1 

### 6560.50 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 40 CFRPart52 [EPA-R08-0AR-2009-0052; FRL- 9136-6] Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to theWyomingAir Quality Standards and Regulations AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). 

### ACTION: Direct final rule. 

### SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State Implementation Planrevisions submitted by the State ofWyoming on September 11, 2008. Wyoming has revised its Air Quality Standards and Regulations, specifically Chapter 1, Section 5, Unavoidable equipment malfunction, and Chapter 1, Section 6, Credible evidence. Because these revisions conform to the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, EPA is approving the revisions with the intention ofmaking them Federally enforceable. EPA is taking this action under section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act. 

### DATES: This rule is effective on [Insert date 

### 60 days after publication in the Federal Register] without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse commentby [Insert date 30 days after publication inthe Federal Register]. Ifadverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the 

### FederalRegisterinforming the public that the rule will not take effect. 

### ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2009­ 0052, by one ofthe following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov. Followthe on-line instructions for submitting2 comments.

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov

• Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alertthe individual listed inthe FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ifyou are faxing comments).

• Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mai1code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mai1code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202­ 1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2009-0052. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal informationprovided, unless the commentincludes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you considerto be CBI orotherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will notknowyour identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an (>omail comment directly to EPA without goingthrough http://www.regulations.gov, youre-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe commentthat is placed inthe public docket

### 3 and made available onthe Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that youinclude yourname and other contact information in thebody ofyour comn1ent andwith any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read yourcomment due to technical difficulties and cannot contactyoufor clarification, EPAmay notbe able to consideryour comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free ofany defects

orviruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section 

### 1. General Information ofthe SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section ofthis document. Docket: All documents inthe docket are listed inthe http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy atthe Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129

. EPArequests that ifat all possible, you contactthe individual listed in the FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT section to viewthe hard copy ofthe docket. You may view the hard copy ofthe docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. 303-312-6142, dolan.kathy@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:4 Table ofContents I. General Information II. Background ofWyoming's Submissions III. EPA's Review ofWyoming's Submissions IV. Consideration ofSection 110(1) ofthe CAA V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews 

### Definitions Forthe purpose ofthis document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: (i) The words orinitials Act or CAA mean orreferto the Clean AirAct, unless the context indicates otherwise. (ii) The words EPA, we, us orourmean orrefer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (iii) The initials SIP mean orreferto State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words State or Wyoming meanthe State ofWyoming, unless the context indicates otherwise. 

### I. GeneralInformation A. What Should I Consider as IPrepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting eBI Do not submit this information to EPA through http://regulations.gov

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all ofthe informationthatyou claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside ofthe disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically withinthe disk or CD ROM the specific

### 5 infonnation that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version ofthe comment that includes infonnation claimed as CBI, a copy ofthe comment that does not containthe infonnation claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Infonnation so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFRpart 2. 2. TipsforPreparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying infonnation (subjectheading, Federal Register date and page number). b. Follow directions

- The agency may askyou to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical infonnation and/or datathat youused.

e. Ifyou estimate potential costs or burdens, explainhowyou arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for itto bereproduced. 

### f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explainyour views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use ofprofanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submityour comments by the commentperiod deadline identified. 

### II. Background ofWyoming's Submissions On September 11, 2008 the State ofWyoming submitted to EPA two fonnal revisions to6 Wyoming's State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions amend Wyoming's Air Quality Standards and Regulations. Inparticular, Wyoming has revisedChapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 5, Unavoidable equipment malfunction, and has added a new section-Section 6, Credible evidence-to Chapter 1. A. Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 5, Unavoidable equipment malfunction. Wyoming has revised its unavoidable equipmentmalfunction rule in response to a series ofEPA actions. OnNovember 16, 2000, the Administrator ofthe EPA issued an order granting in part a petitionto object to Wyoming's issuance ofa Title V permit. In the Matter of Pacificorp 's Jim Bridger andNaughton Electric Utility Steam GeneratingPlants, PetitionNo. VIII-00-1 (Nov. 16,2000). In the order, the Administrator directed EPA's regional office in Denver (EPA Region 8) to review Wyoming's Abnormal Conditions and Equipment Malfunction rule. On November 1, 2002, in another Title V petition order, the Administrator repeated this direction. In the Matter ofTitle VPermit for Buckingham Lumber Company, Buckingham LumberMill, PetitionNo. VIII-2002-01 (Nov. 1,2002). After completing its review, EPA Region 8 identified for Wyoming deficiencies in the rule. Letter from Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, to Dan Olson, Administrator, Wyoming's Department ofEnvironmental Quality (Jan. 30,2003). EPA Region 8 noted that the rule did not conform to CleanAirAct requirements to protectNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) increments. Specifically, the rule allowed an exemption from enforcement for excess emissions that occurred during malfunctions and certain other conditions. EPA's interpretation was and continues to be thatthe Clean Air Act requires that all periods ofexcess emissions betreated as violations that cannotbe

### 7**ex~mpted** from enforcement. EPA therefore requested that the rule be revised. OnNovember 16,2005,the Environmental Quality Council ofthe Wyoming Department ofEnvironmental Quality approved a revision to the Abnormal Conditions and Equipment Malfunction rule. The revision removed the existing automatic exemption and replaced it with enforcement discretion provisions for excess emissions caused by malfunctions. The revision became State-effective January 30, 2006. On September 11, 2008, the Governor ofthe State of Wyoming submitted the revisionto Region 8. B. Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 6, Credible evidence. Wyoming has added the credible evidence sectionto its rules in response to an EPA SIP call. On February 24, 1997, EPA revised its rule governingthe use ofcredible evidence in enforcement actions. 62 FR 8314. In parallel, EPA directed its Regional Offices to conduct a SIP call to States in order to ensure consistency with the revised credible evidence rule. On October 20, 1999, EPA Region 8 issued a SIP call to Wyoming. In a letter from EPA Regional Administrator William P. Yellowtail notifying Wyoming ofthe SIP call,EPA stated thatthe Wyoming SIP did not comply with sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) ofthe CAA because the SIP could be interpreted to limit the types ofcredible evidence or information that could be used for determining compliance and establishing violations. On October 23, 2000, the Environmental Quality Council ofthe Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality approved revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, including the addition ofa provision (Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 6, Credible evidence) allowing for the use ofcredible evidence in enforcement actions. The added provision became State-effective December 8, 2000. On September 11, 2008, the Governor of

### 8 the State ofWyoming submitted the revision to Region 8. III. 

### EPA's Review ofWyoming's Submissions. To determine ifWyoming's submissions should be approved by EPA, EPA must evaluate the submissions for consistency withthe CAA and EPA regulations. A. Revision to Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 5, Unavoidable equipment malfunction. EPA's interpretations ofthe Act regarding excess emissions caused by equipment malfunctions are contained in several documents. Most relevant to this action are the following documents: a memorandum dated September 28, 1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation, entitled "Policy onExcess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions"; a clarificationto that memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett issued onFebruary 15, 1983; and a memorandum entitled "State Implementation Plans: PolicyRegarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown," from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated September20, 1999. I As explained in these memoranda, excess emissions are those air emission levels that exceed any applicable emission limitation. Because excess emissions might aggravate air quality

so as to prevent attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS orjeopardize the PSD increments, EPA views all periods ofexcess emissions as violations ofthe applicable emission limitation.

1The relevant interpretations were not affected by a subsequentmemorandum titled 'Reissuance ofClarification

­ State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown," dated December 5, 2001, from Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office ofRegulatory Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Office ofAir and Radiation.9 Therefore, EPA will disapprove all SIP revisions that automatically exemptfrom enforcement

excess emissions claimed to result from an equipment malfunction. In addition, EPA will disapprove SIP revisions that give discretion to a state director to determine whether an instance ofexcess emissions is a violation ofan emission limitation, because such a determination could barEPA and citizens from enforcing applicable requirements. Instead, under EPA's interpretations, ifa state chooses to address violations for excess emissions that occur as a result ofclaimed malfunctions, the state may take two approaches. The first, the "enforcement discretion" approach, allows a state director to refrain from taking enforcement action for a violation ifcertain criteria are met. The second, the "affirmative defense" approach, allows a source to avoid penalties ifit can prove that certain conditions are met. Wyoming has selected the enforcement discretion approach. Under this approach, the state director, in evaluating whether to exercise discretion to decline enforcement for a violation caused by an unavoidable malfunction, should consider whetherthe following criteriahave been satisfied: 1. To the maximum extentpracticable the air pollution control equipment, process equipment, orprocesses were maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions; 2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the operator knew or should have known that applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime must have beenutilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure that such repairs

were made as expeditiously as practicable;10 3. The amount and duration ofthe excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods ofsuch emissions; 4. All possible steps were takento minimize the impact ofthe excess emissions on ambient air quality; and 5. The excess emissions are notpart ofa recurring pattern indicative ofinadequate design, operation, ormaintenance. We have evaluated Wyoming's enforcement discretion provisions for excess emissions causedby unavoidable equipment malfunctions. The provisions are consistent with EPA's interpretations ofthe CAA as described inthe memoranda above. Specifically, Chapter 1, Common Provisions, section 5(b) gives the Wyoming Air QualityDivision discretion when deciding whetherto "pursue enforcement after considering whetherexcess emissions resulted from an unavoidable equipmentmalfunction." The Divisionis to make this decision by evaluating, on a case-by-case basis, informationto be subn1itted by the source after an incident. The information submittedbythe source and considered by the Division is defined in section 5(a)(i)(A) and generally parallels the criteria outlined in the Kathleen Bennett memoranda discussed above. The source has the burdento provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the Division should use its discretion. EPA's memorandaalso discuss a pointnot explicitly addressed in Wyoming's newrule. There is no language in the newrule explicitly stating that, even when the Division exercises its discretion and declines enforcement, that exercise ofdiscretion does not bar EPA or any citizen from taking an enforcement action for the violation. However, there is also no language inthe

newrule explicitly creating such a bar

. EPA therefore interprets the rule, consistentwithEPA's11 interpretations ofthe CAA, as not barring EPA and citizen enforcement for violation of applicable requirements when the Division declines enforcement. Underthis interpretation, the

newrule is consistent with the CAA. EPA is therefore approving the revisions to Chapter 1, CommonProvisions, Section 5. B. Addition to Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 6, Credible evidence. On February 24,1997, EPA promulgated regulations under section 113(a) and 113(e)(1) ofthe CAA clarifying the use ofnon-reference test data-"credible evidence"-inenforcement actions and compliance certifications. 62 FR 8314. In particular, the regulations prohibit state implementationplans from precluding the use ofcredible evidence. The regulations state: "For the purpose ofsubmitting compliance certifications or establishing whether ornot a person has violated oris in violation ofany standard inthis part, the planmust not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, ofany credible evidence orinformation, relevant to whether a source would have beenin compliance with applicable requirements ifthe appropriate performance or compliance test orprocedure had been performed." 40 CFR 51.212(c). EPA has reviewed Wyoming's new credible evidence rule. The new rule mirrors the language in 40 CFR 51.212(c) quoted above and provides for the use ofcredible evidence in enforcement actions and compliance certifications. Therefore, it is consistentwith the CAA and EPA regulations. As a result, EPA is approving the addition ofthe new credible evidence rule, Chapter 1, CommonProvisions, Section 6, Credible evidence, into Wyoming's SIP. IV. Consideration ofSection 110(1) ofthe CAA Under section 110(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA cannot approve a SIP revision ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable12 further progress toward attainment ofthe NAAQS or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. The Wyoming SIP revisions that EPA approves today do not interfere with attainment of theNAAQS or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. The first revisionremoves a provision from the Wyoming SIP that provided an outright exemption from emission limits during malfunctions. Inplace ofthe exemption, the SIP nowprovides-in accordance withthe CAA-thatthe Wyoming Air QualityDivision may exercise its enforcement discretion after considering whether excess emissionsresulted from an unavoidable equipment malfunction. In the absence ofthe previous automatic exemption, sources will now have a greater incentive to comply with their emission limits, which will protectthe NAAQS and increments to a greater degree than under the previous rule. The secondrevision, providing for use ofcredible evidence, also protectstheNAAQS and increments to a greater degree by allowing for enhanced enforcement ofemissions limits. Therefore, section 110(1) requirements are satisfied. 

# v. Final Action EPA is approving SIP revisions that Wyoming submitted on September 11, 2008. The Environmental Quality Council ofthe Wyoming Department ofEnvironmental Qualityadopted revisions to Chapter 

### 1, Common Provisions, Section 5, Unavoidable equipment malfunction on November 16, 2005; these revisions became State-effective onJanuary 30, 2006. The Council added Chapter 1, CommonProvisions, Section 6, Credible evidence, to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations onOctober 23, 2000; this additionbecan1e State-effective on December 8, 2000. EPA is publishing this rule withoutprior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments; we are merely approving13 changes to Wyoming's air rules that conform to the CAA and EPA regulations. However, in the "Proposed Rules" section oftoday'sFederal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision ifadverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective [Insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.] Ifthe EPAreceives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based onthe proposedrule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period onthis action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that ifEPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section ofthis rule and ifthat provisionmay be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, EPAmay adopt as final those provisions ofthe rule that are not the subject ofan adverse comment. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR51735, October4, 1993), this action is not a "significantregulatory action" and therefore is not subjectto review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subjectto Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,

orUse" (66 FR28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C.14 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, onthe relationship betweenthe Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specifiedby Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does nothave substantial direct effects onthe States, onthe relationship betweenthe national government and the States, or onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10,1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard and does not alter the relationship orthe distribution ofpower andresponsibilities established inthe Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, "Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofaprior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. 

### Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when 

### itreviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place ofa SIP15 submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions ofthe Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an infonnation collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to eachHouse ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and otherrequired infonnationto the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States priorto publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A majorrule cannottake effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "majorrule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date ofpublication ofthis document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicialreview may be filed, and shall notpostpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice ofproposedrulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section oftoday's Federal Register, rather than file an16 direct final rule and address the commentin the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.



# '--1/'/10 , Dated: Carol L Campbell Acting Deputy Regional Administrator Region 817 40 CFRpart 52 is amended to read as follows: PART 52 [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart ZZ

- Wyoming 2. Section 52.2620 is amendedby revising paragraph (b)(3) ; and the table inparagraph (c)(1) is amended under Chapter 1by revising the entry for Section 5 andadding an entry for Section 6. to read as follows: § 52.2620 Identification ofplan. 

## * * * * * (b) 

## * * * (3) Copies ofthe materials incorporatedby reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129; the Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, AirDocket (6102), 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC, 20460; orthe National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability ofthis material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.govlfederal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.htm!. (c) 

## * * 

## * (1) 

## * * * State Citation Title/Subject State adopted and effective Date EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanation



## * * * * Chapter 1 

## * * *18 Section 5 Unavoidable Equipment Malfunction

Credible Evidence



## * * 11/16/05, 1/30/06

10/23/00, 12/8/00



## * * * [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register] [Insert FRpage nurrlber where document begins] Section 6 [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register] [Insert FRpage number where document begins

### 1 I 

## * *

.. 1 In order to determne the EPA effective date for a speCific provIsion that IS listed In this table, consult the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision 

## * * * * *