[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38744-38748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15290]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NC-FORS-T5-2000-01a; FRL-6712-5]


Clean Air Act Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; Forsyth 
County (North Carolina)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to fully approve the operating 
permit program of the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department. 
Forsyth County's operating permit program was submitted in response to 
the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that 
permitting authorities develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing 
operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other 
sources within the permitting authorities' jurisdiction. EPA granted 
interim approval to Forsyth County's operating permit program on 
November 15, 1995. The County revised its program to satisfy the 
conditions of the interim approval and this action approves those 
revisions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on August 21, 2000 without 
further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments in writing by July 
24, 2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect. The public comments will 
be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule 
published in this Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Kim 
Pierce, Regional Title V Program Manager, Operating Source Section, Air 
& Radiation Technology Branch, EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303. Copies of Forsyth County's submittals and other 
supporting documentation relevant to this action are available for 
inspection during normal business hours at EPA, Air & Radiation 
Technology Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Pierce, EPA, Region 4, at (404) 
562-9124.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information 
by addressing the following questions:

    What is the operating permit program?
    What is being addressed in this document?
    What are the program changes that EPA is approving?
    What is involved in this final action?

What is the Operating Permit Program?

    The CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local permitting 
authorities to develop operating permit programs that met certain 
Federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit programs, the 
permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to 
obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. 
The focus of the operating permit program is to improve enforcement by 
issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of the applicable 
CAA requirements into a Federally enforceable document. By 
consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility, the 
source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily 
determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those 
requirements is determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program 
include: ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources 
specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, 
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, 
must obtain operating permits. Examples of major sources include those 
that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile 
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides, or particulate matter (PM10 10); those that emit 10 
tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (specifically 
listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a 
combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In areas that are not 
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon 
monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the 
gravity of the nonattainment classification. For example, in ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as ``serious,'' major sources include 
those with the potential of emitting 50 tons per year or more of 
volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides.

What is Being Addressed in This Document?

    Where an operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met 
the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval 
contingent on the state revising its program to correct the 
deficiencies. Because Forsyth County's operating permit program

[[Page 38745]]

substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA 
granted interim approval to the program in a rulemaking published on 
November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57357). The interim approval notice stipulated 
eight conditions that had to be met in order for the County's program 
to receive full approval. Forsyth County submitted nine revisions to 
its interimly approved operating permit program; these revisions were 
dated September 25, 1995, January 16, 1997, August 1, 1997, April 22, 
1998, October 2, 1998, February 18, 1999, September 29, 1999, October 
26, 1999, and February 24, 2000. This document describes the changes 
that have been made in Forsyth County's operating permit program.

What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Approving?

    Full approval of Forsyth County's operating permit program was made 
contingent upon the following rule changes, as stipulated in EPA's 
November 15, 1995 rulemaking:
    (1) Revise Rule 3Q.0507 to require permit applications include all 
fugitive emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR 70.3(d). The County 
revised Rule 3Q.0507(b) to cite 40 CFR 70.3(d) and the local-effective 
rule change was submitted to EPA on August 1, 1997.
    (2) Revise Rule 3Q.0502(c) to ensure that research and development 
(R&D) facilities which are collocated with manufacturing facilities and 
which are under common control and belonging to a single major 
industrial grouping will be considered as the same facility for 
determining title V applicability. The County deleted Rule 3Q.0502(c) 
and the local-effective rule change was submitted to EPA on October 26, 
1999.
    (3) Revise Rule 3Q.0102(b)(2)(B) to adjust the insignificant 
emission threshold levels downward from potential emissions of 40 tons 
per year (tpy) to 5 tpy for criteria pollutants and 1000 pounds per 
year for HAPs, and to provide that the activities listed in Rule 
3Q.0102(b)(2)(F) are subject to these caps. In addition, EPA notified 
the County on July 15, 1996 of another deficiency in its insignificant 
activities provisions that came to light as a result of the court 
decision in Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) v. EPA, 87 F.3d 
280 (D.C. Cir. 1996): Rule 3Q.0102(a) had inadvertently been approved 
without identifying the exemption of insignificant activities from 
permit requirements as a program deficiency. In the Federal Register 
document granting final interim approval to the Alaska operating permit 
program (61 FR 64466, December 5, 1996), EPA acknowledged that its 
approval of the insignificant activities provisions in the North 
Carolina programs may have been inconsistent with the WSPA decision. 
Further review revealed this to be true.
    Forsyth County addressed the deficiencies in its insignificant 
activities provisions by removing Rule 3Q.0102 from its operating 
permit program and revising Rule 3Q.0503 to define two categories of 
insignificant activities: ``insignificant activities because of 
category'' and ``insignificant activities because of size or production 
rate.'' The first category includes:
    (a) Mobile sources,
    (b) Air conditioning units used for human comfort that are not 
subject to applicable requirements under Title VI of the Federal Clean 
Air Act and do not exhaust air pollutants into the ambient air from any 
manufacturing or other industrial process,
    (c) Ventilating and heating units used for human comfort that do 
not exhaust air pollutants into the ambient air from any manufacturing 
or other industrial process,
    (d) Noncommercial food preparation,
    (e) Consumer use of office equipment,
    (f) Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products,
    (g) Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes, and
    (h) New residential wood heaters subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA.
    The second category, ``insignificant activities because of size or 
production rate,'' is defined as ``any activity whose emissions would 
not violate any applicable emissions standard and whose potential 
emission of particulate, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile 
organic compounds, and carbon monoxide before air pollution control 
devices, i.e., potential uncontrolled emissions, are each no more than 
five tons per year and whose potential emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants before air pollution control devices are each below 1000 
pounds per year.'' The County also revised Rule 3Q.0508(f)(3) to remove 
the exemption from monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for insignificant activities, and revised Rule 3Q.0508(aa) 
to require the inclusion of insignificant activities in permits. The 
local-effective rule changes were submitted to EPA on October 26, 1999.
    (4) Revise Rule 3Q.0514(a) to clarify that: (a) Administrative 
permit amendments may be used to change test dates or construction 
dates only as long as no applicable requirements are violated in the 
process, and (b) an administrative permit amendment may be used to move 
terms and conditions from the state-enforceable portion of the permit 
to the state-and Federal-enforceable portion of the permit provided 
that the term being moved is a requirement which has become Federally 
enforceable through sections 110, 111, 112, or other parts of the Act. 
The County added language to Rule 3Q.0514(a)(4) stipulating that 
changes in test dates or construction dates qualify as administrative 
permit amendments ``provided that no applicable requirements are 
violated by the change in test dates or construction dates.'' The 
County also added language to Rule 3Q.0514(a)(5) stipulating that 
administrative permit amendments may be used to move terms and 
conditions from the County-enforceable portion of the permit to the 
County-and-Federal enforceable portion of the permit ``provided that 
terms and conditions being moved have become federally enforceable 
through section 110, 111, or 112 or other parts of the federal Clean 
Air Act.'' The local-effective rule changes were submitted to EPA on 
August 1, 1997.
    (5) Revise Rule 3Q.0515(f) to stipulate that a permit shield may 
not be granted for a minor permit modification. The County revised Rule 
3Q.0515 to disallow permit shields for minor permit modifications and 
submitted the local-effective rule change to EPA on August 1, 1997.
    (6) Revise Rule 3Q.0515(d) to require minor permit modifications to 
be processed within 90 days after receiving the application or 15 days 
after the end of EPA's 45-day review period, whichever is later. The 
County revised Rule 3Q.0515(d) accordingly and submitted the local-
effective rule change to EPA on August 1, 1997.
    (7) Revise Rule 3Q.0517(b) to provide that: (a) a part 70 permit 
shall be reopened and reissued within 18 months after a newly 
applicable requirement is promulgated, and (b) no reopening is required 
if the effective date of the newly applicable requirement is after the 
expiration of the permit, unless the term of the permit was extended 
based on the fact that it had not been renewed prior to its expiration. 
The County revised Rule 3Q.0517(b) to require the completion of permit 
reopenings within 18 months after newly applicable requirements are 
promulgated. This rule was also revised to state that ``[n]o reopening 
is required if the effective date of the requirement is after the 
expiration of the permit term unless the term of the permit was 
extended pursuant to Rule .0513(c). .  .'' The local-effective revised 
rule was submitted to EPA on August 1, 1997.

[[Page 38746]]

    (8) Revise Rule 3Q.0518(f) to remove the phrase ``subject to 
adjudication'' from the requirement to take action on a complete permit 
application. The County deleted Rule 3Q.0518(f) and submitted the 
local-effective rule revision to EPA on September 25, 1995.
    Forsyth County made several additional program changes after EPA 
granted interim approval on November 15, 1995. The definition of 
``Major facility'' as ``a major source as defined under 40 CFR 70.2'' 
was added to Rule 3Q.0103 in the general provisions of the County's air 
quality permitting regulations. The County submitted the local-
effective rule revision to EPA on January 16, 1997. The County also 
changed the method for determining its annual title V fee. Forsyth 
County's operating permit program was initially approved based on use 
of the ``presumptive minimum'' fee described in 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). 
However, the County revised Rule 3Q.0204 in October 1996 to use a 
mechanism based on 40 CFR 70.9(b)(1), which involves establishing a fee 
schedule that results in the collection and retention of revenues 
sufficient to cover the actual costs of the operating permit program. 
The County now establishes its annual fee schedule based on the actual 
cost of administering the title V program during the previous year. The 
County submitted the revised fee rule to EPA on January 16, 1997, and 
submitted documentation of fee increases on April 22, 1998, February 
18, 1999 and February 24, 2000. The County also submitted a fee program 
update on September 29, 1999 demonstrating that its title V program is 
adequately funded by operating permit fees.
    The other substantive changes in Forsyth County's title V program 
involve the following:
    (1) Revising the definition of ``Affected States'' in Rule 3Q.0503 
to mean all States or local air pollution control agencies whose areas 
of jurisdiction are contiguous to Forsyth County, rather than 
contiguous to the entire state. The local-effective rule revision was 
submitted to EPA on October 2, 1998.
    (2) Deleting the part 70 permit application processing schedule in 
Rule 3Q.0507(f) and replacing it with a new application processing 
schedule in Rule 3Q.0525. The new schedule established time frames for 
the County to complete various aspects of permit issuance, including 
acknowledging receipt of the application, the completeness check, the 
technical review, mailing the public notice, and holding a public 
hearing if one is requested. Rule 3Q.0525 was initially submitted to 
EPA on September 25, 1995 and then amended in September 1998 to ensure 
that final action on permit applications would be taken within 18 
months of being deemed complete, as stipulated in 40 CFR 70.7(a)(2). 
The amended rule was submitted to EPA on October 2, 1998.

What is involved in this final action?

    The Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department has fulfilled 
the conditions of the interim approval granted on November 15, 1995, 
and EPA is taking final action by this notice to fully approve the 
County's operating permit program. EPA is also taking action to approve 
other program changes made by the County since the interim approval was 
granted.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to grant final full approval should 
adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective August 21, 
2000 unless the Agency receives adverse comments by July 24, 2000.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will withdraw the final 
rule and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. All 
public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on August 21, 2000 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. Executive Order 12988

    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. 
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive 
Order 12866, and it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate 
environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

[[Page 38747]]

    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because part 70 approvals under section 502 of 
the Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because 
this approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state 
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning 
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 
255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

H. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., 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 a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 21, 2000. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    In reviewing operating permit programs, EPA's role is to approve 
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 
Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement 
for the State to use VCS, EPA has no authority to disapprove an 
operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating 
permit program, to use VCS in place of an operating permit program that

[[Page 38748]]

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA do not apply.

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: June 8, 2000.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, Appendix A of part 70 of title 
40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising the entry for North 
Carolina to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *

North Carolina

    (a)(1) Department of Environment and Natural Resources: 
submitted on November 12, 1993, and supplemented on December 17, 
1993, May 31, 1994, and August 3, 1994, March 23, 1995, and August 
9, 1995; interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; interim 
approval expires June 1, 2000.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b)(1) Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department: 
submitted on November 12, 1993, and supplemented on May 31, 1994 and 
November 28, 1994; interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; 
interim approval expires June 1, 2000.
    (2) Forsyth County submitted program revisions on September 25, 
1995, January 16, 1997, August 1, 1997, April 22, 1998, October 2, 
1998, February 18, 1999, September 29, 1999, October 26, 1999, and 
February 24, 2000. The rule revisions contained in the September 25, 
1995, August 1, 1997, and October 26, 1999 submittals adequately 
addressed the conditions of the interim approval which would expire 
on June 1, 2000. The County is hereby granted final full approval 
effective on August 21, 2000.
    (3) [Reserved]
    (c)(1) Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental 
Protection: submitted on November 12, 1993, and supplemented on June 
5, 1995; interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; interim 
approval expires June 1, 2000.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d)(1) Western North Carolina Regional Air Pollution Control 
Agency: submitted on November 12, 1993, and supplemented on January 
12, 1994, September 16, 1994, October 11, 1994, and May 17, 1995; 
interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; interim approval 
expires June 1, 2000.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00-15290 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P