[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15105-15109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7063]



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



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[UT-001; FRL-5176-6]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Approval of Construction Permit Program Under Section 112(l); 
State of Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes full approval of the Operating Permits 
Program submitted by the State of Utah 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. EPA also proposes approval of the Utah Construction Permit 
Program under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act for the purpose of 
creating Federally enforceable permit conditions for sources of 
hazardous air pollutants listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the Clean 
Air Act.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
April 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the contact indicated below. 
Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting information used 
in developing these proposed approvals are available for inspection 
during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 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, Air Programs Branch, 999 
18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 294-7539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

    As required under title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 
(sections 501-507 of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), EPA has 
promulgated rules which define the minimum elements of an approvable 
State operating permits program and the corresponding standards and 
procedures by which the EPA will approve, oversee, and withdraw 
approval of State operating [[Page 15106]] permits programs (see 57 FR 
32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 70 (part 70). Title V requires States to 
develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing these operating 
permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources.
    The Act requires that states develop and submit these 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.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Support Materials
    The Governor of Utah submitted the State of Utah Title V Operating 
Permit Program (PROGRAM) to EPA on April 14, 1994. EPA deemed the 
PROGRAM administratively and technically complete in a letter to the 
Governor dated May 12, 1994. Additional documentation for the PROGRAM 
submittal was received on August 25, 1994. The PROGRAM submittal 
includes a legal opinion from the Attorney General of Utah stating that 
the laws of the State provide adequate legal authority to carry out all 
aspects of the PROGRAM, and a description of how the State intends to 
implement the PROGRAM. The submittal additionally contains evidence of 
proper adoption of the PROGRAM regulations and a permit fee 
demonstration.
2. Regulations and Program Implementation
    The Utah PROGRAM, including the operating permit regulation (Utah 
Administrative Code Rule R307-15, Operating Permit Requirements), meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR parts 70.2 and 70.3 with respect to 
applicability; parts 70.4, 70.5, and 70.6 with respect to permit 
content including operational flexibility; part 70.5 with respect to 
complete application forms and criteria which define insignificant 
activities; part 70.7 with respect to public participation and minor 
permit modifications; and part 70.11 with respect to requirements for 
enforcement authority.
    R307-15-3 contains the PROGRAM definitions. EPA is aware that other 
Utah regulations may contain similar, but not identical, definitions as 
those contained in R307-15-3. For purposes of this PROGRAM approval, 
EPA wishes to clarify that the binding definitions are those contained 
in R307-15-3.
    R307-15-5(5) of the State's permitting regulation lists the 
insignificant activities that sources do not have to include in their 
operating permit application. This list includes specific activities 
and sources which are considered to be insignificant. This provision 
states that the source's application may not omit information needed to 
determine applicable requirements or to evaluate the fee amount 
required.
    Utah has the authority to issue a variance from requirements 
imposed by State law. Section 16-2-113, Utah Code Ann., provides that 
any person may apply to the board for a variance from its rules. The 
board may grant the requested variance, ``if it determines that the 
hardship imposed by compliance would outweigh the benefit to the 
public.'' This authority is limited by regulation: Utah Administrative 
Code section R307-1-2.3 provides that the board may grant variances to 
the extent provided under law, unless prohibited by the Act. Other 
statutory provisions of State law require that the operating permit 
program must meet the requirements of title V of the Act. See, section 
19-2-104(1)(f) and 19-1-109.1 (c)-(d), Utah Code Ann.
    In addition to these limitations, EPA regards Utah's variance 
provision as wholly external to the PROGRAM submitted for approval 
under part 70, and consequently is proposing to take no action on this 
provision of State law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions of 
State law, such as the variance provision referred to, which are 
inconsistent with part 70. EPA does not recognize the ability of a 
permitting authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a 
Federally enforceable part 70 permit, except where such relief is 
granted through procedures allowed by part 70. If the State uses its 
variance provision strictly to establish a compliance schedule for a 
source that will be incorporated into a title V permit, then EPA would 
consider this an acceptable use of a variance provision. However, the 
routine process for establishing a compliance schedule is through 
appropriate enforcement action. EPA reserves the right to enforce the 
terms of the part 70 permit where the permitting authority purports to 
grant relief from the duty to comply with a part 70 permit in a manner 
inconsistent with part 70 procedures.
    Part 70 of the Federal operating permit regulation requires prompt 
reporting of deviations from the permit requirements. Section 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) of that regulation requires the permitting authority 
to define prompt in relation to the degree and type of deviation likely 
to occur and the applicable requirements. Although the permit program 
regulations should define prompt for purposes of administrative 
efficiency and clarity, an acceptable alternative is to define prompt 
in each individual permit. The EPA believes that prompt should 
generally be defined as requiring reporting within two to ten days of 
the deviation. Two to ten days is sufficient time in most cases to 
protect public health and safety as well as to provide a forewarning of 
potential problems. For sources with a low level of excess emissions, a 
longer time period may be acceptable. However, prompt reporting must be 
more frequent than the semiannual reporting requirement, given this is 
a distinct reporting obligation under section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of the 
Federal operating permit regulation. Where ``prompt'' is defined in the 
individual permit but not in the program regulations, EPA may veto 
permits that do not contain sufficiently prompt reporting of 
deviations. The Utah PROGRAM will define prompt reporting of deviations 
in each permit consistent with the degree and type of deviation likely 
and the applicable requirements (see subsection R307-15-6(1)(c)(iii)(B) 
of the Utah permitting rule). Deviations from permit requirements due 
to unavoidable breakdowns shall be reported according to the 
unavoidable breakdown provisions of the Utah Administrative Code 
section R307-1-4.7.
    R307-15-7(4)(a)(ii) allows for emissions trading within a permitted 
facility where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) allows for such 
emissions trades without requiring a permit revision, consistent with 
40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(ii). However, the approved Utah SIP does not provide 
for such trading at this time.
    R307-15-7(5)(a)(v) correctly allows the State to incorporate the 
terms of a construction permit (i.e., an ``approval order'') into an 
operating permit using the administrative permit amendment process. 
This process will be available when a source requests enhanced 
procedures in the issuance of its construction permit that are 
``substantially equivalent'' to the operating permit issuance or 
[[Page 15107]] modification procedures. ``Substantial equivalence'' 
between the construction permit and operating permit issuance 
procedures necessarily includes, among other things, public and 
affected state review as well as EPA's 45-day review period and veto 
authority.
    Comments noting deficiencies in the Utah PROGRAM were sent to the 
State in a letter dated October 28, 1994. The deficiencies were 
segregated into those that require corrective action prior to interim 
PROGRAM approval, and those that require corrective action prior to 
full PROGRAM approval. In a letter dated November 30, 1994, the State 
committed to complete the corrective actions required for interim 
PROGRAM approval. The Utah Air Quality Board adopted amendments to 
R307-15 on February 23, 1995 which adequately addressed all 
deficiencies identified in the PROGRAM regulations. A letter from the 
Attorney General's office dated February 27, 1995 transmitted these 
regulation changes, which become effective April 15, 1995. The changes 
that addressed the deficiencies in the PROGRAM summary were transmitted 
to EPA by the State in a letter dated February 28, 1995.
    Refer to the Technical Support Document accompanying this 
rulemaking for a detailed explanation of each PROGRAM deficiency and 
the corrective actions completed by the State.
3. Permit Fee Demonstration
    The State of Utah established an initial fee for regulated air 
pollutants below the presumptive minimum set in title V, section 502 
and part 70, and was required to submit a detailed permit fee 
demonstration as part of its PROGRAM submittal. The basis of this fee 
demonstration included a workload analysis, which estimated the annual 
cost of running the PROGRAM in fiscal year (FY) 1995 to be $2,386,895 
based on the estimated direct and indirect costs of the PROGRAM, and a 
projected emission inventory for fiscal year 1995. The permit fee 
established for FY 1995 is $21.70 per ton of actual emissions of a 
regulated pollutant, with an emissions cap of 4,000 tons per year per 
pollutant. This fee structure will be reevaluated each year. After 
careful review, the State of Utah has determined that these fees would 
support the Utah PROGRAM costs as required by section 70.9(a) of the 
Federal operating permit regulation. Upon review of this demonstration, 
the EPA noted the following concern: State law generally provides 
authority to assess and collect annual permit fees in an amount 
sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and indirect costs of the 
program. However, section A.1 of the PROGRAM description found in 
volume 1, part II.A., of the State's title V submittal indicates that 
the Utah Legislature must authorize permit fees on a yearly basis. If 
permit fees sufficient to fund all the costs of the PROGRAM are not 
authorized, and the State is not able to fully implement the PROGRAM, 
then EPA would be required to disapprove or withdraw the part 70 
program, impose sanctions, and implement a Federal permitting program.
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
    a. Authority and/or Commitments for Section 112 Implementation. 
Utah has demonstrated in its PROGRAM submittal adequate legal authority 
to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements through the title 
V permit. This legal authority is contained in Utah's enabling 
legislation and in regulatory provisions defining ``applicable 
requirements'' and stating that the permit must incorporate all 
applicable requirements. EPA has determined that this legal authority 
is sufficient to allow Utah to issue permits that assure compliance 
with all section 112 requirements, and to carry out all section 112 
activities. For further rationale on this interpretation, please refer 
to the Technical Support Document accompanying this rulemaking and the 
April 13, 1993 guidance memorandum titled ``Title V Program Approval 
Criteria for Section 112 Activities,'' signed by John Seitz, Director 
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    b. Implementation of Section 112(g). On February 14, 1995 EPA 
published an interpretive notice (see 60 FR 8333) that postpones the 
effective date of section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule 
addressing that provision. The section 112(g) interpretive notice 
explains that EPA is still considering whether the effective date of 
section 112(g) should be delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the 
Federal rule so as to allow states time to adopt rules implementing the 
Federal rule, and that EPA will provide for any such additional delay 
in the final section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides 
for such an additional postponement of section 112(g), Utah must be 
able to implement section 112(g) during the period between promulgation 
of the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State 
regulations. EPA believes that Utah can utilize its construction review 
program to serve as a procedural vehicle for implementing section 
112(g) and making these requirements Federally enforceable between 
promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of 
implementing State regulations. For this reason, EPA is proposing to 
approve Utah's construction permitting program found in section R307-1-
3 of the State's regulations under the authority of title V and part 70 
solely for the purpose of implementing section 112(g) during the 
transition period to meet the requirements of section 112(g). Since the 
approval would be for the single purpose of providing a mechanism to 
implement section 112(g) during the transition period, the approval 
would be without effect if EPA decides in the final section 112(g) rule 
that sources are not subject to the requirements of the rule until 
State regulations are adopted. Also, since the approval would be for 
the limited purpose of allowing the State sufficient time to adopt 
regulations, EPA proposes to limit the duration of the approval to 12 
months following promulgation by EPA of its section 112(g) rule. Utah's 
construction permitting program allows permit requirements to be 
established for all air contaminants (which is defined in R307-1-1 of 
the Utah Administrative Code and includes all of the hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) listed in section 112(b) of the Act).
    c. Program for Straight Delegation of Section 112 Standards. 
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR Sec. 70.4(b), encompass 
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation 
of the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart A, and section 112 
standards promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70 sources, as well 
as non-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, EPA is also proposing to grant 
approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of the State's 
program for receiving delegation of section 112 standards that are 
unchanged from the Federal standards as promulgated. Utah has informed 
EPA that it intends to accept delegation of section 112 standards 
through incorporation by reference. This program applies to both 
existing and future standards.
    The radionuclide national emission standard for HAPs (NESHAP) is a 
section 112 regulation and an applicable requirement under the State 
PROGRAM. Currently the State of Utah has no part 70 sources which emit 
radionuclides. However, sources which are not currently part 70 sources 
may be [[Page 15108]] defined as major and become part 70 sources under 
forthcoming Federal radionuclide regulations. In that event, the State 
will be responsible for issuing part 70 permits to those sources.
    d. Approval of Construction Permit Program Under Section 112(l). 
Also in this action, EPA is proposing to approve Utah's construction 
permit program in R307-1-3.1 of the State's regulations under the 
authority provided in section 112(l) of the amended Act for the purpose 
of creating Federally enforceable permit conditions for sources of HAPs 
listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act. The State's construction 
permitting rules referenced above were approved by EPA as part of the 
SIP on February 19, 1980 (45 FR 10761-10765). Approval of the State's 
construction permit program under section 112(l) is necessary to allow 
the State to create Federally enforceable limits on the potential to 
emit of HAPs, because SIP approval of the State's construction permit 
rules only extends to the control of HAPs which are photochemically 
reactive organic compounds or particulate matter. Federally enforceable 
limits on photochemically reactive organic compounds or particulate 
matter may have the incidental effect of limiting certain HAPs. As a 
legal matter, no additional program approval by the EPA is required in 
order for those ``criteria'' pollutant limits to be recognized as 
Federally enforceable. However, section 112 of the Act provides the 
underlying authority for controlling all HAP emissions.
    The State's construction permit program applies to new and modified 
sources which would emit ``air contaminants,'' which is defined in the 
State's rules as ``any particulate matter or any gas, vapor, suspended 
solid or any combination of them, excluding steam and water vapors.'' 
The State has defined ``air contaminant'' in such a broad manner that 
it includes HAPs. Consequently, the State's construction permit program 
provides authority for the State to issue construction permits to 
sources of HAPs.
    The criteria used in approving Utah's construction permit program 
in the SIP are located in 40 CFR 51.160-164. As detailed in the 
Technical Support Document accompanying this notice, EPA believes the 
State's construction permit program meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.160-164. EPA believes the most significant criteria in 40 CFR Part 
51 for creating Federally enforceable limits through construction 
permits are those in 40 CFR 51.160-162. Further, as discussed in EPA's 
January 25, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director of the Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, 
Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, entitled ``Options 
for Limiting the Potential to Emit of a Stationary Source Under Section 
112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act,'' in order for EPA to consider 
any construction permit terms Federally enforceable, such permit 
conditions must be enforceable as a practical matter. Utah's program 
will allow the State to issue permits that are enforceable as a 
practical matter. Thus, any permits issued in accordance with the Utah 
program and which are practically enforceable would be considered 
Federally enforceable.
    In addition to meeting the criteria discussed above, a construction 
permit program for HAPs must meet the statutory criteria for approval 
under section 112(l)(5) of the Act. This section allows EPA to approve 
a program only if it: (1) Contains adequate authority to assure 
compliance with any section 112 standards or requirements; (2) provides 
for adequate resources to implement the program; (3) provides for an 
expeditious schedule for assuring compliance with section 112 
requirements; and (4) is otherwise likely to satisfy the objectives of 
the Act.
    The EPA plans to codify the approval criteria for programs limiting 
the potential to emit of HAPs through amendments to Subpart E of 40 CFR 
part 63, the regulations promulgated to implement section 112(l) of the 
Act. EPA believes it has the authority under section 112(l) to approve 
programs to limit potential to emit HAPs directly under section 112(l) 
prior to this revision to Subpart E of 40 CFR part 63. Given the timing 
problems posed by impending deadlines under section 112 and title V, 
EPA believes it is reasonable to read section 112(l) to allow for 
approval of programs to limit potential to emit prior to issuance of a 
rule specifically addressing this issue. The EPA is therefore proposing 
approval of Utah's construction permit program to limit the potential 
to emit of HAPs now, so that the State may begin to issue Federally 
enforceable synthetic minor permits as soon as possible. The EPA also 
plans to codify programs approved under section 112(l) without further 
rulemaking once the revisions to Subpart E are promulgated.
    As discussed above, Utah's construction permit program in R307-1-
3.1 has already been approved in the SIP, and it satisfies the criteria 
for such programs, including the relevant criteria related to creating 
Federally enforceable limits in 40 CFR 51.160-162. In addition, Utah's 
construction permit program meets the statutory criteria for approval 
under section 112(l)(5), as follows:
    Regarding the statutory criteria of section 112(l)(5) referred to 
above, EPA believes Utah's construction permit program contains 
adequate authority to assure compliance with section 112 requirements 
because the State's program does not provide for the waiver of any 
section 112 requirement. Sources that become minor through a permit 
issued pursuant to the State's construction permit program would still 
be required to meet section 112 requirements applicable to non-major 
sources.
    Regarding the requirement for adequate resources, the State has 
committed in its SIP to provide adequate resources for all program 
activities required by the annual State/EPA agreement, which includes 
construction permitting. Thus, EPA believes the State has adequate 
resources to support the construction permit program for HAPs, and EPA 
will monitor the State's implementation of the program to assure that 
adequate resources continue to be available.
    The EPA also believes that the State's rules provide for an 
expeditious schedule for assuring compliance with section 112 
requirements. A source seeking a voluntary limit on its potential to 
emit is probably doing so to avoid a Federal requirement applicable on 
a particular date. Nothing in the State's program would allow a source 
to avoid or delay compliance with the Federal requirement if it fails 
to obtain the appropriate Federally enforceable limit by the relevant 
deadline.
    Finally, EPA believes it is consistent with the intent of section 
112 of the Act for States to provide a mechanism through which sources 
may avoid classification as a major source by obtaining a Federally 
enforceable limit on potential to emit.
    Accordingly, EPA believes that Utah's construction permit program 
in R307-1-3.1 of its air quality regulations satisfies the applicable 
criteria for establishing Federally enforceable limitations for sources 
of HAPs. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of Utah's construction 
permit program in R307-1-3 of the State's rules under section 112(l) of 
the Act.
    Refer to the Technical Support Document accompanying this 
rulemaking for a detailed explanation of this approval under section 
112(l) of the Act.
    e. Program for Implementing Title IV of the Act. Utah's PROGRAM 
contains adequate authority to issue permits which reflect the 
requirements of Title [[Page 15109]] IV of the Act, and Utah commits to 
adopt the rules and requirements promulgated by EPA to implement an 
acid rain program through the title V permit.

B. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing full approval of the operating permits program 
submitted to EPA by the State of Utah on April 14, 1994. Among other 
things, Utah has demonstrated that the PROGRAM will be adequate to meet 
the minimum elements of a State operating permits program as specified 
in 40 CFR part 70. EPA also proposes approval of the Utah Construction 
Permit Program found in section R307-1-3 of the State's regulations 
under section 112(l) of the Act for the purpose of creating Federally 
enforceable permit conditions for sources of hazardous air pollutants 
listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act, and, under the authority 
of title V and 40 CFR part 70, for the purpose of providing a mechanism 
to implement section 112(g) of the Act during any transition period 
between EPA's promulgation of a section 112(g) rule and adoption by the 
State of rules to implement section 112(g).
    In Utah's part 70 program submission, the State indicated that it 
is not seeking approval from EPA to administer the State's part 70 
PROGRAM within the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations in Utah. 
In this notice, EPA proposes to approve Utah's part 70 PROGRAM for all 
areas within the State except the following: lands within the exterior 
boundaries of Indian Reservations (including the Uintah and Ouray, 
Skull Valley, Paiute, Navajo, Goshute, White Mesa, and Northwestern 
Shoshoni Indian Reservations) and any other areas which are ``Indian 
Country'' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151 (excepted areas).
    In proposing not to extend the scope of Utah's part 70 PROGRAM to 
sources located in the excepted areas, EPA is not making a 
determination that the State either has adequate jurisdiction or lacks 
jurisdiction over such sources. Should the State of Utah choose to seek 
program approval within these areas, it may do so without prejudice. 
Before EPA would approve the State's part 70 PROGRAM for any portion of 
the excepted areas, EPA would have to be satisfied that the State has 
authority, either pursuant to explicit Congressional authorization or 
applicable principles of Federal Indian law, to enforce its laws 
against existing and potential pollution sources within any 
geographical area for which it seeks program approval and that such 
approval would constitute sound administrative practice.
    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, EPA is also proposing to grant approval under section 
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 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 applies to 
sources covered by the part 70 program, as well as non-part 70 sources.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed full 
approval. Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied 
upon for the proposed title V and section 112(l) approvals are 
contained in a docket maintained 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 these proposed 
approvals. The principal purposes of the docket are:
    (1) to allow interested parties a means to identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval 
process, and
    (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. The EPA will 
consider any comments received by April 21, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA's actions under section 502 and section 112(l) 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 and 
the creation of Federally enforceable permit conditions for sources of 
hazardous air pollutants listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act. 
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.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7063 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P