[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 48 (Monday, March 11, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9661-9670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5720]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[TN-96-01; TN-MEMP-96-01; FRL-5439-2]
Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Title V Operating
Permit Programs; State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County,
Tennessee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed interim approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes interim approval of the operating permit programs
submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
and by the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department for the purpose of
complying with Federal requirements which mandate that authorized
permitting authorities develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing
operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other
sources.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
April 10, 1996.
[[Page 9662]]
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Carla
E. Pierce, Chief, Air Toxics Unit/Title V Program Development Team, Air
Programs Branch, at the EPA Region 4 office listed below. Copies of the
State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County submittals, and other
supporting information used in developing this proposed interim
approval, are available for inspection during normal business hours at
the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,
345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365. Interested persons wanting
to examine these documents, contained in the EPA dockets numbered TN-
96-01 and TN-MEMP-96-01, should make an appointment at least 24 hours
before the visiting day.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Gates, Title V Program Development
Team, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland
Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-3555, Ext. 4146.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act''), as
amended by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA promulgated rules on
July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250) that define the minimum elements of an
approvable operating permit program and the corresponding standards and
procedures by which EPA will approve, oversee, and withdraw approval of
state and local operating permit programs. These rules are codified at
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70. Title V and part 70
require that authorized permitting authorities develop, and submit to
EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary
sources and to certain other sources.
The Act requires permitting authorities to develop and submit these
programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and EPA to approve or disapprove
each program within one year after receiving the submittal. If the
program submission is materially changed during the one-year review
period, 40 CFR 70.4(e)(2) allows EPA to extend the review period for no
more than one year following receipt of the additional materials. EPA
received the State of Tennessee's title V operating permit program
submittal on November 10, 1994. The State supplemented the original
program submittal with additional materials on December 5, 1994, August
8, 1995, January 17, 1996, January 30, 1996, and February 13, 1996.
Because the August 8, 1995 supplement materially changed the State's
title V program submittal, EPA extended the one-year review period. EPA
received Memphis-Shelby County's title V program submittal on June 26,
1995. Supplemental materials dated August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995,
August 24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, and February 14,
1996 were submitted by the County to complete the title V program
submittal.
EPA reviews title V operating permit programs pursuant to section
502 of the Act and 40 CFR part 70, which together outline the criteria
for approval and 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 two years. If EPA has not fully
approved a program by November 15, 1995, or by the end of the interim
program approval period, it must establish and implement a Federal
operating permit program for that state or local agency.
B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions
If EPA grants interim approval to the State of Tennessee and
Memphis-Shelby County programs, the interim approvals will extend for
two years following the effective date of the final interim approvals,
and cannot be renewed. During the interim approval period, the State
and the County will not be subject to sanctions and EPA will not be
obligated to promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal operating
permit program for the State or the County. Permits issued under a
program with interim approval are fully effective with respect to part
70. The 12-month time period for submittal of permit applications by
sources subject to part 70 requirements and the three-year time period
for processing the initial permit applications begin upon the effective
date of final interim approval.
Following the granting of final interim approval, if the State of
Tennessee or Memphis-Shelby County fail to submit a complete corrective
program for full approval by the date six months before expiration of
the interim approval, EPA will start an 18-month clock for mandatory
sanctions. If the State or the County then fail to submit a corrective
program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of that 18-month
period, EPA is 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 or the County 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 Tennessee or Memphis-
Shelby County, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply after the
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determines
that the State or the County has come into compliance. In any case, if,
six months after application of the first sanction, the State or the
County still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA determines
to be complete, a second sanction will be required.
If, following final interim approval, EPA disapproves the State of
Tennessee's or Memphis-Shelby County'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 or the County 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 or the County, both sanctions
under section 179(b) will apply after the expiration of the 18-month
period until the Administrator determines that the State or the County
has come into compliance. In all cases, if six months after EPA applies
the first sanction, the State of Tennessee or Memphis-Shelby County has
not submitted a revised program that EPA determines to have corrected
the deficiencies that prompted disapproval, a second sanction will be
required.
In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted
any time after the end of an interim approval period if a state or
local agency has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or
EPA has disapproved a submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA
has not granted full approval to a state or local program by the
expiration of an interim approval and that expiration occurs after
November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer, and enforce a
Federal operating permit program for that state or local agency upon
interim approval expiration.
II. Proposed Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State and County Submittals
EPA has concluded that the operating permit programs submitted by
the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County substantially meet the
requirements of title V and part 70, and proposes to interimly approve
the programs. For detailed information on the analyses of the State and
County submittals, please refer to the Technical
[[Page 9663]]
Support Documents (TSDs) contained in the dockets at the address noted
above. The TSDs describe the manner in which the programs satisfy the
operating permit program requirements of part 70.
1. Support Materials
Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Act, each permitting authority
must develop and submit to the Administrator an operating permit
program under state or local law or under an interstate compact that
meets the requirements of title V of the Act. On November 10, 1994, EPA
received the title V operating permit program submitted by the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The State
requested, under the signature of the Tennessee Governor's designee,
approval of its operating permit program with full authority to
administer the program in ninety-one of the State's ninety-five
counties. Four of the State's counties (Shelby, Davidson, Hamilton, and
Knox) are regulated by local air pollution control agencies operating
under certificates of exemption issued pursuant to Tennessee Code
Annotated (T.C.A.) Section 68-201-115. The State's jurisdiction also
does not extend to sources of air pollution over which an Indian Tribe
has jurisdiction. The State of Tennessee supplemented its initial title
V program submittal on December 5, 1994, August 8, 1995, January 17,
1996, January 30, 1996, and February 13, 1996.
On June 26, 1995, EPA received the Memphis-Shelby County title V
operating permit program submittal. The State requested, under the
signature of the Tennessee Governor's designee, approval of the
County's program on behalf of the Memphis-Shelby County Health
Department. The Memphis-Shelby County Health Department has authority
to administer the operating permit program in all areas of Shelby
County, Tennessee, including the incorporated municipalities of
Arlington, Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown, Lakeland, Memphis, and
Millington. The County's jurisdiction does not extend to sources of air
pollution over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. The County
supplemented its initial program on August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995,
August 24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, and February 14,
1996.
The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County submittals
address, in the Workload Analyses contained therein, the requirement of
40 CFR 70.4(b)(1) by describing how the State and County intend to
carry out their responsibilities under part 70. EPA has deemed the
program descriptions to be sufficient for meeting the requirement of 40
CFR 70.4(b)(1).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3), each permitting authority is
required to submit a legal opinion from the Attorney General (or the
attorney for the air pollution control agency that has independent
legal counsel) demonstrating adequate authority to carry out all
aspects of the title V operating permit program. The State of Tennessee
submitted an Attorney General's Opinion demonstrating adequate legal
authority as required by Federal law and regulation. The Memphis-Shelby
County submittal contains an Opinion Letter by the County Attorney.
This letter, with the supplements dated August 24, 1995 and January 29,
1995, adequately demonstrate the required legal authority.
The program submittals also contain supporting documentation, such
as evidence of the procedurally correct adoption of the permitting
rules, permit application forms, and copies of the enforcement
agreements with EPA. The State's submittal was determined by EPA to be
administratively complete on January 24, 1995. The County's submittal
was determined to be administratively complete on September 5, 1995.
2. Program Implementation
The State of Tennessee developed Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(11),
entitled ``Major Stationary Source Operating Permits'', of the
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations to implement the
substantive requirements of part 70. The State also developed Rule
1200-3-10-.04 entitled ``Enhanced and Periodic Monitoring for Title V
Sources'' and Chapter 1200-3-30 entitled ``Control of Acidic
Precipitation'' to implement other title V requirements. These rules,
and several other rules and statutes providing for administrative
actions and the assessment of fees, were submitted by the State with
sufficient evidence of procedurally correct adoption as required by 40
CFR 70.4(b)(2).
The County's operating permit program is implemented and enforced
through the Shelby County Air Pollution Control Code, which was amended
on April 24, 1995 to incorporate by reference in entirety the State's
Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(11) entitled ``Major Stationary Source Operating
Permits'', Rule 1200-3-10-.04 entitled ``Enhanced and Periodic
Monitoring for Title V Sources'', and Chapter 1200-3-30 entitled
``Control of Acidic Precipitation''.1 These regulations, and
several other rules and statutes providing for administrative actions
and the assessment of fees, were submitted by Memphis-Shelby County
with sufficient evidence of procedurally correct adoption as required
by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2).
\1\ The current Memphis-Shelby County codifications make
reference to the entire Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-9, which was
adopted and incorporated by reference into Section 16-77 of the
City's code and into Section 3-5 of the County's code. In addition,
Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-10 was adopted into Sections 16-85 and 3-7,
and Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-30 was adopted into Sections 16-91.2
and 3-36. Since the City and the County have not yet codified
subsections, all references in this notice will be to applicable
parts of Tennessee regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Regulations
a. Applicability. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County
title V program submittals, in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.02(11) (b) and
(c), substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR 70.2 and 70.3 with
regards to applicability.
The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title V programs
provide for the treatment of research and development (R&D) facilities
as sources that are separate from other stationary sources that are
located on contiguous and adjacent properties and that are under common
control. Neither program, however, requires a ``support facility test''
(see 60 FR 45556, August 31, 1995) before R&D is treated as a separate
source when it is co-located with an industrial activity. EPA does not
consider the lack of the support facility test as an issue for program
approval because the definition of ``Research and Development
Facility'' found in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)24. requires that
the facility not be ``engaged in the manufacture of products for
commercial sale in commerce, except in a de minimis manner''.
Therefore, it is EPA's understanding that if co-located R&D facilities
contribute to industrial activities in material rather than de minimis
capacities, the State and the County will consider them as support
facilities and thus not separable. This interpretation is consistent
with the support facility test, which treats co-located and commonly
owned sources as one source (with aggregated emissions) if the output
of one source is more than 50 percent devoted to the support of the
other source.
The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs, in
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)14.(iv), provide that ``* * * all
activities claimed by an applicant to be
[[Page 9664]]
research and development at the contiguous or adjacent property shall
have their emissions aggregated as a single source for the purposes of
determining whether or not the research and development activities
constitute a major source.'' It is EPA's understanding that the term
``activities'' in this provision is intended to address the R&D
activities at the R&D facility, as referenced in the preceding sentence
of Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)14.(iv) and defined in Subparagraph
1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)24., and is not intended to apply to any activities
occurring within a stationary source that is not considered to be a R&D
facility. Given this understanding, EPA does not consider this
provision to be a title V program approval issue for the State or the
County.
Neither the State or the County addressed 40 CFR 70.3(b)(3), which
allows exempted sources to apply for a permit, in their program
submittals. Justification of this omission of a part 70 provision is
requested from the State and the County as a condition of full program
approval.
b. Permit Applications. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby
County title V programs, in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(d) and in the
permit application forms, substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR
70.5 for complete permit application forms. However, the regulatory
provisions in both programs do not specifically require the permit
applications to contain the information described in 40 CFR 70.5(c),
including the compliance certification requirements of 40 CFR
70.5(c)(9).
The State's and County's application forms, which were submitted
for approval as part of both title V programs, do require all the
information referred to in 40 CFR 70.5(c), including a certification of
compliance status with respect to all applicable requirements. EPA is
concerned in particular that the compliance certification be a binding,
regulatory requirement upon the source. The State asserts that, because
its regulations require sources to provide the information specified in
the application form, and because the application form submitted for
approval as part of the State's title V program requires a compliance
certification, the compliance certification is a regulatory requirement
that is binding upon the source. EPA finds this explanation plausible,
but seeks confirmation in the form of a legal opinion from the State.
Therefore, as a condition of full approval for both programs, EPA
is requesting that the State and the County clarify in supplemental
legal opinions that their permitting regulations require a source
submitting an application for a title V permit to certify its
compliance status with regards to all applicable requirements.
Alternatively, the State and the County could revise their regulations
to directly incorporate this requirement.
In addition, because neither the State nor the County have
regulatory provisions for permit applications to contain the
information described in 40 CFR 70.5(c), EPA is reminding the State and
the County that any revisions to their forms must be submitted as title
V program revisions for EPA review and approval pursuant to 40 CFR
70.4(i).
c. Insignificant Activities. Pursuant to part 70, a permitting
authority must request and EPA may approve as part of that program, a
list of insignificant activities and emission levels which need not be
included in the permit applications. Although part 70 does not define
appropriate emission levels for insignificant activities, 40 CFR
70.4(b)(2) requires permitting authorities to include in their title V
program submittals any criteria used to determine insignificant
activities or emission levels. Based on the information provided in the
submittal, EPA determines whether the insignificant emission levels for
the particular program under review are approvable.
For other title V program submittals, EPA has accepted ``generic''
(that is, not keyed to a specific type of activity) emission thresholds
of no more than five tons per year for regulated air pollutants and
1000 pounds per year for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as
insignificant. EPA believes that these levels are sufficiently below
applicability thresholds for many applicable requirements to ensure, in
combination with appropriate ``gatekeepers'', that units potentially
subject to applicable requirements are included in permit applications.
In addition to insignificant activity lists or threshold levels with
appropriate emissions limitations, a State's program must provide, as
required in 40 CFR 70.5(c), that an application may not omit
information needed to determine the applicability of and to impose
applicable requirements, and to collect fees. If a state or local
agency's permitting regulations include this ``gatekeeper'' language,
and the insignificant activities list and generic threshold levels are
reasonable (that is, if they are not on their face likely to interfere
with the determination and imposition of applicable requirements), then
EPA will approve the insignificant activities provisions.
The initial State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title V
program submittals contained the version of Rule 1200-3-9-.04 entitled
``Exemptions'' that became state-effective on November 21, 1993. Rule
1200-3-9-.04 identifies over 50 different insignificant activities and
emission units that are exempt from permitting requirements. Because
Rule 1200-3-9-.04 purports to exempt the listed activities from
``permitting'', rather than from description in the permit application,
it is broader than the exemption contemplated by 40 CFR 70.5(c).
Activities and emission units deemed ``insignificant'' for purposes
of title V permitting are not exemptions from the obligation to
consider all emissions from the source in determining whether the
source is major, nor are they exemptions from the requirement to comply
with the permit content provisions of 40 CFR 70.6 for all applicable
requirements. Rather, provisions for insignificant activities and
emission units allow sources subject to title V to avoid description of
EPA-approved insignificant activities in the application, or to include
only limited information in the application (as in the case of
activities deemed insignificant based on size or production rate).
Therefore, the exemption from ``permitting'' requirements contained in
Rule 1200-3-9-.04 must be removed as a condition of full approval for
both programs.
Moreover, neither the State nor the County submitted information
regarding the estimated levels of emissions from the activities and
units listed in Rule 1200-3-9-.04, nor has a demonstration been made
that these activities are not likely to be subject to applicable
requirements or to have emissions that affect major source status. EPA
has examined the list of excluded activities and believes that
exclusion of these items would unduly hamper a reviewer's ability to
verify whether the source has correctly identified all applicable
requirements in its application.
Therefore, as a condition of full approval for both programs, the
State and the County must provide a demonstration that adequately
quantifies the potential emissions (based on maximum capacity or on
specified size/operational limitations) from each of the activities and
emission units listed in Paragraphs 1200-3-9-.04 (1) and (4) sufficient
to allow EPA to determine that exclusion of the activities and units
from permit applications will not interfere with the determination and
imposition of applicable requirements. In the
[[Page 9665]]
alternative, the State and the County could specifically limit the
emissions from each listed activity and emissions unit to the
recommended 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants and 1000 pounds per year
for HAPs. In addition, Rule 1200-3-9-.04 must be revised to include
``gatekeeper'' language consistent with that in 40 CFR 70.5(c), as
discussed above, and to remove any language implying that insignificant
activities may be excluded from major source applicability
determinations.
On August 8, 1995, the State of Tennessee supplemented Rule 1200-3-
9-.04 in its title V program with Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) entitled
``Major Source Operating Permits Insignificant Emission Units'', which
became state-effective on August 26, 1995. Memphis-Shelby County has
not yet formally supplemented its title V program with Paragraph 1200-
3-9-.04(5), but the County is in the process of amending its code to
include this paragraph. The County has informed EPA that it will
supplement its title V program with Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) when the
amended code is local-effective.
Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) contains two lists of insignificant
emission units and activities. The list in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.04(5)(f) includes more than 120 emission units and activities that are
categorically exempt from permitting requirements and allowed to be
omitted from the permit application. The list in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.04(5)(g) contains more than 23 emission units and activities that are
defined as insignificant based on size or production rate. The units
and activities in the second list are required to be included in the
permit application.
Based on EPA's review of Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5), a number of the
activities and emission units contained in the two lists either
directly or potentially conflict with applicable requirements as
defined in part 70, or are so vaguely or broadly articulated that EPA
cannot determine whether a conflict or potential conflict exists.
Obvious conflicts that were noted by EPA are discussed in the
aforementioned TSDs. However, EPA could not adequately evaluate the two
lists because neither the State or the County submitted information
quantifying the potential emissions from the listed activities and
units, or the criteria that were used to determine the insignificant
activities and emission units. And, because the rule purports to
exclude activities and emission units listed in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.04(5)(f) from permitting requirements, EPA has the same concerns as
discussed above with regards to the initially submitted Rule 1200-3-9-
.04, namely that the rule would authorize excluding insignificant
activities from major source applicability determinations or from other
requirements of part 70 for units that are listed as insignificant but
that are in fact subject to applicable requirements.
Therefore, as conditions of full approval for both programs, the
State and the County must complete the following:
(1) Provide a demonstration that adequately quantifies the
potential emissions (based on maximum capacity or on specified size/
operational limitations) from each of the activities and emission units
listed in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.04(5) (f) and (g) sufficient to allow
EPA to determine that exclusion of the activities and units from permit
applications will not interfere with the determination and imposition
of applicable requirements. In the alternative, the State and County
could specifically limit the emissions from each listed activity and
emissions unit to the recommended 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants
and 1000 pounds per year for HAPs.
(2) Address the conflicts with applicable requirements that are
discussed in the TSDs.
(3) Remove the exemption from permitting requirements contained in
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(f) to ensure that the insignificant
activities provisions are not broader than that allowed under 40 CFR
70.5(c), and include ``gatekeeper'' language consistent with that in 40
CFR 70.5(c).
In addition to the exemption from permitting in Subparagraph 1200-
3-9-.04(5)(f), the provisions of Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)3.
exempt sources subject to generally applicable SIP requirements from
the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and certification
requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3) and (c). However, part 70 does not
exempt insignificant activities and emission units subject to
applicable requirements from the permit content requirements of 40 CFR
70.6. That is to say, although insignificant activities may be omitted
from description in the permit application, nothing in part 70 allows
the permitting authority to issue permits that exempt the source from
compliance certification or (as appropriate) monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting required under 40 CFR 70.6 for all emissions units
subject to applicable requirements. Part 70 does, however, allow
permitting authorities the flexibility to tailor the amount and quality
of information required in the permit application, and the rigor of
compliance requirements contained in the permit, to the type of
emission unit and applicable requirement in question.
EPA has discussed this issue previously in the interim approval
notices on the State of Washington's title V program (see 60 FR 50166
(September 28, 1995) and 60 FR 62992 (December 8, 1995)). This issue is
also addressed in the July 10, 1995 guidance memorandum entitled
``White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit
Applications'' from Lydia Wegman, Deputy Director of EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the EPA Regional Air Directors.
EPA is committed to issuing additional guidance to aid state and local
permitting authorities in drafting permits which comply with the permit
content requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 for insignificant activities, and
intends to issue such guidance in the very near future.
Therefore, as a condition of full approval for both programs,
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)3. must be revised to eliminate the
exemption from the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and
certification requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3) and (c) for sources
subject to generally applicable SIP requirements.
In addition, Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) exempts increases in
regulated air pollutant emissions from permit amendment and
modification procedures. Because this provision conflicts with the
requirements of 40 CFR 70.7, it must be revised to be consistent with
the part 70 criteria for administrative permit amendments and permit
modifications as a condition of full approval for both programs.
d. Permit Content. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County
title V programs, in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.02(11) (a) and (e),
substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR 70.4 and 70.6 for permit
content, including operational flexibility and off-permit changes.
However, Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) entitled ``Definitions''
contains the following restriction:
``All references in this paragraph to the Federal Act or to
federal regulations or requirements shall be to (i) that Act and
those regulations and requirements as in effect on December 15,
1993, and (ii) any other federal regulations or requirements to the
extent that they are adopted and are effective as Rules of the State
of Tennessee.
This restriction applies to all Federal requirements referenced in
Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(11), including the definition of ``Applicable
requirement'' in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b). The State's and
County's definition of
[[Page 9666]]
``Applicable requirement'' is, therefore, not equivalent to the part 70
definition because it restricts the domain of applicable requirements
to those in effect before a certain date. As a result, neither program
ensures that issued permits will address all applicable requirements in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.6(a). Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) must
be revised for consistency with part 70 as a condition of full approval
for both programs.
The State and County program submittals, in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.02(11)(e)4., provide for the issuance of general permits. However,
this provision allows a source to operate without an appropriate title
V permit and not be subject to enforcement action. Subparagraph 1200-3-
9-.02(11)(e)4. initially indicates that a source shall be subject to
enforcement action if it operates under a general permit but is later
found not to qualify for a general permit. However, the next sentence
states that if the source is required to have an individual permit, the
permit shield will apply until the individual permit becomes effective,
which relieves the source from liability. Because this provision
conflicts with 40 CFR 70.6(d)(1), it must be changed as a condition of
full approval of the State and County programs.
Part 70 requires prompt reporting of deviations from the permit
requirements. Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) 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. 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). 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 State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have not defined
``prompt'' in their title V programs with respect to the reporting of
deviations. Instead, Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1.(iii)(III)II.
references the provisions of Rule 1200-3-20-.03 to define ``prompt
reporting''. Rule 1200-3-20-.03 specifies that in the event of a
malfunction, a source shall notify the State and the County by
telephone within 24 hours of the malfunction. The notification must
contain a statement giving all pertinent facts, including the estimated
duration of the malfunction. Chapter 1200-3-20, which contains Rule
1200-3-20-.03, was included in the State's title V program submittal,
but not in the County's submittal. The County clarified, in a letter
dated February 7, 1996, that the prompt reporting provision of Rule
1200-3-20-.03 is effective in all of the County's jurisdictions.
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1.(iii)(III)II. also references
Chapter 1200-3-20 to define deviations from permit conditions, such as
upset, malfunction, or emergency conditions. However, Paragraph 1200-3-
20-.06(5) identifies a number of different exceedances that will not be
considered by the State as violations. This provision conflicts with
part 70, which requires that any emissions not permitted at a source be
in violation of permit terms and conditions. Specifically, 40 CFR
70.6(g) classifies excess emissions due to emergency situations as a
violation of an existing permit, and allows the State to provide an
affirmative defense in certain circumstances.
If a regulation such as Chapter 1200-3-20 is approved into the SIP,
it becomes a part of an applicable requirement and therefore may
function with respect to that requirement or requirements of which it
is a part. This would be true even after the applicable requirement is
incorporated into the permit. However, the version of Chapter 1200-3-20
contained in the State's title V program submittal is not approved into
the Tennessee SIP. More importantly, from the standpoint of part 70,
Chapter 1200-3-20 is on its face limited to SIP requirements. It would,
therefore, affect the definition of violations for any applicable
requirement incorporated into the permit, including those that the
State has no authority to change, such as Federal standards. To remedy
this inconsistency with part 70, and as a condition of full program
approval, the State must revise Chapter 1200-3-20 to clarify that it
applies only with respect to requirements in the SIP. Furthermore, the
revised rule must be submitted to EPA for approval into the Tennessee
SIP.
The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have the authority
to issue variances from the requirements imposed by State and County
law. The State has discretion, pursuant to T.C.A. Section 68-201-118,
to grant relief from compliance with State statutes and rules. The
County has discretion, pursuant to Section 3-10 of the Shelby County
Code, to grant relief from compliance with County statutes and rules.
EPA regards these provisions as wholly external to the programs
submitted for approval under part 70, and consequently proposes to take
no action on these provisions of State and County law.
EPA has no authority to approve provisions of state and local law,
such as the variance provisions referred to above, that are
inconsistent with title V. EPA does not recognize the ability of a
permitting authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a
Federally enforceable title V operating permit, except where such
relief is granted through the procedures allowed by part 70. A title V
permit may be issued or revised (consistent with part 70 permitting
procedures) to incorporate those terms of a variance that are
consistent with applicable requirements. A title V permit may also
incorporate, via part 70 permit issuance or modification procedures,
the schedule of compliance set forth in a variance. However, EPA
reserves the right to pursue enforcement of applicable requirements
notwithstanding the existence of a compliance schedule in a permit to
operate. This interpretation is consistent with 40 CFR
70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule of compliance ``shall
be supplemental to, and shall not sanction noncompliance with, the
applicable requirements on which it is based.''
The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title V program
submittals contain provisions for the issuance of Federally enforceable
state and local minor source operating permits to limit an air
pollution source's potential to emit. Limiting a source's potential to
emit through Federally enforceable minor source operating permits can
affect the applicability of Federal regulations to a source, including
the regulations governing title V operating permits, New Source Review
(NSR) preconstruction permits, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) preconstruction permits for criteria pollutants, and Federal air
toxics requirements mandated under section 112 of the CAA.
EPA promulgated the criteria for Federal enforceability of minor
source
[[Page 9667]]
operating permits in the Federal Register on June 28, 1989 (see 54 FR
22274). One of the criteria is EPA's approval of the minor source
operating permit program into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Both
the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have submitted the
provisions for issuing Federal enforceable minor source operating
permits as SIP revisions. Therefore, EPA is not taking action in this
notice on the ``opt out'' provisions contained in Paragraph 1200-3-9-
.02(11)(1) as part of either the State or the County title V program.
Both program submittals contain Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(4) entitled
``Permits for Non-Complying Sources'', which is an approved SIP rule
that does not address any part 70 requirements. Moreover, the version
of the rule included in the submittals contains revisions that have not
yet been submitted for incorporation in either the State of Tennessee's
or Memphis-Shelby County's SIP. EPA has provided comments to the State
on the revised version of the rule, but the comments have not yet been
addressed by the State. EPA is, therefore, not taking action on
Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(4) as part of either the State or the County
title V program.
e. Permit Processing and Review. The State of Tennessee and
Memphis-Shelby County title V programs, in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.02(11)(f) and (g), substantially meet the permit processing and review
requirements of 40 CFR 70.7 (including minor permit modifications and
public participation) and 70.8. However, the State's and County's
permit reopenings provisions for HAP sources are not consistent with
part 70 requirements.
According to Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a), the State and the
County will call applications for permit revisions when EPA promulgates
new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Sources
will have 360 days to submit applications, and the permitting authority
shall issue the permit revision within 18 months of the date the
application is deemed complete. This provision conflicts with 40 CFR
70.7(f)(1)(i), which requires completion of permit reopenings not later
than 18 months after promulgation of a new applicable requirement in
cases of permits with remaining terms of three or more years. As a
result, Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) must be revised for
consistency with part 70 requirements as a condition of full approval
for both programs.
f. Enforcement Authority. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby
County title V programs, in T.C.A. Sections 68-201-101 et seq., address
the requirements of 40 CFR 70.11 with respect to enforcement authority.
4. Permit Fee Demonstration
Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires each permitting authority to
collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and indirect
costs necessary for the development and administration of its title V
operating permit program. Each title V program submittal must contain
either a detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that
aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per
ton of emissions per year (adjusted from 1989 by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI)). The $25 per ton is presumed, for program approval, to be
sufficient to cover all reasonable program costs and is thus referred
to as the ``presumptive minimum''.
Both the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have elected
to assess title V operating permit fees below the Federal presumptive
minimum fee amount, and both program submittals contained Workload
Analyses satisfying the 40 CFR 70.9(b)(5) requirement for detailed fee
demonstrations. The fee demonstrations showed that the fees collected
will adequately cover the anticipated costs of the State and the County
operating permit programs for the years 1995 through 1999.
The specified activities that constitute the State's program are
consistent with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(1), but the County's fee provisions
allow use of the operating permit fees for any purpose rather than
solely for the funding of title V program activities in accordance with
40 CFR 70.9(a). Moreover, the County's program does not specify that
the fees used to cover the direct and indirect costs of the operating
permit program will be collected only from part 70 sources, as required
by 40 CFR 70.9(a). Memphis-Shelby County, therefore, must revise its
fee provisions to be consistent with the part 70 requirements as a
condition of full program approval.
5. Provisions Implementing Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
a. Authority for Section 112 Implementation. In the title V program
submittals, the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County
demonstrate adequate legal authority to implement and enforce all
section 112 requirements through title V permits. This legal authority
is contained in T.C.A. Sections 68-201-101 et seq., and in
Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)5. and 1200-3-9-.02(11)(c)(iii) of the
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. EPA has determined that
this legal authority is sufficient to allow the State and the County to
issue permits that assure compliance with all section 112 requirements.
EPA is interpreting the above legal authority to mean that the
State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County are able to carry out all
section 112 activities with respect to part 70 and non-part 70 sources.
For further rationale on this interpretation, please refer to the
aforementioned TSDs.
Both program submittals contain Chapter 1200-3-32 entitled
``Prevention of Accidental Releases'', which was promulgated by the
State and adopted by the County to implement the provisions of section
112(r) of the Act. However, EPA has not yet promulgated a Federal rule
to implement the provisions of section 112(r), so the State and County
rules may not be equivalent to the final Federal rule. Therefore, EPA
is not taking action in this notice on Chapter 1200-3-32 as part of
either the State or the County title V program.
b. Implementation of Section 112(g) During Transition Period EPA
issued an interpretive notice on February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which
outlines the Agency's revised interpretation of section 112(g)
applicability. The notice postpones the effective date of section
112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that
provision. The notice explains that EPA is 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 permitting authorities
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. A detailed discussion of the rationale for the revised
interpretation is included in the February 14, 1995 notice.
Unless and until EPA provides for an additional postponement of the
section 112(g) effective date, the State of Tennessee and Memphis-
Shelby County must have Federally enforceable mechanisms for
implementing section 112(g) during the period between promulgation of
the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State and
County regulations. Both program submittals contain Chapter 1200-3-31
entitled ``Case by Case Determinations of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Control Requirements'', which will serve as an adequate implementation
vehicle during the transition period. Chapter 1200-3-31 became state-
effective on September 18, 1994, and the County adopted and
[[Page 9668]]
incorporated it by reference on April 24, 1995.
However, Chapter 1200-3-31 contains several discrepancies with
respect to the provisions of section 112(g) of the Act. As a condition
of full program approval, the State and the County must correct the
following discrepancies in order to use this chapter to implement
section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the
Federal section 112(g) rule and the adoption of equivalent State and
County regulations:
(1) The definition of ``modification'' in Paragraph 1200-3-31-
.02(10) conflicts with the section 112(g) definition regarding offsets.
The State/County definition indicates that increased emissions of one
HAP may be offset by an equal or greater decrease of another HAP that
is deemed by the permitting authority to be equal to or more hazardous.
However, according to section 112(g)(1)(A), the offset must be by a HAP
which is deemed to be more hazardous, and the determination must be
based on guidance issued by the Administrator under section
112(g)(1)(B).
(2) According to Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.05(1), the State and the
County shall only make case-by-case determinations for new sources in a
source category scheduled for action under sections 112(e)(1) and (3).
However, section 112(g) applies to all major sources of HAPs,
regardless of whether or not they have been included in a scheduled
source category.
c. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated.
The requirements for title V program approval, specified in 40 CFR
70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of an
operating permit program for delegation of section 112 standards
promulgated by EPA as they apply to title V sources. Section 112(l)(5)
requires that operating permit programs contain adequate authorities,
adequate resources for implementation, and expeditious compliance
schedules, which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA
also proposes to approve, under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, the
State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs for receiving
delegation of section 112 standards and programs that are unchanged
from the Federal rules as promulgated. In addition, EPA proposes to
delegate to the State and the County all existing standards and
programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for part 70 sources and non-part
70 sources.2
\2\ The radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section 112 regulation and therefore,
also an applicable requirement under the State operating permits
program for part 70 sources. There is not yet a Federal definition
of ``major'' for radionuclide sources. Therefore, until a major
source definition for radionuclide is promulgated, no source would
be a major section 112 source solely due to its radionuclide
emissions. However, a radionuclide source may, in the interim, be a
major source under part 70 for another reason, thus requiring a part
70 permit. EPA will work with the State in the development of its
radionuclide program to ensure that permits are issued in a timely
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Tennessee has informed EPA that it intends to accept
the delegation of section 112 standards under part 61 on a case-by-case
basis and the delegation of section 112 standards under part 63 on an
automatic basis. The details of the State's use of these delegation
mechanisms are set forth in letters dated November 4, 1994, January 30,
1996, and February 13, 1996.
Memphis-Shelby County has informed EPA that it too intends to
accept delegation of section 112 standards under part 61 on a case-by-
case basis and the delegation of section 112 standards under part 63 on
an automatic basis. The details of the County's use of these delegation
mechanisms are set forth in letters dated June 14, 1995, February 7,
1996, and February 14, 1996.
d. Title IV Acid Rain Program Requirements. The State of Tennessee
promulgated Chapter 1200-3-30 to implement the Phase II acid rain
permitting requirements of 40 CFR part 72. This chapter became state-
effective on September 13, 1994, and has been determined by EPA to be
acceptable for the purposes of administering an acid rain program.
Memphis-Shelby County adopted and incorporated the State's Chapter
1200-3-30 by reference on April 24, 1995. The County's acid rain
program has also been determined by EPA to be acceptable for the
purposes of administering an acid rain program.
B. Proposed Actions
EPA proposes interim approval of the title V operating permit
program submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation on November 10, 1994, and as supplemented on December 5,
1994, August 8, 1995, January 17, 1996, January 30, 1996, and February
13, 1996. EPA also proposes interim approval of the title V program
submitted by the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department on June 26,
1995, and as supplemented on August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995, August
24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, and February 14, 1996. If
this interim approval is finalized, the changes identified below must
be made for full approval of the State and County programs.
1. Opt-in Provision for Exempted Sources
Neither the State or the County program addressed 40 CFR
70.3(b)(3), which allows exempted sources to apply for a permit.
Justification of the omission of this part 70 provision is requested
from the State and the County.
2. Certification of Compliance With Applicable Requirements
Neither the State or the County program contains regulatory
provisions that require sources to certify compliance with all
applicable requirements. EPA is, therefore, requesting the State and
the County to clarify in supplemental legal opinions that their
permitting regulations require a source submitting an application for a
title V permit to certify its compliance status with regards to all
applicable requirements. In the alternative, the State and the County
could revise their regulations to directly incorporate this
requirement.
3. Insignificant Activities
As discussed above in section II.A.3.c., the State and the County
must complete the following:
a. Remove the exemptions from permitting requirements contained in
Paragraphs 1200-3-9-.04(1) and (4), and in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.04(5)(f), and include ``gatekeeper'' language consistent with that in
40 CFR 70.5(c).
b. Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)3. to eliminate the
exemption from the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and
certification requirements of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and (c) for sources
subject to generally applicable SIP requirements.
c. Provide a demonstration that adequately quantifies the potential
emissions (based on maximum capacity or on specified size/operational
limitations) from each of the activities and emission units listed in
Paragraphs 1200-3-9-.04(1) and (4), and Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-
.04(5)(f) and (g), sufficient to allow EPA to determine that exclusion
of the activities and units from permit applications will not interfere
with the determination and imposition of applicable requirements. In
the alternative, the State and the County could specifically limit the
emissions from each listed activity and
[[Page 9669]]
emissions unit to the recommended 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants
and 1000 pounds per year for HAPs.
d. Address EPA's concerns, as discussed in the TSDs, about
potential conflicts of certain activities and emission units listed in
Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) with applicable requirements.
e. Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) to be consistent with the
criteria in 40 CFR 70.7 for administrative permit amendments and permit
modifications.
4. Applicable Federal Requirements
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) in the State and County programs
restricts the domain of Federal requirements referenced in Paragraph
1200-3-9-.02(11) to those in effect on December 15, 1993. As a result,
neither program ensures that issued permits will address all applicable
requirements in accordance with 40 CFR 70.6(a). Subparagraph 1200-3-9-
.02(11)(b) must therefore be revised for consistency with part 70.
5. General Permits
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)4. in both programs provides for
the issuance of general permits. However, this provision allows a
source to operate without an appropriate title V permit and not be
subject to enforcement action. This provision must be revised for
consistency with the requirements of 40 CFR 70.6(d)(1).
6. Excess Emissions Due to Malfunction, Startup, and Shutdown
The State must revise Chapter 1200-3-20 to make clear that it
applies only with respect to the requirements in the Tennessee SIP, and
the revised rule must be submitted to EPA for approval in the SIP.
7. Permit Reopenings
Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) must be revised in both programs
for consistency with the permit reopening requirements in 40 CFR
70.7(f)(1)(i), which requires completion of permit reopenings not later
than 18 months after promulgation of a new applicable requirement in
cases of permits with remaining permit terms of three or more years.
8. Use of Title V Fees
Memphis-Shelby County's fee provisions allow for use of operating
permit fees for any purpose rather than solely for the funding of title
V program activities, as required by 40 CFR 70.9(a). Moreover, the
County's program does not specify that the fees used to cover the
direct and indirect costs of the operating permit program will be
collected only from part 70 sources, as required by 40 CFR 70.9(a).
Memphis-Shelby County, therefore, must revise its fee provisions to be
consistent with the part 70 requirements.
9. Implementation of Section 112(g) During Transition Period
Both the State and the County title V program submittals contain
Chapter 1200-3-31 entitled ``Case by Case Determinations of Hazardous
Air Pollutant Control Requirements''. As discussed above in section
II.A.4.b., the discrepancies between Chapter 1200-3-31 and Federal
requirements must be addressed for EPA to approve this mechanism of
implementing section 112(g) during the transition period between
Federal 112(g) rule promulgation and adoption of appropriate State and
County rules.
In addition, as discussed above in section II.A.4.c., EPA proposes
approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 to the State of
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs for receiving delegation
of section 112 standards and programs that are unchanged from Federal
rules as promulgated. EPA also proposes to delegate existing standards
and programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for both part 70 sources and
non-part 70 sources.
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends for a
period of up to two years. During the interim approval period, the
State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County are protected from
sanctions for failure to have programs, and EPA is not obligated to
promulgate Federal operating permit programs in the State or the
County. Permits issued under a program with interim approval are fully
effective with respect to part 70, and the one-year time period for
submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the
effective date of interim approval, as does the three-year time period
for processing the initial permit applications.
The scope of the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title
V programs that EPA proposes to interimly approve in this notice
applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program)
within the ninety-one counties under the State's jurisdiction and in
Shelby County, except any sources of air pollution over which an Indian
Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-18 (November 9,
1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United
States to Indians because of their status as Indians.'' See section
302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (August 25, 1994); 58 FR
54364 (October 21, 1993).
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed interim
approval. Copies of the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County
title V program submittals, and other information relied upon for the
proposed interim approval, are contained in the dockets numbered TN-96-
01 and TN-MEMP-96-01, which are maintained at the EPA Region 4 office.
These dockets are organized and complete files of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of
this notice. 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. EPA will
consider any comments received by April 10, 1996.
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 of the Act do not create any new
requirements, but simply address operating permit 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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under section 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
[[Page 9670]]
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 proposed interim approval action
promulgated today does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to 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 Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Operating permits, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: February 26, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-5720 Filed 3-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
