[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15635-15639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6863]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[TN-T5-2001-01a; FRL-6956-6]


Clean Air Act Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to fully approve the operating 
permit programs of the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation and the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department. The 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs were 
submitted in response to the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) 
Amendments that permitting authorities develop, and submit to EPA, 
programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources 
and to certain other sources within the permitting authorities' 
jurisdiction. EPA granted interim approval to the Tennessee and 
Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs on July 29, 1996. 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County revised their programs to satisfy 
the conditions of the interim approval and this action approves those 
revisions. Other program changes made by Tennessee since the interim 
approval was granted are also being addressed in this action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 21, 2001 without 
further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments in writing by April 
19, 2001. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect. The public comments will 
be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule 
published in this Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Kim 
Pierce, Regional Title V Program Manager, Air & Radiation Technology 
Branch, EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8909. Copies of the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County submittals, and 
other supporting documentation relevant to this action, are available 
for inspection during normal business hours at EPA Region 4, Air & 
Radiation Technology Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8909.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Pierce, EPA, EPA Region 4, at 
(404) 562-9124 or [email protected]/.

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

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

What Is the Operating Permit Program?

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

[[Page 15636]]

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    Where an operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met 
the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval 
contingent on the state revising its program to correct the 
deficiencies. Because the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating 
permit programs substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of 
part 70, EPA granted interim approval to each program in a rulemaking 
published on July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39335). The interim approval notice 
described the conditions that had to be met in order for the Tennessee 
and Memphis-Shelby County programs to receive full approval. Since that 
time, Tennessee has submitted ten revisions to its interimly approved 
operating permit program; these revisions are dated July 15, 1997, June 
16, 1998, February 5, 1999, February 24, 1999, March 5, 1999, June 16, 
1999, July 2, 1999, November 30, 1999, December 30, 1999, and August 
21, 2000. Memphis-Shelby County has submitted two revisions, dated 
October 11, 1999 and May 2, 2000, to its interimly approved program. 
This Federal Register notice describes the changes that have been made 
to the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs 
since interim approval was granted.

What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Approving?

    As stipulated in the July 29, 1996 rulemaking, full approval of the 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs was made 
contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
    (1) Provide a justification for not addressing the requirement in 
40 CFR 70.3(b)(3) allowing for a source not subject to the program to 
apply for and receive an operating permit. Tennessee responded by 
adding Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a)5. to its rules allowing a 
source to opt into the operating permit program. The state-effective 
rule change was submitted to EPA on March 5, 1999. Memphis-Shelby 
County, which adopts the State's regulations by reference, subsequently 
adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to 
EPA on May 2, 2000.
    (2) Remove the exemption from permitting requirements for 
insignificant activities contained in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(f). 
Tennessee removed the exemption language and submitted the revised rule 
to EPA on December 30, 1999. Memphis-Shelby County subsequently adopted 
the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on 
May 2, 2000.
    (3) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) to specify, consistent with 
40 CFR 70.5(c), that permit applications may not omit information 
needed to determine the fee amount. This condition was based on EPA's 
concern that some facilities may overlook emissions from insignificant 
emission units, and thereby not be assessed the correct fee amount. 
However, EPA later determined that this was a nonissue because both 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County require facilities to pay fees 
based on actual or allowable emissions of regulated air pollutants; 
emissions from insignificant activities are not included in the fee 
schedules that have been approved pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(b).
    (4) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)(3) to eliminate the 
exemption from compliance certification requirements for insignificant 
activities and to require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
insignificant activities, as determined to be necessary. Tennessee 
revised Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)(2) and (3) to eliminate the 
exemption and to require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
insignificant activities, as necessary. The state-effective rule change 
was submitted to EPA on December 30, 1999. Memphis-Shelby County 
subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of 
the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.
    (5) Revise certain insignificant activities listed in Subparagraph 
1200-3-9-.04(5) to eliminate potential conflicts with federal 
applicable requirements. The State responded by eliminating some of the 
activities and adding specific applicable requirements gatekeeper 
language to other activities with potential conflicts. The revised rule 
was submitted to EPA on December 30, 1999 and was determined to be 
adequate. Memphis-Shelby County subsequently adopted the revised rule 
and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.
    (6) Provide a sufficient description of the insignificant 
activities and emission units listed in Subparagraphs 1200-3-
9-.04(5)(f) and (g) to demonstrate that exclusion of these activities 
and units from permit applications would not interfere with identifying 
and imposing applicable requirements. In the alternative, Tennessee and 
Memphis-Shelby County were given the option of revising their rules to 
limit emissions from the listed activities and emission units to levels 
that truly are insignificant in comparison to the levels required to be 
permitted. For other operating program approvals, EPA has accepted 
emission thresholds of no more than 5 tons per year of regulated air 
pollutants and 1000 pounds per year of HAPs as insignificant. EPA 
believes that these thresholds are sufficiently below applicability 
thresholds for many applicable requirements to ensure, in combination 
with appropriate gatekeeper language, that units potentially subject to 
applicable requirements are included in permit applications. Tennessee 
responded by adding language to Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) that 
limits potential emissions from the listed activities to 5 tons per 
year of each regulated air pollutant and 1000 pounds per year of each 
HAP. Tennessee also replaced the activities listed in Subparagraph 
1200-3-9-.04(5)(g) with the list of ``trivial'' activities and emission 
units that EPA included in the ``White Paper for Streamlined 
Development of Part 70 Permit Applications'' guidance memorandum dated 
July 10, 1995. EPA has determined that the emission units and 
activities on the trivial list do not have specific applicable 
requirements and have extremely small emissions. Tennessee submitted 
the regulatory revisions to EPA on December 30, 1999. Memphis-Shelby 
County subsequently adopted the revisions and submitted documentation 
of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.
    (7) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) to eliminate language 
exempting certain emissions increases from permit amendment and 
modification procedures. The State repealed Subparagraph 1200-3-
9-.04(5)(h) in its entirety and submitted the state-effective rule 
change to EPA on December 30, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the 
revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 
2, 2000.
    (8) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) to remove the language 
limiting the domain of federal applicable requirements to only those in 
effect on December 15, 1993. The State removed the limiting language 
and submitted the state-effective rule change to EPA on March 5, 1999. 
The County subsequently adopted the State's regulatory change and 
submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.
    (9) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)4.(i) to provide that if 
a facility is granted a general permit and is later determined to not 
qualify to operate under the general permit, the facility

[[Page 15637]]

will be subject to an enforcement action for operation without an 
operating permit. The State revised Subparagraph 1200-3-
9-.02(11)(e)4.(i) accordingly and submitted the state-effective rule 
change to EPA on February 5, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the 
revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 
2, 2000.
    (10) Revise Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) of the Tennessee SIP to 
clarify that exceedances of emission limits contained in certain SIP 
requirements that become operating permit terms or conditions (i.e., 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) will be considered by 
the State as violations. Furthermore, the State must submit the revised 
rule to EPA for approval into the SIP. In response, the State removed 
all NSPS and NESHAP provisions from its SIP and now implements these 
standards through its approved operating permit program by including 
all applicable requirements in its operating permits. In addition, the 
State developed a general condition that is included in all of its 
operating permits stating that the provisions of Chapter 1200-3-20 
apply exclusively to rules in the Tennessee SIP.
    (11) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) for consistency with 
the permit reopening requirements in 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i), which 
requires the completion of permit openings 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. The State amended 
Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) to include the 18-month reopening 
requirement and submitted the state-effective rule change to EPA on 
February 24, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the revised rule and 
submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.
    (12) Finish adopting regulations which, at a minimum, satisfy the 
conflict of interest provisions of sections 128 and 129(e) of the CAA, 
and submit the state-effective regulations to EPA for approval in the 
Tennessee SIP. The State submitted a new Chapter 1200-3-17 entitled 
``Conflict of Interest'' to EPA on February 21, 1997. The State also 
submitted a supplemental Attorney General's Legal Opinion to EPA on 
June 16, 1999, certifying that the new Chapter 1200-3-17 satisfies the 
conflict of interest requirements of sections 128 and 129(e) of the 
CAA. This condition did not apply to Memphis-Shelby County.
    The County was, however, required to address the following two 
additional conditions for full approval of its operating permit 
program:
    (1) Clarify in a supplemental legal opinion that the County's 
program requires a source submitting an application for a permit to 
certify its compliance status with regards to all applicable 
requirements. On May 2, 2000, the County submitted a supplemental legal 
opinion supporting its application-based approach as a method resulting 
in a binding, legally enforceable compliance certification.
    (2) Revise its regulations to ensure that sufficient operating 
permit fees are collected to fund the operating permit program and that 
these fees are used solely for operating permit program costs. The 
County responded by amending Section 14.5-37 of the Shelby County Air 
Pollution Code to provide that operating permit fees ``shall be used 
exclusively for and be sufficient to pay the direct and indirect costs 
of the major stationary source operating permit program * * *'' The 
amended code was submitted to EPA on May 2, 2000.
    In addition to the operating permit program submittals that 
addressed the interim approval conditions, Tennessee submitted 
revisions to its operating permit fee rule on July 15, 1997, June 16, 
1998, July 2, 1999, and August 21, 2000. As discussed in the Federal 
Register notice proposing interim approval of the Tennessee and 
Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs (61 FR 9661, March 11, 
1996), both the State and the County elected to assess operating permit 
fees below the federal presumptive minimum amount. To determine the fee 
amount each year, the State prepares a workload analysis and then 
conducts rulemaking if the fee rule needs to be changed. As a result of 
these workload analyses, the State has been able to reduce its fee 
amount each year. Copies of the workload analyses for the fiscal years 
1996 through 2001 were submitted to EPA to justify the State's annual 
fee amounts. The State also submitted a fee program update on November 
30, 1999, pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(c), demonstrating the adequacy of its 
operating permit program. Memphis-Shelby County has not changed its 
annual fee amount since the operating permit program received interim 
approval in 1996. The County submitted a fee program update on October 
11, 1999, pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(c), demonstrating that its operating 
permit program is also being adequately funded.

What Is Involved in This Final Action?

    The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the 
Memphis-Shelby County Health Department have fulfilled the conditions 
of the interim approval granted on July 29, 1996, and EPA is taking 
final action by this notice to fully approve the Tennessee and Memphis-
Shelby County operating permit programs. EPA is also taking action to 
approve other program changes made by Tennessee since the interim 
approval was granted.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to grant final full approval should 
adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective May 21, 2001 
unless the Agency receives adverse comments by April 19, 2001.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will withdraw the final 
rule and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. All 
public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on May 21, 2001 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 12988

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

[[Page 15638]]

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

C. Executive Order 13045

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

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132

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

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

G. Unfunded Mandates

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

H. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a

[[Page 15639]]

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

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2001. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    In reviewing operating permit programs, EPA's role is to approve 
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use VCS, EPA has no authority to disapprove an operating permit 
program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program, to 
use VCS in place of an operating permit program that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of NTTAA do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 12, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.


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

PART 70--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and 
(j) in the entry for Tennessee to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

Tennessee

* * * * *
    (f) The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 
submitted program revisions on July 15, 1997, June 16, 1998, 
February 5, 1999, February 24, 1999, March 5, 1999, June 16, 1999, 
July 2, 1999, November 30, 1999, December 30, 1999, and August 21, 
2000. The rule revisions contained in the February 5, 1999, February 
24, 1999, March 5, 1999, June 16, 1999, and December 30, 1999, 
submittals adequately addressed the conditions of the interim 
approval effective on August 28, 1996, and which would expire on 
December 1, 2001. The State's operating permit program is hereby 
granted final full approval effective on May 21, 2001.
* * * * *
    (j) The Memphis-Shelby County Health Department submitted 
program revisions on October 11, 1999 and May 2, 2000. The rule 
revisions contained in the May 2, 2000, submittal adequately 
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on August 
28, 1996, and which would expire on December 1, 2001. The County's 
operating permit program is hereby granted final full approval 
effective on May 21, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-6863 Filed 3-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P