2696 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 80.70 Covered areas.

* * * * *

(l) The ozone nonattainment areas

listed in this paragraph (l) are covered

areas beginning on May 1, 1995 at the

terminal. No requirements under

subpart D shall apply to gasoline at a

retail outlet or at the facilities of a

wholesale purchaser/consumer until

June 1, 1995. The geographic extent of

each covered area listed in this

paragraph (l) shall be the nonattainment

boundaries as specified in 40 CFR part

81, subpart C:

(1) The following Wisconsin counties:

(i) Kewaunee;

(ii) Manitowoc;

(iii) Sheboygan.

(2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 95–420 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5134–7]

Temporary Administrative Stay of the

Reformulated Gasoline Program: Nine

Counties in New York, Twenty-Eight

Counties in Pennsylvania, and Two

Counties in Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In today’s action, EPA is

temporarily staying the reformulated

gasoline program requirements in nine

opt-in counties in New York, in twentyeight opt-in counties in Pennsylvania

and in two opt-in counties in Maine.

Today’s action stays the applicability of

the RFG requirements for these areas

effective from January 1, 1995, until July

1, 1995. Although EPA believes that the

RFG program provides a highly costeffective means of reducing groundlevel ozone and toxic vehicle emissions,

the Agency believes that States should

be given the flexibility to choose which

programs best meet each State’s needs

for emissions reductions. In a separate

notice of proposed rulemaking to be

published soon, EPA will propose to

approve the requests for opt-out for

these specified counties from the States

of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maine.

EPA will be unable to take final action

on this proposed rulemaking by January

1, 1995, the date when RFG

requirements must be met at the retail

level. EPA believes a stay in the

implementation of the reformulated

gasoline requirements in these areas

effective January 1, 1995 and continuing

until July 1, 1995, will avoid significant

disruption in the marketplace while

notice and comment rulemaking

proceeds. This temporary stay is issued

without prior notice and comment,

based on good cause described herein.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

December 29, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

action have been placed in Docket A–

94–68. The docket is located at the Air

Docket Section (6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

in room M–1500 Waterside Mall.

Documents may be inspected from 8:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mark Coryell, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air and

Radiation, 401 M Street, SW. (6406J),

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 233–9014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of

this action is available on the OAQPS

Technology Transfer Network Bulletin

Board System (TTNBBS). The TTNBBS

can be accessed with a dial-in phone

line and a high-speed modem (PH# 919–

541–5742). The parity of your modem

should be set to none, the data bits to

8, and the stop bits to 1. Either a 1200,

2400, or 9600 baud modem should be

used. When first signing on, the user

will be required to answer some basic

informational questions for registration

purposes. After completing the

registration process, proceed through

the following series of menus:

(M) OMS

(K) Rulemaking and Reporting

(3) Fuels

(9) Reformulated gasoline

A list of ZIP files will be shown, all of

which are related to the reformulated

gasoline rulemaking process. Today’s

action will be in the form of a ZIP file

and can be identified by the following

titles: STAY.ZIP. To download this file,

type the instructions below and transfer

according to the appropriate software on

your computer:

<D>ownload, <P>rotocol, <E>xamine,

<N>ew, <L>ist, or <H>elp Selection

or <CR> to exit: D filename.zip

You will be given a list of transfer

protocols from which you must choose

one that matches with the terminal

software on your own computer. The

software should then be opened and

directed to receive the file using the

same protocol. Programs and

instructions for de-archiving

compressed files can be found via

<S>ystems Utilities from the top menu,

under <A>rchivers/de-archivers. Please

note that due to differences between the

software used to develop the document

and the software into which the

document may be downloaded, changes

in format, page length, etc. may occur.

I. Background

A. General Background on

Reformulated Gasoline Program and

Opt-In Process

The reformulated gasoline program is

designed to reduce ozone levels in the

largest metropolitan areas of the U.S.

with the worst ground-level ozone

problems by reducing vehicle emissions

of the ozone precursors, specifically

volatile organic compounds (VOC),

through fuel reformulation.

Reformulated gasoline also achieves a

significant reduction in air toxics. In

Phase II of the program, nitrogen oxides

(NOX), another precursor of ozone, are

reduced. The 1990 amendments of the

Clean Air Act require reformulated

gasoline in the nine cities with the

highest levels of ozone. Congress also

provided the opportunity for states to

choose to opt into the RFG program for

their other nonattainment areas.

EPA issued final rules establishing

requirements for RFG on December 15,

1993 (59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994).

During development of the RFG rule, a

number of states inquired as to whether

they would be permitted to opt out of

the RFG program at a future date or to

opt out of certain of the requirements.

This was based on their concern that the

air quality benefits of RFG, given their

specific needs, might not warrant the

cost of the program, specifically

focusing on the more stringent

standards in Phase II of the program

(starting in 2000). Such states wished to

retain their ability to opt out of the

program. Other states indicated they

viewed RFG as an interim strategy to

help bring their nonattainment areas

into attainment sooner than would

otherwise be the case.

The regulation issued on December of

1993 did not include procedures for

opting out of the RFG program, because

EPA had not proposed and was not

ready to adopt such procedures at that

time. However, the Agency did indicate

that it intended to propose such

procedures in a separate rule.

B. Jefferson County, New York

Jefferson County was included as a

covered area in EPA’s reformulated

gasoline regulations based on Governor

Mario Cuomo’s request of October 28,

1991, that this county be included

under the Act’s opt-in provision for

ozone nonattainment areas (57 FR 7926,

March 5, 1992). See 40 CFR

80.70(j)(10)(vi). On November 29, 1994,

EPA received a petition from the

Commissioner of New York’s
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2697

1Paragraph 5 of section 211(k) prohibits the sale

of conventional, or non-reformulated gasoline, in

covered areas.

2The preamble to the December 15, 1993, final

regulations failed to provide a clear discussion of

EPA’s views on this issue. While EPA noted that it

‘‘may pursue a separate action in the future that

would allow states to opt out of the RFG program,

provided sufficient notice is given,’’ the preamble

also indicated there were concerns over whether

EPA had authority to allow states to opt-out. 59 FR

7808 (February 16, 1994). The context for these

statements, however, makes it clear that EPA’s

concerns were based on issues surrounding

questions of opting-in for only Phase I of the

reformulated gasoline program. See 59 FR 7809. As

noted above, EPA believes that it does have

authority to establish requirements that allow states

to opt-out of this program.

Department of Environmental

Conservation, Mr. Langdon Marsh, to

remove Jefferson County, New York,

from the list of areas covered by the

requirements of the reformulated

gasoline program. EPA understands that

Commissioner Marsh is acting for

Governor Cuomo on this matter. The

Administrator responded to the State’s

request in a letter to Commissioner

Marsh dated December 12, 1994, stating

EPA’s intention to grant New York’s

request as of January 1, 1995, and to

conduct rulemaking to implement the

opt-out. The Administrator also

announced that effective January 1,

1995, and until the rulemaking to

remove Jefferson County from the list of

covered areas is completed, EPA would

not enforce the reformulated gasoline

requirements in Jefferson County. This

decision was based on the particular

circumstances that apply in Jefferson

County.

C. The Buffalo and Albany Areas of New

York

On December 23, 1994, Commissioner

Marsh of New York’s Department of

Environmental Conservation wrote to

request opt-out of the Albany and

Buffalo areas which include the

counties of Albany, Greene,

Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga,

Schenectady, Erie and Niagara. The

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, Mary Nichols, responded to

the state’s request in a letter to

Commissioner Marsh dated December

28, 1994, stating EPA’s intention to

grant New York’s request as of January

1, 1995, and to conduct rulemaking to

implement the opt-out. The December

28, letter also indicated EPA’s intent to

stay the RFG requirements effective

from January 1, 1995 until July 1, 1995,

while the Agency completes rulemaking

to appropriately change the regulations.

D. Pennsylvania Counties

Twenty-eight counties in

Pennsylvania were included as covered

areas in EPA’s reformulated gasoline

regulations based on Governor Robert P.

Casey’s request dated September 25,

1991 (56 FR 57986, November 15, 1991).

See 40 C.F.R. 80.70(j)(11) (i) through

(xxviii). The counties referred to are

listed as follows: Adams, Allegheny,

Armstrong, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Butler,

Cambria, Carbon, Columbia,

Cumberland, Dauphin, Erie, Fayette,

Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon,

Lehigh, Luzerne, Mercer, Monroe,

Somerset, Northhampton, Perry,

Washington, Westmoreland, Wyoming

and York. On December 1, 1994, EPA

received a petition from Governor Casey

to remove these twenty-eight counties

from the list of areas covered by the

requirements of the reformulated

gasoline program. Based on the state of

Pennsylvania’s opt-out request of

December 1, 1994, the EPA

Administrator formally responded to the

State’s request in a letter to Governor

Casey dated December 12, 1994. In this

letter, the Administrator indicated that

effective January 1, 1995, and until the

formal rulemaking to remove the

twenty-eight counties from the list of

covered areas is completed, EPA would

not enforce the reformulated gasoline

requirements in these twenty-eight

counties. This decision was based on

the particular circumstances that apply

in these twenty-eight counties.

E. Hancock and Waldo Counties in

Maine

Hancock and Waldo counties were

included as a covered areas in EPA’s

reformulated gasoline regulation based

on Governor John R. McKernan’s

request of June 26, 1991, that these

counties be included under the Act’s

opt-in provision for ozone

nonattainment areas (56 FR 46119,

September 10, 1991). See 40 CFR

80.70(j)(5) (viii) and (ix). On December

27, 1994, EPA received a petition from

the Acting Commissioner of Maine’s

Department of Environmental

Protection, Ms. Deborah Garrett, to

remove Hancock and Waldo Counties in

Maine from the list of areas covered by

the requirements of the reformulated

gasoline program. EPA understands that

Commissioner Garrett is acting for

Governor McKernan in this matter. The

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, Mary Nichols, responded to

the state’s request in a letter to

Commissioner Garrett, dated December

27, 1994, stating EPA’s intention to

grant Maine’s request, and conduct

rulemaking to implement the opt-out.

The December 28 letter also indicated

EPA’s intent to stay the reformulated

gasoline requirements effective from

January 1, 1995, until July 1, 1995,

while the Agency completes rulemaking

to appropriately change the regulations.

II. EPA’s Proposal To Grant New

York’s, Pennsylvania’s, and Maine’s

Request To Remove Selected Opt-In

Areas From the Requirements of the

Reformulated Gasoline Program

EPA believes that it is reasonable to

construe section 211(k) as authorizing

the Agency to establish procedures and

requirements for states to opt out of the

reformulated gasoline program. This

would only apply to areas that have

previously opted in under section

211(k)(6); the mandatory covered areas

would not be allowed to opt out of the

program.

In section 211(k)(6), Congress

expressed its clear intention regarding

state opting in to this program. That

paragraph establishes that ‘‘upon the

application of the Governor of a State,

the Administrator shall apply the

prohibition set forth in paragraph (5) in

any (ozone nonattainment) area in the

State * * *. The Administrator shall

establish an effective date for such

prohibition * * *.’’ 1 However, with

respect to opting out, ‘‘the statute is

silent or ambiguous with respect to the

specific issue’’ and the question is

whether EPA’s interpretation ‘‘is based

on a permissible construction of the

statute.’’ Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467

U.S. 837, 843 (1984). In addition, ‘‘[i]f

Congress has explicitly left a gap for the

Agency to fill, there is an express

delegation of authority to the Agency to

elucidate a specific provision of the

statute by regulation.’’ Id. at 843–44. If

the delegation is implicit, the Agency

may adopt a reasonable interpretation of

the statute. Id. at 844.

Section 211(k)(1) provides that EPA is

to promulgate ‘‘regulations establishing

requirements for reformulated

gasoline.’’ This provision therefore

delegates to EPA the authority to define

the requirements for reformulated

gasoline. Clean Air Act section 301(a)(1)

also delegates to EPA the general

authority to promulgate ‘‘such

regulations as are necessary’’ for EPA to

carry out its function under the Act.

Given these delegations of legislative

rulemaking authority, EPA’s

interpretation of section 211(k) with

respect to opting out should be upheld

unless manifestly contrary to the Act.

Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843–44.

EPA believes that it is appropriate to

interpret section 211(k) as authorizing

states to opt-out of this program, with

the requirements focusing on a

reasonable transition out of the

program.2 There are really two aspects
2698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3The affected areas have not had ozone

exceedances for three years. Several of the areas

have requests pending before the agency for

redesignation to attainment status. The other areas

are expected to submit such requests.

to this, the first being whether states

should be allowed to opt out at all, the

second being what conditions, if any,

should be placed on opting out. With

respect to the former, a right to opt out

is consistent with the Act’s recognition

that states have the primary

responsibility to develop a mix of

appropriate control strategies needed to

reach attainment with the NAAQS.

While various mandatory control

strategies were established under the

Clean Air Act, the Act still evidences a

clear commitment to allowing states the

flexibility to determine the appropriate

mix of other measures needed to meet

their air pollution goals. Section

211(k)’s opt-in provision reflects this

deference to state choice, providing that

opt-in will occur upon application by

the governor. The only discretion EPA

retains regarding opt-in is in setting or

extending the effective date. Allowing

states the right to opt-out is a logical

extension of these considerations of

deference to state decision making.

Given such deference, it follows that

opting out should be accomplished

through application of the governor. It

also follows that the conditions on

opting out should be geared towards

achieving a reasonable transition out of

the reformulated gasoline program, as

compared to requiring a state to justify

its decision. EPA has identified two

principal areas of concern in this regard.

The first involves coordination of air

quality planning. For example,

reformulated gasoline in opt-in areas

has been relied upon by several states in

their State Implementation Plan

submissions or in their redesignation

requests. The second involves

appropriate lead time for industry to

transition out of the program.

In a separate notice, to be published

soon, EPA will be proposing to revise its

RFG regulations to remove the affected

counties from the program.

III. Temporary Stay Removing the Nine

New York Counties, the Twenty-Eight

Counties in Pennsylvania, and Two

Counties in Maine From the List of

Areas Covered by the Reformulated

Gasoline Requirements as of January 1,

1995

Clean Air Act section 307(d)(1)

requires EPA to follow specified

rulemaking procedures in promulgating

regulations under section 211(h).

Section 307(d) provides, however, that

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements ‘‘shall not apply in the

case of any rule or circumstance referred

to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of

subsection 553(b) of title 5 of the United

States Code [i.e. sections 553(b) (A) and

(B) of the APA].’’ Under APA section

553(b)(B), notice and comment are not

required ‘‘when the agency for good

cause finds (and incorporate the finding

and a brief statement of reasons thereof

in the rules issued) that notice and

public procedure thereon are

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest.’’

EPA is issuing this temporary stay as

a final rule without prior notice and

comment. This expedited rulemaking

procedure is based on the need to act

quickly to avoid unnecessary disruption

at the inception of the reformulated

gasoline program, stemming from recent

decisions by various states to opt out of

this program. The different

circumstances for the various covered

areas involved are discussed below.

The final regulations establishing the

reformulated gasoline program were

issued on December 15, 1993, requiring

upstream parties to have reformulated

gasoline in the covered areas as of

December 1, 1994, and to have

reformulated gasoline at all retail outlets

in those areas as of January 1, 1995. In

late November and December, EPA

received requests from Pennsylvania,

New York and Maine to opt out various

areas in these states. EPA responded to

the initial requests from New York and

Pennsylvania by letter dated December

12, 1994, indicating EPA’s belief that

the Act authorizes states to opt out of

the reformulated gasoline program, and

EPA’s intention to grant the request

considering the lack of adverse air

quality impacts,3 the lack of reliance on

reformulated gasoline in the states’ SIPs,

and the logistical problems associated

with providing reformulated gasoline, at

least with respect to Jefferson County.

EPA announced that it would

commence rulemaking to revise its

regulations to effectuate the opt out, and

effective January 1, 1995 would not

enforce the reformulated gasoline

requirements in the respective counties.

EPA, of course, retains its authority to

take appropriate action to address any

non-compliance that may have occurred

prior to January 1, 1995.

EPA has since learned that its

December 12 announcement has led to

confusion and disruption in the market

place regarding the transition back to

conventional gasoline. There is also

uncertainty regarding potential liability

under EPA’s citizen suit provisions. The

existence of confusion within the

regulated community has led to

unfortunate disruptions in the market

place. EPA neither intended nor

expected this result. Instead, EPA’s

December 12 announcement was an

attempt to provide certainty and

stability, while at the same time

recognizing the value in allowing states

to expeditiously opt out of the

reformulated gasoline program under

appropriate circumstances.

With respect to the Albany-Buffalo

area in New York and the affected towns

in Maine, EPA did not make a prior

announcement of its intention regarding

the opt-out of these areas. However,

expedited issuance of a temporary stay

is also needed for those areas to avoid

a patchwork of staggered times for opt

out, occurring at the inception of this

major program. Such variability would

only increase the logistical and other

problems facing the regulated

community, and disrupt their planning

to produce and market reformulated

gasoline over the next several months.

This important and complicated

program is just starting, and it is

necessary that all parties involved have

the certainty and stability needed for

successful implementation. EPA

believes that these circumstances

warrant a temporary stay of the

reformulated gasoline requirements in

these areas effective from January 1,

1995 until July 1, 1995. That will

provide adequate time to conduct notice

and comment rulemaking and take final

action on these opt-out requests.

Given all of the above circumstances,

EPA’s belief that it is fully authorized to

allow the affected areas to opt out, the

temporary nature of this stay, and the

ability of all parties to comment on the

notice of proposed rulemaking to allow

the opt out of these areas, EPA believes

there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b) and CAA § 307(d)(1) to issue this

final rule without prior notice and

comment. For the same reasons, EPA

finds there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(d) for the expedited effective date of

this final rule.

V. Effective Date

This temporary stay is effective as of

January 1, 1995.

VI. Environmental Impact

The temporary stay is not expected to

have any adverse environmental effects.

The areas covered by this rule have data

showing compliance with the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone for three or more consecutive

years.

VII. Economic Impact

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Administrator certifies that

this temporary stay will not have a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2699

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This temporary stay is not expected to

result in any additional compliance cost

to regulated parties and, in fact, is

expected to decrease compliance costs

to the industry and decrease costs to

consumer in the affected areas.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether a regulation is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more, or adversely affect

in a material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or the principles set forth in the

Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

Under the Paper Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., EPA must obtain

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) clearance for any activity that

will involve collecting substantially the

same information from 10 or more nonFederal respondents. This rule does not

create any new information

requirements or contain any new

information collection activities.

IX. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for the action

in this rule is granted to EPA by section

211 (c) and (k), and section 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C.

7545 (c) and (k) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Fuel additives,

Gasoline, and Motor vehicle pollution.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR Part 80 is amended as follows:

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS

AND FUEL ADDITIVES

1. The authority citation for part 80

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of

the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

7414, 7545, and 7601(a))

2. Section 80.70 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (j) to read as follows.

§ 80.70 Covered areas.

* * * * *

(j) The ozone nonattainment areas

listed in this paragraph (j) of this section

are covered areas beginning on January

1, 1995, except that those areas listed in

paragraphs (j)(5) (viii) and (ix), (j)(10) (i),

(iii) and (v) through (xi) and j(11) of this

section are covered areas beginning on

July 1, 1995. The geographic extent of

each covered area listed in this

paragraph (j) of this section shall be the

nonattainment area boundaries as

specified in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–421 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL–5137–5]

Ocean Dumping; Site Designation

Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Technical amendment.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final rulemaking for

designation of an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site (ODMDS)

offshore Fort Pierce, Florida. The final

rule was published in the Federal

Register on Thursday, September 2,

1993. The preamble of the Final Rule

correctly described the location of the

ODMDS. However, the regulatory text

gave incorrect coordinates for the

location of the Fort Pierce, Florida

ODMDS. This technical amendment is

necessary to correct the coordinates for

the location of the ODMDS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher J. McArthur, 404/347–1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final rule (September 2, 1993, 58

FR 46544) that is the subject of this

correction designated an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site (ODMDS)

offshore Fort Pierce, Florida as an EPAapproved ocean dumping site for the

dumping of suitable dredged material.

Need for Correction

As published, the final rule contained

errors in the regulatory text. Coordinates

for the location of the Fort Pierce,

Florida ODMDS were listed incorrectly.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

Water pollution control.

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Approved by: Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing,

subchapter H of chapter I of title 40 is

amended as set forth below.

PART 228—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 228

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

2. Section 228.15 is to be amended by

revising paragraph (h)(11)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a

final basis.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(11) * * *

(i) Location: 27°28′00′′ N., 80°12′33′′

W.; 27°28′00′′ N., 80°11′27′′ W.;

27°27′00′′ N., 80°11′27′′ W.; and

27°27′00′′ N., 80°12′33′′ W.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–701 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–5137–7]

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) applied for final authorization of

revision to its hazardous waste program

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.

6926(b). The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) reviewed Oklahoma’s

application and decided that its

hazardous waste program revision

satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for final

authorization. Unless adverse written

comments are received during the

review and comment period provided

for public participation in this process,

EPA intends to approve Oklahoma’s

hazardous waste program revision