poor 
    public policy. NEDA/CARP also suggested that EPA's August 18, 1994 
    proposal to require Washington to adopt a broader interpretation of 
    ``title I modification'' to obtain full approval indicated that the 
    Agency does not intend to consider public comment on the August 29, 
    1994 proposal that solicits comments on the proper interpretation of 
    ``title I modifications.''
        As noted in the August 18, 1994 Federal Register notice, proposing 
    interim approval of Washington's operating permit program, EPA intended 
    to finalize its revisions to the interim approval criteria under 40 CFR 
    70.4(d) before taking final action on part 70 programs submitted by the 
    States. However, that is no longer possible. Publication of the 
    proposed revisions was delayed until August 29, 1994, and EPA received 
    several requests to extend the public comment period.1 Given the 
    importance of the issues in that rulemaking to States, sources and the 
    public, but mindful of the need to take action quickly, EPA agreed to 
    extend the comment period until October 28, 1994 (see 59 FR 52122 
    (October 14, 1994)). Consequently, final action to revise the interim 
    approval criteria will not occur before the deadline for EPA action on 
    State programs, such as Washington's, that were submitted on or before 
    November 15, 1993.2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\EPA originally established a 30-day public comment period for 
    the August 29, 1994 proposal. In response to several requests for 
    extension, however, EPA agreed to allow an additional thirty days 
    for public comments. See 59 FR 52122 (October 14, 1994).
        \2\Section 502(d) requires, in relevant part, that ``[n]ot later 
    than 1 year after receiving a program, and after notice and 
    opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall approve or 
    disapprove such program, in whole or in part.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA believes it would be inappropriate to delay action on 
    Washington's program, perhaps for several months, until final action is 
    taken on the interim approval revisions. EPA also believes it would be 
    inappropriate to grant interim approval to Washington on this issue 
    before final action is taken to revise the current interim approval 
    criteria of 40 CFR 70.4(b) to provide a legal basis for such an interim 
    approval. Until the revision to the interim approval criteria is 
    promulgated, EPA's choices are to either fully approve or disapprove 
    the narrower ``title I modification'' definition in States such as 
    Washington. For the reasons set forth below, EPA believes that 
    disapproving such programs at this time solely because of this issue 
    would be inappropriate.
        First, EPA has not yet conclusively determined that a narrower 
    definition of ``title I modifications'' is incorrect and thus a basis 
    for disapproval (or even interim approval). The Agency has received 
    numerous comments on this issue as a result of the August 29, 1994 
    Federal Register notice, and EPA cannot and will not make a final 
    decision on this issue until it has evaluated all of the comments. 
    Second, EPA believes that the Washington program should not be 
    disapproved because EPA itself has not yet been able to resolve this 
    issue through rulemaking. Moreover, disapproving programs from States 
    such as Washington that submitted their programs to EPA on or before 
    the November 15, 1993 statutory deadline could lead to the perverse 
    result that these States would receive disapprovals, while States which 
    were late in submitting programs could take advantage of revised 
    interim approval criteria if and when these criteria become final. In 
    effect, States would be severely penalized for having made timely 
    program submissions to EPA. Finally, disapproval of a State program for 
    a potential problem that primarily affects permit revision procedures 
    would delay the issuance of Part 70 permits, hampering State/Federal 
    efforts to improve environmental protection through the operating 
    permits system.
        For the reasons mentioned above, EPA is approving the Washington 
    program's use of a narrower definition of ``title I modifications'' at 
    this time.3 However, should EPA in the interim approval criteria 
    rulemaking make a final determination that such a narrow definition of 
    ``title I modification'' is incorrect and that a revision of the 
    interim approval criteria is warranted, the Agency will propose further 
    action on Washington's program so that the State's definition of 
    ``title I modifications'' could become grounds for interim 
    approval.4 A State program like Washington's that receives full 
    approval of its narrower ``title I modification'' definition pending 
    completion of EPA's rulemaking must ultimately be placed on an equal 
    footing with States that receive interim approval in later months under 
    any revised interim approval criteria because of the same issue. 
    Converting the full approval on this issue to an interim approval after 
    EPA completes its rulemaking will avoid this inequity. EPA anticipates 
    that an action to convert the full approval on the ``title I 
    modification'' issue to an interim approval would be effected through 
    an additional rulemaking, so as to ensure that there is adequate notice 
    of the change in approval status.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\For similar reasons, the EPA will not construe 40 CFR 
    70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(3) to prohibit Washington from allowing minor NSR 
    changes to be processed as minor permit modifications. See 59 FR 
    44573-44574.
        \4\State programs with a narrower ``title I modifications'' 
    definition that are acted upon by EPA after an Agency decision that 
    such a narrower definition is inappropriate would be considered 
    deficient, but would be eligible for interim approval under revised 
    40 CFR 70.4(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    3. Section 112(g) Modifications
        One commenter stated that EPA has proceeded in a confusing and 
    unauthorized fashion by proposing a construction ban on section 112(g) 
    modifications and that EPA should not delegate section 112(g) authority 
    until it completes its own rulemaking.
        EPA did not propose a construction ban but simply noted the 
    provision of section 112(g)(2) of the Act which prohibits the 
    modification, construction, or reconstruction of a source after the 
    date of approval of a Title V program unless maximum achievable control 
    technology (MACT), determined on a case-by-case basis if necessary, is 
    met. Although section 112(g)(1) requires the Administrator to publish 
    guidance with respect to the implementation of section 112(g), the 
    plain meaning of section 112(g)(2) is that it takes effect on the 
    effective date of the Title V program in any State.
        EPA has acknowledged that States may encounter difficulties 
    implementing section 112(g) prior to the promulgation of final EPA 
    regulations (see June 28, 1994 guidance memorandum entitled ``Guidance 
    for Implementation of Section 112(g)'' signed by John Seitz). EPA has 
    issued guidance, in the form of a proposed rule implementing 112(g), 
    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 permitting authorities and sources 
    until such time as EPA's section 112(g) rulemaking is finalized.
        Although EPA does not have a program designed specifically to 
    implement section 112(g), Washington does have a preconstruction review 
    program that could serve as a procedural vehicle for rendering 
    federally enforceable a case-by-case MACT or offset determination. 
    Although the scope of Washington's program may not cover every 
    situation where a section 112(g) modification, construction, or 
    reconstruction may occur, it would cover most circumstances. In order 
    to provide a federally-recognized mechanism to implement section 112(g) 
    on an interim basis until final EPA regulations are promulgated, EPA 
    intends to propose approval of Washington's preconstruction review 
    program in a separate Federal Register notice. Final approval of 
    Washington's preconstruction review program, and not this final 
    approval of its Title V operating permit program, would represent EPA's 
    delegation of section 112(g) authority to the State.
    4. Limitations on Potential To Emit
        One commenter objected to EPA's requirement that OAPCA revise its 
    definition of ``potential to emit'' to include only those limitations 
    on a source's capacity to emit that are federally enforceable, arguing 
    that it requires local authorities to ignore their own and other State-
    enforceable limitations.
        The cited definition appears in OAPCA Reg. 1, Art. 6, which 
    addresses the operating permit program. As such, the definition of 
    potential to emit must be consistent with the Part 70 rules which 
    require, for the purposes of the Title V operating permit program, that 
    all limits on potential to emit be federally enforceable. EPA does not 
    place any restrictions on a local authority's use of non-Federally 
    enforceable emission limits on non-Title V sources or on establishing 
    additional, non-federally enforceable emission limits on Title V 
    sources. However, in order for such limitations to be recognized for 
    purposes of the Federal Clean Air Act, they must be enforceable by EPA 
    and by citizens under the Act.
    5. Scope of the Program--Tribal Lands
        EPA proposed to exclude from the Washington Title V program, Title 
    V sources located on any trust or restricted lands within the Puyallup 
    1873 Survey Area or any other lands within the exterior reservation 
    boundaries of a Federally-recognized Indian Tribe because Ecology did 
    not establish that it had jurisdiction over sources on these lands. EPA 
    proposed to apply the Ecology and PSAPCA Title V program to non-trust 
    lands within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Reservation because 
    Ecology and PSAPCA submitted legal analysis demonstrating their 
    authority to administer environmental laws on these lands. See 59 FR at 
    42554.
        Ecology and PSAPCA presented legal analysis based on the Washington 
    Indian (Puyallup) Land Claims Settlement, which expressly allocates 
    jurisdiction according to a settlement agreement between the Tribe, 
    Federal, State and local governments and certain private property 
    owners. 25 U.S.C. 1773-1773j. The settlement agreement, in turn, gives 
    Federal, State and local governments exclusive jurisdiction for the 
    administration of environmental laws on all non-trust lands within the 
    1873 Survey Area and gives the Federal government and the Tribe 
    exclusive jurisdiction for the administration of environmental laws on 
    all trust and restricted lands within the Area.
        The Puyallup Tribe of Indians commented that EPA correctly applied 
    the settlement agreement in its proposed determination not to approve 
    the application of Washington's Title V program to trust and restricted 
    lands within the 1873 Survey Area. The Tribe also commented that 
    Washington's request for authority over non-trust lands within the 
    Survey Area was consistent with the settlement agreement.
        In today's action, EPA finalizes its proposed determination that 
    the Washington Title V program apply to Title V sources located on non-
    trust lands within the Survey Area.
        During the public comment period, Ecology commented ``that [it] has 
    requisite authority to enforce and run the Air Operating Permits 
    Program on tribal lands.'' Ecology's comments do not appear to 
    challenge EPA's proposed allocation of jurisdiction over the Puyallup 
    Reservation. Rather, Ecology appears to contend that EPA has erred in 
    proposing to exclude application of the State's Title V program to 
    Title V sources within the exterior reservation boundaries of all other 
    Federally-recognized Tribes located within the State.
        In support of this contention, Ecology generally asserts that 
    Ecology has ``necessary jurisdiction to regulate Title V sources 
    throughout the state.'' Ecology also appears to be alleging that, at a 
    minimum, it has authority over non-Indian owned Title V sources on non-
    Indian owned fee lands within reservations. Ecology states that the law 
    presumes it has authority over such sources and that the legal opinion 
    accompanying its Title V program submittal should be interpreted to 
    apply consistently at least to all fee lands within the exterior 
    boundaries of the State. Ecology comments that ``[c]ourts have only 
    found for tribal jurisdiction when the weight of tribal interests is 
    great enough'' and that ``[s]everal potential major sources owned by 
    non-[I]ndians with no tribal relationships can be found in the State on 
    fee lands within reservations.''
        To obtain Title V program approval a State must demonstrate that it 
    has adequate authority to issue permits and assure compliance by all 
    sources required to have permits under Title V with each applicable 
    requirement under the Act. See Section 502(b)(5) of the Act; 40 CFR 
    70.4(b)(3)(i). The authority must include:
    
        A legal opinion from the Attorney General from the State or the 
    attorney for those State, local, or interstate air pollution control 
    agencies that have independent counsel, stating that the laws of the 
    State, locality, or interstate compact provide adequate authority to 
    carry out all aspects of the program. This statement shall include 
    citations to the specific stat[ut]es, administrative regulations, 
    and, where appropriate, judicial decisions that demonstrate adequate 
    authority. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3).
    
        Thus, the Act requires States to support their Title V program 
    submittals with a specific showing of adequate legal authority over all 
    regulated sources, including sources located on lands within Indian 
    reservations.
        EPA concludes that Ecology has not adequately demonstrated 
    authority to regulate Title V sources owned by Tribal members or 
    located on their territory or trust lands. Ecology's inability to reach 
    into Indian country and apply environmental regulation to Tribal 
    members, their territory or trust lands is not a new issue. Ecology 
    previously asserted regulatory jurisdiction over Tribal lands in a 
    submittal to EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
    program. EPA declined to apply the program to waste-related activities 
    on Tribal lands and its decision was upheld on judicial review. See 
    Washington Department of Ecology v. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1985).
        The court's conclusion was informed by ``well-settled principles of 
    Indian law'' including the principle that ``States are generally 
    precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian country 
    unless Congress has clearly expressed an intention to permit it.'' 
    Washington Department of Ecology, 752 F.2d at 1469-1479 (citations 
    omitted); see also United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 556 (1975) 
    (the inherent sovereign authority of Indian Tribes extends ``over both 
    their members and their territory''); Montana v. United States, 450 
    U.S. 544, 556-557 (1981) (Tribes generally have extensive authority to 
    regulate activities on lands that are held by the United States in 
    trust for the Tribe).
        Washington has also asserted jurisdiction over underground 
    injection activities on Indian lands under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
    claiming its laws are applicable throughout the borders of the State. 
    EPA concluded that Washington could not regulate these activities on 
    Indian lands because it had failed to demonstrate that its authority to 
    regulate was not preempted by Federal law, and that the State 
    regulation would not infringe on Tribal self-government. 53 FR 43080-
    43081-43082 (Oct. 25, 1988); see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. 
    Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980); California v. Cabazon Band of Mission 
    Indians, 408 U.S. 202 (1987).
        Ecology contends that EPA should nevertheless presume that Ecology 
    at least has authority over non-Indian owned Title V sources on fee 
    lands within the exterior boundaries of Federally-recognized Indian 
    reservations. EPA concludes that Ecology has also failed to adequately 
    demonstrate authority over Title V sources located on fee lands within 
    reservations.
        EPA's regulations require specific evidence of legal authority. 
    Adequate authority is especially necessary in these circumstances 
    where, as set out below, Supreme Court case law recognizes inherent 
    sovereign Tribal authority to regulate activities on fee lands where 
    the conduct may have a serious and substantial impact on Tribal health 
    or welfare, air pollution activities generally pose serious health 
    risks, EPA has proposed to interpret the Tribal authority provisions of 
    the Act as granting Tribes authority over air pollution activities on 
    fee lands within reservations, and Federal Indian law and policies 
    direct EPA to treat Tribes as sovereigns and to consider Tribal 
    interests in taking Federal actions that affect Tribes.
        The Supreme Court has indicated that a Tribe ``may * * * retain 
    inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-
    Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens 
    or has some direct effect on the * * * health or welfare of the 
    tribe.'' Montana, 450 U.S. at 566. A Tribe's inherent authority must be 
    determined on a case-by-case basis, considering whether the conduct 
    being regulated has a direct effect on the health or welfare of the 
    Tribe substantial enough to support the Tribe's jurisdiction over non-
    Indians. See Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima 
    Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989).
        The case law addressing a Tribe's authority over non-members on 
    non-Indian owned fee lands within the exterior boundaries of a 
    reservation must be viewed in light of the concerns presented by air 
    pollution activities and, importantly, the 1990 Amendments to the Act. 
    In 1990, Congress broadly addressed Tribal authority under the Act, 
    adding sections 110(o) and 301(d) to the Act.\5\ Section 301(d)(2) of 
    the Act authorizes EPA to issue regulations specifying those provisions 
    of the Act for which it is appropriate ``to treat Indian Tribes as 
    States.'' Further, it addresses the potential jurisdictional scope of 
    Tribal programs under the Act, authorizing EPA to treat Tribes in the 
    same manner as States for ``the management and protection of air 
    resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation or other 
    areas within the tribe's jurisdiction.'' Section 301(d)(2)(B) of the 
    Act. In addition, section 110(o) provides that Tribal implementation 
    plans under the Act ``shall become applicable to all areas * * * 
    located within the exterior boundaries of the reservation, 
    notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way 
    running through the reservation.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\In the 1977 Amendments to the Act, Congress gave Tribes 
    authority to redesignate ``[l]ands within the exterior boundaries of 
    reservations'' for purposes of the Prevention of Significant 
    Deterioration of Air Quality program. Section 164(c) of the Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA has proposed to interpret these and other provisions of the Act 
    as granting Tribes--approved by EPA to administer Clean Air Act 
    programs in the same manner as States--authority over all air resources 
    within the exterior boundaries of a reservation for such programs. EPA 
    has explained that ``[t]his grant of authority by Congress would enable 
    such Tribes to address conduct on all lands, including non-Indian owned 
    fee lands, within the exterior boundaries of a reservation.'' 59 FR 
    43956, 43958-43960 (Aug. 25, 1994) (legal rationale).
        Further, EPA observed that even without this proposed grant of 
    authority, Indian Tribes would very likely have inherent authority over 
    all activities within reservation boundaries, including non-Indian 
    owned activities on fee lands, that are subject to regulation under the 
    Act. The high mobility of air pollutants, resulting area-wide effects 
    and the seriousness of such impacts would all tend to support such 
    inherent Tribal authority. See 59 FR 43958, n. 5; see also 56 FR 64876 
    at 64877-64879 (Dec. 12, 1991). In fact, Congress relied on the serious 
    harm posed by air pollution in adopting the Act. Congress found that 
    ``the growth in the amount and complexity of air pollution * * * has 
    resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, 
    including injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and 
    deterioration of property and hazards to air and ground 
    transportation.'' Section 101(a)(2) of the Act; see also, e.g., H.R. 
    Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (1990); S.Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 
    1st Sess. (1989).
        Ecology advances various reasons why it makes ``practical sense'' 
    for EPA to allow Ecology to regulate all Title V sources throughout the 
    State, including those within reservation boundaries. For example, 
    Ecology contends that:
        (1) Ecology is more protective of air quality than minimum Federal 
    standards require and therefore regulation by EPA or the Tribe in lieu 
    of the State would represent backsliding to minimum Federal standards 
    and may give reservation residents inequitable protection;
        (2) The nature of air pollution transport and impacts renders it 
    undesirable to have different regulatory bodies within the State and 
    within reservations;
        (3) Non-Indian populations will be impacted because of the 
    proximity of trust and fee lands as well as the proximity of 
    reservation lands and non-reservation populations; and
        (4) The State is well-situated to regulate all Title V sources, 
    having extensive experience with air quality protection and a 
    comprehensive, effective program.
        These arguments do not provide adequate evidence to conclude that 
    Washington's program should apply to Title V sources within the 
    exterior reservation boundaries of Federally-recognized Indian Tribes 
    or, in particular, non-Indian activities on fee lands. As indicated 
    previously, the legal test for determining whether a Tribe has inherent 
    sovereign authority over non-Indian activities centers on the conduct 
    at issue. That the State may effectively regulate the conduct in lieu 
    of a Tribe does not defeat Tribal sovereign interests. Otherwise, 
    inherent Tribal sovereignty would be determined not by the Tribal 
    interests at stake but by a State's willingness to infringe upon Tribal 
    domain.
        Nor does the fact that Ecology has adopted requirements more 
    stringent than the federal minimum support Ecology's claim of 
    authority. Ecology's policy choices about the nature and desirability 
    of State-wide air quality management cannot displace any inherent 
    authority Tribes may have or any authority that Congress may have 
    granted to Tribes under the Clean Air Act. Tribes may very well have 
    inherent sovereign authority over air pollution activities on fee lands 
    and may exercise that authority to regulate more stringently than 
    Federal law requires. In addition, the adoption of sections 301(d) and 
    110(o) of the Act evince Congressional intent to allow Tribes to 
    implement Clean Air Act programs in the same manner as States. Congress 
    gave EPA the responsibility of identifying the programs under the Act 
    for which such treatment is appropriate. EPA's proposed Clean Air Act 
    Tribal authority rule provides that Tribes, like States, will retain 
    authority under the Act to impose requirements that are more stringent 
    than Federal standards. 59 FR 43967.
        At the same time, Congress and EPA recognize that it may take time 
    for Tribes to develop the air quality management expertise that States 
    have amassed for 20 years. Nevertheless, Tribes must demonstrate 
    adequate capability before EPA will authorize them to implement a Clean 
    Air Act program. In reviewing tribal programs, EPA was directed by 
    Congress to assure that the Tribe is ``capable * * * of carrying out 
    the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and 
    purposes of [the Act] and all applicable regulations.'' Section 
    301(d)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, EPA will fill gaps in air quality 
    protection in the interim period before tribal Clean Air Act programs 
    are approved, as necessary to ensure that reservation air quality is 
    adequately protected. 59 FR at 43960-43961.
        Ecology also relies on the legal opinion submitted with its Title V 
    program stating that it applies consistently at least to all fee lands 
    within the State. The opinion relied on by Ecology, however, does not 
    specifically address or analyze the legal basis for application of the 
    Title V program to sources on fee lands within the exterior reservation 
    boundaries of Federally-recognized Tribes. Ecology submitted a 
    specific, sound legal analysis to support its authority over the non-
    trust lands within the Puyallup 1873 Survey Area. Ecology now requests, 
    without specific legal analysis, that EPA give Ecology authority over 
    all Title V sources on all other Federally-recognized Indian 
    reservations.
        EPA is guided by Federal and Agency Tribal policy in making 
    decisions affecting Tribes. Washington Department of Ecology, 752 F.2d 
    at 1471 & n. 5. As outlined below, these policies direct EPA to treat 
    Tribes as sovereign governments not as subdivisions of States.
        On January 24, 1983, the President issued a Federal Indian Policy 
    stressing two related themes: (1) That the Federal government will 
    pursue the principle of Indian ``self-government'' and (2) that it will 
    work directly with Tribal governments on a ``government-to-government'' 
    basis. An April 29, 1994 Presidential Memorandum reiterated that the 
    rights of sovereign Tribal governments must be fully respected. 59 FR 
    22951 (May 4, 1994). EPA's Tribal policies commit to certain 
    principles, including the following:
    
        EPA recognizes Tribal Governments as sovereign entities with 
    primary authority and responsibility for the reservation populace. 
    Accordingly, EPA will work directly with Tribal Governments as the 
    independent authority for reservation affairs, and not as the 
    political subdivisions of States or other governmental units.
    * * * * *
        In keeping with the principal of Indian self-government, the 
    Agency will view Tribal Governments as the appropriate non-Federal 
    parties for making decisions and carrying out program 
    responsibilities affecting Indian reservations, their environments, 
    and the health and welfare of the reservation populace. Just as 
    EPA's deliberations and activities have traditionally involved 
    interests and/or participation of State Governments, EPA will look 
    directly to Tribal Governments to play this lead role for matters 
    affecting reservation environments.
    
        November 8, 1984 ``EPA Policy for the Administration of 
    Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations''; Policy Reaffirmed by 
    Administrator Carol M. Browner in a Memorandum issued on March 14, 
    1994.
        The United States also has a unique fiduciary relationship with 
    Tribes, and EPA must consider Tribal interests in its actions. Nance v. 
    EPA, 645 F.2d 701, 710 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, Crow Tribe of 
    Indians v. EPA, 454 U.S. 1081 (1981). Taken together, Federal law and 
    policy counsel that it would be inappropriate for EPA to approve a 
    State program covering activities within reservation boundaries without 
    an adequately demonstrated legal basis.
        For the foregoing reasons, EPA concludes that, except for the non-
    trust lands identified within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup 
    reservation, Ecology has not adequately demonstrated that it has 
    authority over Title V sources located on lands within the exterior 
    reservation boundaries of Federally-recognized Tribes. In sum, Ecology 
    relies on a general legal opinion and associated assertion that its 
    authority should apply throughout the State, an undocumented claim that 
    several potential major sources owned by non-Indians with no ``tribal 
    relationships'' can be found in the State on fee lands within 
    reservations, and several practical reasons why EPA should allow 
    Washington's Title V program to regulate Title V sources within 
    reservations and at least on fee lands within reservations. Title V 
    plainly requires a specific demonstration of authority over regulated 
    sources. Based on the Clean Air Act and Federal Indian law and 
    policies, EPA concludes that Ecology has not adequately supported the 
    application of its Title V program to reservations generally or to fee 
    lands within reservation boundaries.
    6. Criminal Authorities
        Ecology has also commented that the State currently has sufficient 
    legal authority to recover criminal fines for false material statements 
    and tampering with monitoring devices, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). EPA disagrees. Ecology has submitted no additional 
    authority to support this assertion. Instead, Ecology relies on the 
    June 7, 1994, opinion of the Washington Attorney General, which EPA 
    reviewed and considered before proposing interim approval of the 
    Washington operating permits program in part because Washington law did 
    not contain these necessary criminal authorities. As previously stated, 
    EPA does not believe that the authorities discussed in the Attorney 
    General's opinion are as broad as the authorities required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii) [see 59 FR 42552 (August 18, 1994)]. Therefore, EPA 
    maintains its position that in order to receive full approval, Ecology 
    must revise RCW 70.94.430 to incorporate the criminal authorities 
    required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(iii).
    
    B. Options for Approval/Disapproval
    
        EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits 
    programs submitted by Ecology, EFSEC and the local air authorities on 
    November 1, 1993.\6\ In order to receive full approval, the Washington 
    permitting authorities must make the following changes:\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\The scope of this action does not include the issuance of 
    permits or the enforcement of standards for sewage sludge 
    incinerators under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, 42 USC 1345. 
    Delegation of sewage sludge incinerator permitting under the Clean 
    Water Act, if requested by the State, would be considered in a 
    separate administrative action (see 40 CFR Parts 122 and 501).
        \7\All changes required for Ecology to receive full approval 
    must be made before EFSEC or any local air authority may receive 
    full approval. In addition, in order to receive full approval, EFSEC 
    and each local air authority must make such changes to their 
    regulations as are necessary under applicable State and local law to 
    incorporate into their respective regulations all required changes 
    to Ecology's operating permits program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Ecology
        (1) Revise RCW 70.94.430(1) to provide for maximum criminal 
    penalties of not less than $10,000 per day per violation, as required 
    by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii).
        (2) Revise RCW 70.94.430 to allow the imposition of criminal 
    penalties against any person who knowingly makes any false material 
    statement, representation or certification in any form, in any notice 
    or report required by a permit, as required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(iii). 
    This provision must include maximum penalties of not less than $10,000 
    per day per violation.
        (3) Revise RCW 70.94.430 to allow the imposition of criminal 
    penalties against any person who knowingly renders inaccurate any 
    required monitoring device or method, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
        (4) Delete WAC 173-401-735(3) entirely or revise it so that it 
    refers to RCW 34.05.570(4)(b), rather than RCW 7.16.360.
        (5) Revise WAC 173-401-530(2) to define an emissions unit as 
    insignificant only if it is subject to no federally enforceable 
    applicable requirement and delete the last sentence in WAC 173-401-
    200(16) (``These units and activities are exempt from permit program 
    requirements except as provided in WAC 173-401-530.'').
    EFSEC
        No additional changes are necessary for the EFSEC operating permits 
    program to receive full approval other than those that may be necessary 
    under applicable State and local law to incorporate into EFSEC's 
    regulations all changes to the State operating permits program required 
    for full approval.
    BFCCAA
        No additional changes are necessary for the BFCCAA operating 
    permits program to receive full approval other than those that may be 
    necessary under applicable State and local law to incorporate into 
    BFCCAA's regulations all changes to the State operating permits program 
    required for full approval.
    NWAPA
        (1) Revise NWAPA Section 132.1 to provide for maximum criminal 
    penalties of not less than $10,000 per day per violation, as required 
    by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii).
        (2) Revise NWAPA Section 132 to allow the imposition of criminal 
    penalties against any person who knowingly makes any false material 
    statement, representation or certification in any form, in any notice 
    or report required by a permit, as required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(iii). 
    This provision must include maximum penalties of not less than $10,000 
    per day per violation.
        (3) Revise NWAPA Section 132 to allow the imposition of criminal 
    penalties against any person who knowingly renders inaccurate any 
    required monitoring device or method, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
        (4) Revise NWAPA Sec. 133.1 to provide for maximum civil penalties 
    of not less than $10,000 per day per violation in the case of 
    violations of multiple standards by a specific emissions unit, as 
    required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3).
    PSAPCA
        (1) Revise PSAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 3.13(a) to provide for maximum 
    criminal penalties of not less than $10,000 per day per violation, as 
    required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii).
        (2) Revise PSAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 3.13 to allow the imposition of 
    criminal penalties against any person who knowingly makes any false 
    material statement, representation or certification in any form, in any 
    notice or report required by a permit, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
        (3) Revise PSAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 3.13 to allow the imposition of 
    criminal penalties against any person who knowingly renders inaccurate 
    any required monitoring device or method, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
    OAPCA
        (1) Revise OAPCA Reg. 1, Sec. 3.27(b)(1) to provide for maximum 
    criminal penalties of not less than $10,000 per day per violation, as 
    required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii).
        (2) Revise OAPCA Reg. 1, Sec. 3.27(b) to allow the imposition of 
    criminal penalties against any person who knowingly makes any false 
    material statement, representation or certification in any form, in any 
    notice or report required by a permit, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
        (3) Revise OAPCA Reg. 1, Sec. 3.27(b) to allow the imposition of 
    criminal penalties against any person who knowingly renders inaccurate 
    any required monitoring device or method, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
        (4) Revise the definition of ``potential to emit'' in OAPCA Reg. 1, 
    Sec. 6.00 to provide that any physical or operational limitation on the 
    capacity of a source to emit a pollutant shall be treated as part of 
    its design only if the limitation is federally enforceable (see 40 CFR 
    70.2 (definition of potential to emit)).
    SCAPCA
        (1) Revise SCAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 2.04(B) to eliminate the limitation 
    on the control officer's authority to request criminal penalties to 
    cases in which a violator has failed to correct the violation after a 
    ``reasonable and/or required period of time.''
        (2) Revise SCAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 2.11(A)(1) to provide for maximum 
    criminal penalties of not less than $10,000 per day per violation, as 
    required by 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii).
        (3) Revise SCAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 2.11(A) to allow the imposition of 
    criminal penalties against any person who knowingly makes any false 
    material statement, representation or certification in any form, in any 
    notice or report required by a permit, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
        (4) Revise SCAPCA Reg. I, Sec. 2.11(A) to allow the imposition of 
    criminal penalties against any person who knowingly renders inaccurate 
    any required monitoring device or method, as required by 40 CFR 
    70.11(a)(3)(iii). This provision must include maximum penalties of not 
    less than $10,000 per day per violation.
    SWAPCA
        No changes in the SWAPCA operating permits program are necessary to 
    receive full approval other than those that may be necessary under 
    applicable State and local law to incorporate into SWAPCA's regulations 
    all required changes to Ecology's operating permits program.
    YCCAA
        Revise YCCAA Reg. I, Sec. 2.01, to delete the requirement that 
    violations be ``knowing.'' Part 70 prohibits a permitting authority 
    from including a mental state as an element of proof for civil 
    violations (see 40 CFR 70.11(a)(i)).
        This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until 
    November 9, 1996. During this interim approval period, the State is 
    protected from sanctions and EPA is not obligated to promulgate a 
    Federal permits program in the State. Permits issued during the interim 
    approval period of Washington's operating permits program have full 
    standing with respect to Part 70. In addition, the 180 day time period 
    under State law for submittal of permit applications by subject sources 
    and the three-year time period for processing initial permit 
    applications begin upon interim approval.
        If the State fails to submit a complete corrective program for full 
    approval by May 9, 1996, EPA will start an 18-month clock for mandatory 
    sanctions. If the State fails to submit a corrective program that EPA 
    finds complete before the expiration of that 18-month period, EPA must 
    apply sanctions. If EPA disapproves a State's corrective program, and 
    the State has not submitted a subsequent corrective program that EPA 
    determines corrects the deficiencies of the disapproved program within 
    18 months after the disapproval, then EPA must apply sanctions. In both 
    cases, if the State has not corrected the deficiency within six months 
    after EPA applies the first sanction, a second sanction is required. In 
    addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted any 
    time after the end of the interim approval period if the State has 
    failed to submit a complete corrective program or after EPA disapproves 
    a submitted corrective program. If the EPA has not granted full 
    approval to the State program by November 9, 1996, EPA must promulgate, 
    administer, and enforce a Federal permits program for Washington upon 
    expiration of the interim approval.
    
    III. Administrative Requirements
    
    A. Docket
    
        Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon 
    for the final interim approval, including public comments on the 
    proposal received and reviewed by EPA, are maintained in the docket at 
    the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file 
    of 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
    
        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: October 28, 1994.
    Chuck Clark,
    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. Part 70 is amended by adding a new appendix A as follows:
    
    Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
    Permits Programs
    
        This appendix provides information on the approval status of 
    State and Local operating Permit Programs.
        Washington.
        (a) Department of Ecology (Ecology): submitted on November 1, 
    1993; effective on December 9, 1994; interim approval expires 
    November 9, 1996.
        (b) Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC): submitted 
    on November 1, 1993; effective on December 9, 1994; interim approval 
    expires November 9, 1996.
        (c) Benton-Franklin Counties Clean Air Authority (BFCCAA): 
    submitted on November 1, 1993 and amended on September 29, 1994; 
    effective on December 9, 1994; interim approval expires November 9, 
    1996.
        (d) Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA): submitted on 
    November 1, 1993; effective on December 9, 1994; interim approval 
    expires November 9, 1996.
        (e) Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA): submitted 
    on November 1, 1993; effective on December 9, 1994; interim approval 
    expires November 9, 1996.
        (f) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA): submitted 
    on November 1, 1993; effective on December 9, 1994; interim approval 
    expires November 9, 1996.
        (g) Southwest Air Pollution Control Authority (SWAPCA): 
    submitted on November 1, 1993; effective on December 9, 1994; 
    interim approval expires November 9, 1996.
        (h) Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA): 
    submitted on November 1, 1993; effective on December 9, 1994; 
    interim approval expires November 9, 1996.
        (i) Yakima County Clean Air Authority (YCCAA): submitted on 
    November 1, 1993 and amended on September 29, 1994; effective on 
    December 9, 1994; interim approval expires November 9, 1996.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-27683 Filed 11-8-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
11/09/1994
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Final interim approval.
Document Number:
94-27683
Dates:
December 9, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: November 9, 1994, AD-FRL-5103-8
CFR: (2)
40 CFR 70.6(c)(1)
40 CFR 12.01