[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3766-3771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-928]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[WY-001; FRL-5134-4]


Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; State of Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating 
Permits Program submitted by the State of Wyoming for the purpose of 
complying with Federal requirements for an approvable State Program to 
issue operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain 
other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final interim approval are available 
for inspection during normal business hours at the following location: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

[[Page 3767]]
Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Farris, 8ART-AP, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500, 
Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 294-7539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

    Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of 
the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 (part 70) require that States 
develop and submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 
1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 
year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs 
pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which 
together outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program 
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA 
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years. 
If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2 years after the November 
15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim program, it must establish 
and implement a Federal program.
    On September 23, 1994, EPA published a direct final rule in the 
Federal Register promulgating interim approval of the Operating Permits 
Program for the State of Wyoming (PROGRAM). See 59 FR 48802. The EPA 
received adverse comments on the direct final rule, which are 
summarized and addressed below. As stated in the Federal Register 
notice, if adverse or critical comments were received by October 24, 
1994, the effective date would be delayed and timely notice would be 
published in the Federal Register. Therefore, due to receiving adverse 
comments within the comment period, EPA withdrew the final rule (59 FR 
60561, Nov. 25, 1994), and a proposed rule also published in the 
Federal Register on September 23, 1994 served as the proposed rule for 
this action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
document.
    In this rulemaking EPA is taking final action to promulgate interim 
approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM, and correct a typographical error 
contained in 59 FR 48802 (see section II.B. below).

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

    The Governor of Wyoming submitted an administratively complete 
title V Operating Permit Program for the State of Wyoming on November 
19, 1993. The Wyoming PROGRAM, including the operating permit 
regulations (Section 30 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 
Regulations (WAQSR)), substantially meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.2 and 70.3 with respect to applicability; 40 CFR 70.4, 70.5, and 
70.6 with respect to permit content including operational flexibility; 
40 CFR 70.5 with respect to complete application forms and criteria 
which define insignificant activities; 40 CFR 70.7 with respect to 
public participation and minor permit modifications; and 40 CFR 70.11 
with respect to requirements for enforcement authority.
    A letter sent to the State dated May 10, 1994, identified areas in 
which the Wyoming PROGRAM was deficient and the corrective actions that 
were to be completed either prior to interim PROGRAM approval or prior 
to full PROGRAM approval. In a letter dated June 7, 1994, which 
included an Attorney General's opinion dated June 6, 1994, the State 
addressed all EPA issues that would have prevented EPA from issuing 
interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM. The State must address those 
issues that require corrective action prior to full PROGRAM approval 
within 18 months of EPA's interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM.
    At the time of this notice, the State had not made an affirmative 
showing of legal authority to regulate sources within the exterior 
boundaries of Indian Reservations in Wyoming under the Act. Therefore, 
interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM will not extend to lands within 
the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations. Until the State makes 
such a showing, part 70 sources within the exterior boundaries of 
Indian Reservations in Wyoming will be subject to the federal operating 
permit program to be promulgated in 40 CFR part 71, or subject to the 
program of any Tribe delegated such authority under section 301(d) of 
the Act. The EPA anticipates promulgating an Indian Air Regulation, at 
which time how the State defines Indian lands could become an approval 
issue.

B. Response to Comments

    The comments received on the September 23, 1994 direct final rule 
in the Federal Register promulgating interim approval of the Wyoming 
PROGRAM, and EPA's response to those comments, are as follows:
    Comment #1: The commenter objected to EPA's proposed approval of 
Wyoming's preconstruction permitting program for purpose of 
implementing section 112(g) of the Act during the transition period 
between title V program approval and adoption of a State rule 
implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations. The commenter argued 
that there is no legal basis for delegating to Wyoming the section 
112(g) program until EPA has promulgated a section 112(g) regulation 
and the State has a section 112(g) program in place. In addition, the 
commenter argued that the Wyoming program fails to address critical 
threshold questions of when an emission increase is greater than de 
minimis and when, if it is, it has been offset satisfactorily.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that 
section 112(g) cannot take effect until after EPA has promulgated 
implementing regulations. The statutory language in section 112(g)(2) 
prohibits the modification, construction, or reconstruction of a 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) source after the effective date of a 
title V program unless maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
(determined on a case-by-case basis, if necessary) is met. The plain 
meaning of this provision is that implementation of section 112(g) is a 
title V requirement of the Act and that the prohibition takes effect 
upon EPA's approval of the State's PROGRAM regardless of whether EPA or 
a state has promulgated implementing regulations.
    The EPA has acknowledged that states may encounter difficulties 
implementing section 112(g) prior to the promulgation of final EPA 
regulations and has provided guidance on the 112(g) process (see April 
13, 1993 memorandum entitled, ``Title V Program Approval Criteria for 
Section 112 Activities'' and June 28, 1994 memorandum entitled, 
``Guidance for Initial Implementation of Section 112(g),'' signed by 
John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards.) In addition, EPA has issued guidance, in the form of a 
proposed rule, which may be used to determine whether a physical or 
operational change at a source is not a modification either because it 
is below de minimis levels or because it has been offset by a decrease 
of more hazardous emissions. See 59 FR 15004 (April 1, 1994). EPA 
believes the proposed rule provides sufficient guidance to Wyoming and 
its sources until such time as EPA's section 112(g) rulemaking 

[[Page 3768]]
is finalized and subsequently adopted by the State.
    The EPA is aware that Wyoming lacks a program designed specifically 
to implement section 112(g). However, Wyoming does have a 
preconstruction review program that can serve as a procedural vehicle 
for establishing a case-by-case MACT or offset determination and making 
these requirements federally enforceable. The EPA approval of Wyoming's 
preconstruction review program clarifies that it may be used for this 
purpose during the transition period to meet the requirements of 
section 112(g).
    The EPA believes that Wyoming's preconstruction review program will 
be adequate because it will allow Wyoming to select control measures 
that would meet MACT, as defined in section 112 of the Act, and 
incorporate these measures into a federally enforceable preconstruction 
permit. Wyoming's preconstruction permitting program allows permit 
requirements to be established for all air contaminants (which is 
broadly defined at Section 21 of the WAQSR) and includes all of the 
HAPs listed in Section 112(b) of the Act.
    Another consequence of the fact that Wyoming lacks a program 
designed specifically to implement section 112(g) is that the 
applicability criteria found in its preconstruction review program may 
differ from the criteria in section 112(g). EPA will expect Wyoming to 
utilize the statutory provisions of section 112(g) and the proposed 
rule as guidance in determining when case-by-case MACT or offsets are 
required. As noted in the June 28, 1994 guidance, EPA intends to defer 
wherever possible to a State's judgement regarding applicability 
determinations. This deference must be subject to obvious limitations. 
For instance, a physical or operational change resulting in a net 
increase in HAP emissions above 10 tons per year could not be viewed as 
a de minimis increase under any interpretation of the Act. The EPA 
would expect Wyoming to be able to issue a preconstruction permit 
containing a case-by-case determination of MACT in such a case even if 
review under its own preconstruction review program would not be 
triggered.
    Comment #2: The commenter questioned the need for Wyoming's title V 
program enforcement authority to be based on State law defining civil 
individual and corporate liability and asserted that EPA's requirement 
that the State program include strict liability for corporate officers, 
directors or agents in civil actions is not compelled by the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990.
    EPA Response: The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (WEQA) states 
in section 35-11-901(a) that ``Any person who violates, or any 
director, officer or agent of a corporate permittee who willfully and 
knowingly authorizes, orders or carries out the violation of any 
provision of this act * * * is liable to either a penalty of not to 
exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for each day during which 
violation continues * * *.'' On its face, section 35-11-901(a) 
establishes a more stringent burden of proof for civil violations for 
corporate directors, officers, or agents than for other persons. Based 
on EPA's position that this distinction is inconsistent with title V of 
the Act and part 70, EPA stated in the Federal Register notice 
proposing interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM that section 35-11-
901(a) needs to be revised to include language that provides strict 
liability for corporate officers, directors or agents in civil actions.
    The commenter stated that ``the federal statutory standard for 
approval of state permit programs does not require strict corporate 
liability in civil actions. Under 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(5)(E), Congress 
mandated only that states seeking approval of permit programs have 
``adequate authority'' to ``enforce permits * * * including authority 
to recover civil penalties in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000 
per day of violation.'' There is nothing in the State's statutory or 
regulatory scheme that suggests that Wyoming lacks either the will or 
the ability to impose civil penalties to enforce operating permits, as 
mandated by the Act. EPA's insistence on statute revision is, 
therefore, an example of Agency overreaching.''
    However, section 502(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires the EPA to 
promulgate ``* * * regulations establishing the minimum elements of a 
permit program to be administered by any air pollution control agency. 
These elements shall include each of the following: * * * (5) A 
requirement that the permitting authority have adequate authority to: * 
* * (E) enforce permits, permit fee requirements, and the requirement 
to obtain a permit, including authority to recover civil penalties in a 
maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day for each violation, and 
appropriate criminal penalties * * *.''
    Pursuant to section 502(b)(5)(E), EPA promulgated 40 CFR 
70.11(a)(3) which requires that the state's part 70 programs contain 
the enforcement authority ``To assess or sue to recover in court civil 
penalties * * * according to the following: (i) Civil penalties shall 
be recoverable for the violation of any applicable requirement; any 
permit condition; any fee or filing requirement; any duty to allow or 
carry out inspection, entry or monitoring activities or, any regulation 
or orders issued by the permitting authority. These penalties shall be 
recoverable in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day per 
violation. State law shall not include mental state as an element of 
proof for civil violations.''
    It is well established that the Act imposes a strict liability 
standard for assessing compliance violations. United States v. JBA 
Motorcars, 839 F. Supp. 1572 (D.C.Fla. 1993). Further, strict liability 
is essential to meet the purpose of the Act to protect and improve the 
quality of the nation's air. United States v. B & W Investment 
Properties, No. 94-1892, (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 1994), LEXIS 29713.
    Wyoming's provision which requires a mental state as an element of 
proof for corporate civil violations is inconsistent with the general 
purpose of the Act. More specifically, Wyoming's provision is 
inconsistent with the basic framework for effective enforcement of the 
title V program established at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i) which does not 
distinguish between corporate and personal liability. The commenter's 
objection to a requirement clearly articulated in part 70 should have 
been raised in a challenge to the rule itself, rather than in the 
context of an action to approve a state program pursuant to that rule. 
Finally, it is EPA's view that requiring a mental state as an element 
of proof for civil violations significantly hinders corporate 
compliance enforcement. As such, the provisions are insufficient to 
meet section 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(i) which requires Wyoming to issue 
permits and assure compliance with each applicable requirement and the 
requirements of part 70.
    Based on the above, it is EPA's position that section 35-11-901(a) 
of the WEQA must be revised to require strict liability for civil 
violations for corporate entities. Because this provision is 
inconsistent with the Act and the regulations thereunder and adversely 
affects the Permitting Authority's ability to enforce title V 
requirements against corporate entities, this issue is a basis for 
granting Wyoming interim approval for the PROGRAM. Accordingly, 
Wyoming's PROGRAM must be revised to reflect strict liability for 
corporate entities to receive full PROGRAM approval.
    Comment #3: The commenter objected to EPA's proposed action related 
to Wyoming's special rule exempting Research and Development (R&D) 
facilities and contended that EPA has not offered a compelling basis 
for 

[[Page 3769]]
changing the Agency's current rules governing R&D facilities.
    EPA Response: The part 70 final rule (57 FR 32250, July 21, 1992) 
provides no special treatment or exemption from applicability for R&D 
facilities. The preamble to the proposed part 70 rule took comment on 
how to interpret the section 501(2) definition of ``major source'' (see 
56 FR 21724, May 10, 1991). The preamble included a statement that 
aggregation of sources by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 
at the source site to determine whether a source would be major is the 
approach intended by Congress and that aggregation by SIC code should 
be done in a manner consistent with New Source Review (NSR) procedures. 
The preamble further clarified that NSR procedures include the 
requirement that any equipment used to support the main activity at a 
site would also be considered as part of the same major source 
regardless of the 2-digit SIC code for that equipment.
    The preamble to the final rule (57 FR 32264) stated that ``Although 
EPA is not exempting R&D operations from title V requirements at this 
time, in many cases states will have the flexibility to treat an R&D 
facility as separate from the manufacturing facility with which it is 
co-located.'' EPA wishes to clarify that this is the case only where 
the R&D facility is not a support facility. If the R&D facility is a 
support facility (co-located with a separate source, under common 
ownership or control and 50% of the output of the R&D facility was used 
by the main activity), the emissions from this R&D facility must be 
included, along with all other emissions at the source, to determine if 
the source is ``major'' and thus applicable to Section 30 of the 
Wyoming rule. Prior to full PROGRAM approval, Wyoming must revise their 
rule to be consistent with part 70.
    Comment #4: The commenter objected to EPA's dismissal of the 
Wyoming variance provision as not having any effect on the compliance 
requirements of the source or on enforcement actions against a source 
that has obtained such a variance from the State.
    EPA Response: The EPA recognizes that Wyoming has the authority to 
use variances as a mechanism for establishing compliance schedules. The 
EPA wishes to clarify that it cannot recognize procedures for the 
issuance of state variances in the title V program and that, although 
the terms of a variance may be incorporated into a title V permit as a 
compliance schedule, a title V compliance schedule does not sanction 
noncompliance with an applicable requirement. Wyoming has the 
responsibility under title V to establish a compliance schedule for 
sources that are out of compliance and place that schedule into the 
permit. The title V compliance schedule is properly established through 
appropriate enforcement action and not necessarily through variances. 
Wyoming does not need to take any action on this provision as it has 
not been identified as an approval issue.
    Comment #5: The commenter objected to EPA's decision to grant 
interim approval to a program that does not provide emission trading 
under a permit cap in accordance with 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii) and 
contends that EPA has no authority to grant interim approval to any 
program that lacks this authority.
    EPA Response: The EPA agrees that Wyoming must provide emission 
trading under a permit cap in its part 70 program. The EPA has 
determined that this deficiency is an issue that must be corrected 
before full approval may be granted and that this deficiency does not 
interfere with the EPA's ability to grant interim approval. 40 CFR 
70.4(d)(3)(viii) requires that programs provide operational flexibility 
consistent with 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) before the program may be granted 
interim approval. The EPA notes that the Wyoming program does implement 
another required type of operational flexibility, 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(12)(i). In addition, Wyoming has submitted a letter, dated 
November 16, 1994, which clarifies their authority to provide emission 
trading under a permit cap. Specifically, the State's November 1994 
letter stated that Sections 30(h)(i)(H) and 30(h)(i)(J) of the State's 
operating permit regulations provide authority for the State to issue 
permits ``allowing for the trading of emissions increases and decreases 
in the permitted facility solely for the purpose of complying with a 
federally enforceable emissions cap that is established in the permit 
independent of otherwise applicable requirements.'' Thus, the State has 
provided clear authority to implement emissions trading under a permit 
cap. The EPA has determined that the Wyoming PROGRAM substantially 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) because it implements the 
mandatory operational flexibility provision of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(i) 
and has adequate authority to issue permits to implement 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(12)(iii).
    Comment #6: The commenter stated that they did not have a problem 
with the way ``prompt'' is defined for deviation reporting in the 
Wyoming program but added that they did have a problem with the way the 
definition has been handled in other interim approval notices.
    EPA Response: The Wyoming PROGRAM allows the State to define 
``prompt'' for deviation reporting in each individual permit. Since the 
commenter did not have a problem with the way ``prompt'' reporting of 
deviations is handled in Wyoming, EPA will not respond to that comment. 
In addition, it would be inappropriate in this notice to comment on how 
the definition of ``prompt'' was handled in notices for other states' 
part 70 approvals.
    Comment #7: The commenter noted a typographical error in the 
Federal Register notice proposing interim approval of the Wyoming 
PROGRAM (59 FR 48802) on page 48804 under paragraph #4 titled 
``Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the 
Act.'' Part b of this paragraph titled ``Implementation of 112(g) Upon 
Program Approval'' refers to Wyoming's preconstruction permitting 
program found in section 24, which is an incorrect reference. The 
correct reference to the Wyoming preconstruction permitting program 
should be section 21.
    EPA Response: The reference to section 24 was incorrect and should 
have read ``section 21''.

C. Final Action

    The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits 
program submitted by the State of Wyoming on November 19, 1993. The 
State must make the following changes to receive full approval: (1) 
Section 30(a)(ix) must be revised to assure R&D support facilities are 
included in major source determinations; (2) Sections 35-11-901(a), (m) 
and (n) of the WEQA, which appear to reduce the penalty for civil 
violations committed by surface coal mine operations from a maximum of 
ten thousand dollars per day to five thousand dollars per day, must be 
revised, or clarified in an Attorney General's Opinion, to indicate 
that the five thousand dollar penalty relates only to activities 
subject to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act; (3) Section 
35-11-901(a) of the WEQA must be revised to include language that 
provides strict liability for corporate officers, directors or agents 
in civil actions; (4) Section 35-11-901(j) of the WEQA must be revised 
to provide for a per day, per violation penalty for false statements or 
tampering with monitoring devices; (5) Section 30(c)(ii)(A)(III)(1) 
must be revised to include language similar to the general provision in 
40 CFR 70.5(c), or the State must provide an Attorney General's 

[[Page 3770]]
opinion, to clarify that the State will ensure that all applicable 
requirements are identified for any insignificant activities; (6) 
Section 30(i)(ii) regarding general permits must be revised, or the 
State must provide an Attorney General's Opinion, to clarify the public 
notice and comment requirements for general permits; (7) In the Federal 
Register notice proposing interim approval of the Wyoming PROGRAM, EPA 
stated that, prior to full PROGRAM approval, the State must clarify 
that Section 30(h)(i)(J) provides the State with authority to implement 
emissions trading under a permit cap, which is required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(12)(iii), or revise Section 30 to provide such authority. In a 
letter dated November 16, 1994, the State of Wyoming clarified that it 
has the authority to implement the emissions trading under permit caps 
provision of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii). EPA concurs with the State's 
authority to implement this provision; however, we are currently 
reevaluating the State's regulations to determine if a regulatory 
revision is also needed, prior to full PROGRAM approval, to assure 
consistency with the provisions of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii); (8) The 
State must provide a definition of ``Indian lands.''
    Refer to the technical support document accompanying this 
rulemaking for a detailed explanation of each PROGRAM deficiency.
    This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until 
February 19, 1997. During this interim approval period, the State of 
Wyoming is protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to 
promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal operating permits program 
in the State of Wyoming. Permits issued under a program with interim 
approval have full standing with respect to part 70, and the 1-year 
time period for submittal of permit applications by subject sources 
begins upon the effective date of this interim approval, as does the 3-
year time period for processing the initial permit applications.
    If the State of Wyoming fails to submit a complete corrective 
program for full approval by August 19, 1996, EPA will start an 18-
month clock for mandatory sanctions. If the State of Wyoming then fails 
to submit a corrective program that EPA finds complete before the 
expiration of that 18-month period, EPA will be required to apply one 
of the sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which will remain in 
effect until EPA determines that the State of Wyoming has corrected the 
deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if 
the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of the State 
of Wyoming, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined 
that the State of Wyoming had come into compliance. In any case, if, 
six months after application of the first sanction, the State of 
Wyoming still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has found 
complete, a second sanction will be required.
    If EPA disapproves the State of Wyoming's complete corrective 
program, EPA will be required to apply one of the section 179(b) 
sanctions on the date 18 months after the effective date of the 
disapproval, unless prior to that date the State of Wyoming has 
submitted a revised program and EPA has determined that it corrected 
the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if the 
Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of the State of 
Wyoming, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determines 
that the State of Wyoming has come into compliance. In all cases, if, 
six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the State of Wyoming 
has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined corrects 
the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.
    In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted 
any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if the 
State of Wyoming has not timely submitted a complete corrective program 
or EPA has disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if 
EPA has not granted full approval to the State of Wyoming program by 
the expiration of this interim approval and that expiration occurs 
after November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a 
Federal permits program for the State of Wyoming upon interim approval 
expiration.
    Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass 
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation 
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70 
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program contain 
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an 
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part 
70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating approval under section 
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving 
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal 
standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to 
sources covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon 
for the final interim approval, including public comments received and 
reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are maintained in a docket at the EPA 
Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all 
the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the 
development of this final interim approval. The docket is available for 
public inspection at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of 
this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any 
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs 
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70. Because this 
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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: December 27, 1994.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    Part 70, chapter I, title 40 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 adding the entry for Wyoming 
in alphabetical order to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

Wyoming

    (a) Department of Environmental Quality: submitted on November 19, 
1993; effective on February 21, 1995; 

[[Page 3771]]
interim approval expires February 19, 1997.
    (b) Reserved.

[FR Doc. 95-928 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P