or disapproves it. Id. at 602. Regardless whether a state properly submits a new law for approval to EPA, however, EPA retains a mandatory duty under Eleventh Circuit law to review new or revised standards. See id. at 602-03 (reversing the district court for failure to conduct an independent review whether a new Florida law constituted a change in water quality standards). Assuming without deciding that the Fifth Circuit would follow the Eleventh Circuit on this issue, the Court still imposed on Plaintiff by deferral of adjudication until EPA has had the opportunity to accomplish its duties and Plaintiff has had' the opportunity to clarify and finalize 'its ease if EPA fails. See National Ass’n of Reg. Util. Comm’rs v. United States Dept. of Energy, 851 F.2d 1424, 1429 (D.C.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Even if jurisdiction might arise at a later
holding that for an institutional interest in deferral to be outweighed postponement must impose a hardship on the complaining party that is im mediate direct and significant holding accuseds right to fair trial outweighed newsmans interest in protecting sources and privilege must yield holding that a statecreated liberty interest in ones classification may exist where classification imposes atypical and significant hardship holding that a party invoking rule 56f protections must affirmatively demonstrate  how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him by discovery or other means to rebut the movants showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees