[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 131 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35531-35535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16826]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH21-1-6989; FRL-5255-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing approval of revisions to the Ohio State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (OEPA) on March 15, 1993, and December 30, 1994. The USEPA's 
proposal is based upon a revision request to satisfy the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act, which was submitted by the State to the USEPA on 
June 7, 1993, and February 17, 1995. The revisions concern Ohio 
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-21, ``Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, 
Hydrocarbon Air Quality Standards, and Related Emission Requirements,'' 
and this proposed action addresses volatile organic compound (VOC) 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major sources not 
covered by a control techniques guideline (CTG) located in the 
Cleveland/Akron/Lorain and Cincinnati nonattainment areas. The USEPA 
has evaluated the revisions to Rules 04 and 09, along with a letter 
committing to publish Findings and Orders correcting deficiencies in 
the rules, submitted by OEPA on June 21, 1995, and two permits to 
install (PTI) which OEPA has committed to submit as SIP revisions. 
USEPA proposes to approve the requested revisions, which establish 
site-specific non-CTG VOC RACT regulations. The approval will not be 
finalized until Ohio issues the completed Findings and Orders, and 
allows public comment on them, and submits the permits to install as 
SIP revisions. Subsequent to review of these Findings and Orders, USEPA 
will take final action on the requested revisions through the letter 
notice process. The effective date of this SIP revision will be the 
date that the letter notice is issued.

DATES: Comments on this revision and on the proposed U.S.EPA action 
must be received by August 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L. 
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement 
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-
17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), 
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket (6102) room M1500, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Cain, Air Enforcement Branch, 
Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) 
were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 
7401-7671q. Under the pre-amended CAA, ozone nonattainment areas were 
required to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules 
for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. VOCs 
contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These 
rules were required as part of an effort to achieve the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
    RACT, as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(o), means devices, systems 
process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that are 
reasonably available taking into account (1) the necessity of imposing 
such controls in order to attain and maintain a national ambient air 
quality standard, (2) the social, environmental and economic impact of 
such controls, and (3) alternative means of providing for attainment 
and maintenance of such standard. The USEPA issued three sets of 
control technique guidelines (CTGs) documents, establishing a 
``presumptive norm'' for RACT for various categories of VOC sources. 
Those sources not covered by a CTG were called non-CTG sources. The 
USEPA determined that a given nonattainment area's SIP-approved 
attainment date established which RACT rules the area needed to adopt 
and implement. Under pre-amended section 172(a)(1), ozone nonattainment 
areas were generally required to attain the ozone standard by December 
31, 1982. Those areas that projected attainment by that date were 
required to adopt RACT for sources covered by the Group I and II CTGs. 
Those areas that sought an extension of the attainment date under 
section 172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987, were required to 
adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., having a 
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG 
sources.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act requires States to adopt RACT 
rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified 
as moderate or above. There are three parts to the section 182(b)(2) 
RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG, 
i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment 
CTG; and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG. The non-CTG 
requirement includes unregulated emission units within a source if they 
total more than 100 tons per year in the aggregate. Section 182(b)(2) 
requires nonattainment areas that previously were exempt from RACT 
requirements to ``catch up'' to those nonattainment areas that became 
subject to those 

[[Page 35532]]
requirements during an earlier period. In addition, it requires newly 
designated ozone nonattainment areas to adopt RACT rules consistent 
with those for previously designated nonattainment areas.
    This proposed action addresses VOC RACT for site-specific non-CTG 
sources located in the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain and Cincinnati 
nonattainment areas. Non-CTG RACT for the other areas of Ohio 
designated moderate or above, Toledo and Dayton-Springfield, has been 
addressed in a separate rulemaking in the Federal Register on March 23, 
1995 (60 FR 15235-15241) along with RACT for CTG sources.
    The following is the USEPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions 
to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-21 ``Carbon Monoxide, 
Ozone, Hydrocarbon Air Quality Standards, and Related Emission 
Requirements,'' including the following amendments: 3745-21-01, 
Definitions, 3745-21-04, Attainment Dates and Compliance Time 
Schedules, and 3745-21-09, Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic 
Compounds from Stationary Sources.

II. USEPA Evaluation and Action

    In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, the USEPA must 
evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the Act and 
USEPA regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the Act and 40 
CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). A detailed analysis of the submittals and 
discussion of the USEPA's basis for proposing approval is contained a 
USEPA Technical Support Document (TSD) dated June 23, 1995.
    This action addresses VOC regulations applying to non-CTG sources. 
The USEPA finds that Ohio's non-CTG VOC RACT rules for sources located 
in the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain and Cincinnati nonattainment areas are 
approvable. These rules had previously been disapproved by USEPA in the 
Federal Register for May 9, 1994 (59 FR 23796-23799) as a result of 
deficiencies cited in the Federal Register on September 23, 1993 (58 FR 
49458-49463). For four of the site-specific rules, approval is 
contingent upon issuance by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
(OEPA) of Findings and Orders which correct deficiencies in the rules. 
A rule establishing RACT for one additional company, Sprayon Products, 
for which there is no current rule, will be contained in an additional 
Finding and Order. In a June 21, 1995 letter to USEPA, OEPA has 
committed to publish these Findings and Orders. Subsequent to review of 
these Findings and Orders, USEPA will take final action on the 
requested revisions through a letter notice to OEPA and the affected 
sources. The effective date of the revisions will be the date that the 
letter notice is issued. Interested parties wishing to comment on these 
revisions or on USEPA approval by means of the letter notice must 
submit written comments by August 9, 1995.
    A discussion of these rules, contained in OAC 3745-21-09, follows.

(FF) Steelcraft Manufacturing Co., Cincinnati

    The deficiency previously cited by USEPA (lack of sufficient 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements) has been corrected by 
subjecting this source to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
of paragraph (B)(3), previously approved by USEPA.

(GG) Chevron USA, Incorporated, Cincinnati Area

    Recordkeeping requirements have been added to this rule to ensure 
enforceability, thus correcting the deficiency previously cited by 
USEPA.

(HH) Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Massillon Road

    Recordkeeping requirements have been added to this rule to ensure 
enforceability, thus correcting the deficiency previously cited by 
USEPA.

(II) International Paper Co., Springdale

    This source is an offset lithographic printer, a category for which 
a draft CTG was published on December 12, 1992, although no final CTG 
was published. A Finding and Order issued by OEPA will require that the 
alcohol content in the fountain solution be no greater than 8.5 percent 
by volume, and that the fountain be refrigerated to 60  deg.F, which 
was determined to be RACT in the draft CTG. In addition, the rule 
imposes limits on the VOC content of coatings and inks which were 
determined to be the lowest available, based on correspondence between 
the company and vendors of coatings and inks.

(JJ) Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Tech Way Drive

    USEPA concerns about a provision allowing the use of an alternative 
method and/or procedure to Goodyear Method E-826 (Revision 1, 1983) for 
determining residual monomer content have been addressed by inclusion 
in the rule of language requiring that this alternative method and/or 
procedure be approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision. Another USEPA-
cited deficiency has been corrected by adding requirements for daily 
analyses and recordkeeping on residual monomer content in polymer blend 
tanks.

(KK) Morton Thiokol, Cincinnati

    This rule requires the company to control VOC emissions from its 
methyltin production processes through use of a VOC recovery system 
which achieves at least 70 percent control efficiency. Control 
efficiency must be calculated weekly, and failure to achieve adequate 
control efficiency must be reported. In addition, the railcar unloading 
process must be a closed-loop system which uses compressed VOC for 
unloading, without any venting into the atmosphere. Previously cited 
deficiencies have been corrected through addition to the rule of a 
requirement that determination of VOC usage and recovery be performed 
on a daily basis to calculate a weekly average for purposes of 
compliance determination, and by an explanation by the company and Ohio 
of the closed-loop unloading process.
(LL) Lubrizol Corporation, Painesville (Cleveland Area)

    Recordkeeping requirements have been added to paragraph (3)(a) of 
this rule to ensure enforceability, addressing a deficiency previously 
cited by USEPA.

(MM) PPG Industries, Inc., Cleveland

    A deficiency previously cited by USEPA (lack of sufficient 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements) has been corrected by 
subjecting this source to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
of paragraph (B)(4). In addition, a definition of the term ``control 
system'' has been added to paragraph 3745-21-01(Q), eliminating another 
previously-cited deficiency.

(NN) Midwest Mica, Cleveland

    Midwest Mica creates electrical insulation products using mica 
chips held together by resins. The rule requires emissions from each of 
the coating or laminating lines to be vented to a control device 
achieving 98 percent destruction of VOCs. However, the rule lacks a 
requirement for capture efficiency. A Finding and Order issued by OEPA 
will correct this deficiency by requiring 81 percent total control 
efficiency (taking into account both capture and destruction) and 
referencing USEPA test methods for determining capture efficiency. 
Lines which employ less than five tons of VOCs per year are exempted 
from this requirement, but the company must keep monthly records 
documenting emissions from these lines, and report 

[[Page 35533]]
emission levels which exceed five tons per year. Recordkeeping 
requirements for the control device are covered by paragraph (B)(3).

(OO) Armco Steel Company, Middletown (Cincinnati Area)

    RACT for this facility involves the use of rolling oil, rust 
preventative oil, pre-lube oil and anti-galling material with the 
lowest available VOC content. USEPA cited deficiencies in the rule as a 
result of the company's failure to demonstrate that the VOC content of 
rolling oil and anti-galling material used is the lowest available. For 
anti-galling material, this deficiency has been corrected through the 
use a water-based material. A Finding will state a new limit on pounds 
of VOC per gallon of anti-galling material. For rolling oil, this 
deficiency has been addressed through provision of correspondence with 
vendors stating that the oil in use has the lowest VOC content 
available. The Finding will correct the limit on VOC content per gallon 
for rolling oil and rust preventative oil, and provide a VOC content 
limit for pre-lube oil. Previous limits in the rule were based on an 
incorrect application of ASTM method D2369-81 to the oils in use. 
Actual emissions of VOCs per gallon of oil applied are a small fraction 
of the total VOC content, since most of the oil is recovered and 
recycled. Additional USEPA concerns about the lack of recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements have been addressed by making Rule 09(OO) 
subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in paragraph 
(B)(3).

(PP) Formica Corporation, Cincinnati

    The deficiency previously cited by USEPA (lack of sufficient 
recordkeeping requirements) has been corrected by subjecting this 
source to the requirements of paragraph (B)(3).

(QQ) DayGlo Color Corporation, Cleveland

    This rule requires the company to use a vacuum system consisting of 
a vacuum pump and condenser as a filtration system which separates 
methanol from solid dye. Each mixing vessel larger than 400 gallons 
must be completely covered at all times, except when the vessel is 
empty or being emptied, and except for small openings for the mixer 
shaft and for adding materials to the vessel.

(SS) Ritrama Duramark, Cleveland

    Ritrama Duramark operates two lines which apply coatings to a 
continuous web. Line 1 is a vinyl casting line and line 2 applies 
adhesives to paper. Line 2 is covered by the paper coating rule--09(F). 
The vinyl film casting line, covered by (SS), applies a vinyl organosol 
to a paper substrate in order to create a vinyl casting. The vinyl is 
then dried in an oven which is vented to an incinerator. The rule 
requires 100 percent capture efficiency and 98 percent destruction of 
VOCs from this line.

(TT) ICI Americas, Perry

    The rule requires that emissions from stage 1 and stage 2 reactor 
vent streams be vented to a flare which meets the requirement of OAC 
3745-21-09(DD)(10)(d), and the diked area of the carbon disulfide tanks 
must be completely covered by styrofoam sheets in order to reduce VOC 
emissions. Control on distillation vents was determined to be 
economically infeasible.

(YY) PMC Specialties Group, Cincinnati

    PMC manufactures methyl anthranilate (MA), anthranilic acid (AA); 
saccharin, and o-carboalkoxybenzenefulfoanamide (OCBS). The rule 
requires that emissions from the MA and AA process reactor vent streams 
be vented to an enclosed combustion device that is designed and 
operated to achieve at least a 95 percent reduction in VOC emissions. 
Under this rule, the OCBS manufacturing process is required to limit 
its emissions to 12 pounds of VOC per 6,000 pounds of product, which 
results in a 90 percent reduction in VOC emissions. Controls on 
emissions from the saccharin manufacturing process were evaluated by 
OEPA and found to be technically or economically infeasible.

(ZZ) Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company, Akron

    All reactor process vent streams must be vented to an enclosed 
combustion device achieving 98 percent reduction, or to a flare which 
meets the requirements of paragraph (DD)(10)(d). An exemption is made 
for process vent streams vented to a flare constructed prior to March 
21, 1993, which is maintained in accordance with design specifications.

(AAA) Reilly Industries, Cleveland

    Reilly refines crude coal tar, producing ``front end'' naphthalene 
oil products, creosote oil, heavy (enamel) oil, electrode binder pitch, 
pellet pitch, roofing tar, and road tar. The facility's major emissions 
sources include: storage tanks for crude product; eight distillation 
stills (in two ``batteries'' of four each--one battery for continuous 
processing, the other for batch processing), and storage tanks for 
refined products. The distillation stills are covered by OAC 3745-21-07 
(G), which requires 85 percent destruction of VOCs emissions. USEPA 
concerns about the enforceability of paragraph 07 (G) will be addressed 
in a Finding and Order which affirms that the stills are covered by 
this rule, and which clarifies the test methods to be used to measure 
VOCs. The rule requires 90 percent control on each storage tank larger 
than 40,000 gallons which contains crude coal tar, refined tar or front 
end oil; this rule does not cover tanks containing creosote oil and 
solution oil. However, the low volatility of these products leads to 
low emissions, eliminating the need for add-on controls. Storage tanks 
with controls built before July 1, 1992 are exempt from the 90 percent 
control requirement, but must be operated and maintained in accordance 
with design specifications.

(BBB) BF Goodrich, Akron Chemical Plant
    The rule requires that emissions from the agerite resin D process 
be vented to a control device which achieves 90 percent control 
efficiency; emissions from the superlite (trademark) and diphenylamine-
based antioxidants process must be vented to control devices achieving 
95 percent control efficiency.
    The schedules for compliance with each of these rules are contained 
in OAC 3745-21-04(C)(40-51,53,54,59-62). Rules (C)(42), (C)(43), 
(C)(44), (C)(45) and (C)(47) were approved in the March 23, 1995 
Federal Register (60 FR 15235-15241). The remaining schedules are 
timely, and are approved.
    In addition to the non-CTG VOC RACT rules contained in OAC 3745-21-
09, OEPA has committed to submit a Finding and Order for Sprayon 
Products, in Bedford Heights, which establishes a generic VOC RACT 
limit of 81 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline. This limit will 
be based on VOC emissions per can filled, thereby allowing changes in 
production not to affect the percent control limit. Operations which 
already meet a federally-enforceable RACT requirement, or which have 
combined annual emissions of less than five tons per year will be 
exempt from the baseline and the 81 percent reduction requirement. The 
facility will be allowed one year to petition OEPA and USEPA for an 
alternative control plan if it can be demonstrated that the 81 percent 
control requirement is not technically or economically feasible. 

[[Page 35534]]

    Along with its review of Ohio's non-CTG VOC RACT rules, USEPA 
reviewed RACT studies for sources which are subject to the non-CTG RACT 
requirement but for which Ohio has not submitted a non-CTG rule. Ohio 
determined that no rule was necessary for these sources because no 
controls beyond those already federally enforceable were technically or 
economically feasible. USEPA concurs with this judgement. The 
justification for not including a rule for these sources follows.

Excello Specialty Company, Cleveland

    RACT for this facility is defined as the operation of control 
devices with 85 percent overall control efficiency on its coating 
lines, which is required by a permit to install (PTI).

Hilton Davis Company, Cincinnati

    The company utilizes in-line condensers, vacuum pumps, and 
scrubbers that have process functions as well as emissions control 
functions. In addition, emissions at the company's wastewater treatment 
plant are controlled by a thermal oxidizer which is required by a PTI. 
Additional controls were evaluated by OEPA and found to be technically 
or economically infeasible.

Monsanto Company, Addyston

    Thermal incineration, catalytic incineration and carbon adsorption 
of emissions from various processes at this source were evaluated by 
OEPA and found to be technically or economically infeasible.

Proctor & Gamble, Ivorydale (Cincinnati Area)

    Existing controls have process functions or serve primarily as 
particulate matter control. Additional controls of VOC emissions from 
this source were evaluated by OEPA and found to be technically or 
economically infeasible.

General Electric Company, Euclid Specialty Coating, Cleveland

    The facility utilizes condensers that have process functions as 
well as emissions control functions. Additional controls at this source 
were evaluated by OEPA and found to be technically or economically 
infeasible.

BF Goodrich Company, Avon Lake

    Add-on controls were evaluated at this source were evaluated by 
OEPA and found to be technically or economically infeasible.

III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment

    The USEPA has evaluated the State's submittal for consistency with 
the Act, USEPA regulations, and USEPA policy. The USEPA has determined 
that the submitted non-CTG rules meet the Act's requirements, and with 
this action proposes approval, under section 110(k)(3), of the 
following rules:
    OAC 3745-21-01: (Q); (T).
    OAC 3745-21-04: (C)(40); (C)(41); (C)(46); (C)(48); (C)(49); 
(C)(50); (C)(51); (C)(53); (C)(54); (C)(59); (C)(60); (C)(61); (C)(62).
    OAC 3745-21-09: (FF); (GG); (HH); (II); (JJ); (KK); (LL); (MM); 
(NN); (OO); (PP); (QQ); (SS); (TT); (YY); (ZZ); (AAA); (BBB).
    Approval of OAC 3745-21-09 (II), (NN), (OO) and (AAA) is contingent 
upon approval of Findings and Orders outlined in a June 21, 1995 letter 
from OEPA to USEPA. Subsequent to USEPA review, the Findings and Orders 
for International Paper, Midwest Mica, Armco (AK) Steel, Reilly 
Industries, and Sprayon Products, along with permits to install for 
Excello Specialty Company and Hilton Davis Company, will be approved 
into the Ohio ozone SIP through a letter notice.
    Public comments are solicited on USEPA'S proposed rulemaking 
action. Public comments received by August 9, 1995, will be considered 
in the development of USEPA's final rulemaking action. Notice of final 
action on the requested revisions will be provided by letter to OEPA 
and the affected sources, and a subsequent document of such action will 
be published in the Federal Register.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be considered 
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental 
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.) 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the Act 
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake 
various actions in association with proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of the state implementation plan or plan 
revisions approved in this action, the State has elected to adopt the 
program provided for under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The rules 
and commitments being approved in this action may bind State, local and 
tribal governments to perform certain actions and also may ultimately 
lead to the private sector being required to perform certain duties. To 
the extent that the rules and commitments being approved by this action 
will impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the State, 
local or tribal governments either as the owner or operator of a source 
or as a regulator, or would impose or lead to the imposition of any 
mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose no new 
requirements; such sources are already subject to these requirements 
under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. 
The USEPA has also determined that this action does not include a 
mandate that may result in estimated costs or $100 million or more to 
State, local, or tribal 

[[Page 35535]]
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).

    Dated: June 28, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-16826 Filed 7-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P