[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54444-54447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27105]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AL-T5-2001-02; FRL-7091-2]


Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of Operating Permit Programs; 
Alabama, City of Huntsville, and Jefferson County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final full approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating full approval of the operating permit 
programs of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, the 
City of Huntsville's Division of Natural Resources, and the Jefferson 
County Department of Health. These 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

[[Page 54445]]

to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources within the 
permitting authorities' jurisdiction. On November 15, 1995, EPA granted 
interim approval to the Alabama, Huntsville, and Jefferson County title 
V operating permit programs. These agencies revised their programs to 
satisfy the conditions of the interim approval, and EPA proposed full 
approval in the Federal Register on August 28, 2001. EPA did not 
receive any comments on the proposed action, so this action promulgates 
final full approval of the Alabama, Huntsville, and Jefferson County 
operating permit programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Alabama, Huntsville, and Jefferson County 
submittals and other supporting documentation used in developing the 
final full approval are available for inspection during normal business 
hours at EPA, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303-8960. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents, which are contained in EPA docket number AL-T5-2001-01, 
should make an appointment at least 48 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Pierce, 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?
Why is EPA taking this action?
What is involved in this final action?

What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    Title V of 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 title V 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 the title V 
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 operating permits. Examples of major sources 
include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more 
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 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 VOCs or NOX.

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    Where a title V 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 Alabama, Huntsville, and 
Jefferson County programs substantially, but not fully, met the 
requirements of part 70, EPA granted interim approval to these programs 
in a rulemaking (60 FR 57346) published on November 15, 1995. The 
interim approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in 
order for the Alabama, Huntsville, and Jefferson County programs to 
receive full approval. Interim approval of these programs expires on 
December 1, 2001.

What Is Involved in This Final Action?

    The Alabama Department of Environmental Management, the City of 
Huntsville's Division of Natural Resources, and the Jefferson County 
Department of Health have fulfilled the conditions of the interim 
approval granted on November 15, 1995. On August 28, 2001, EPA 
published a notice in the Federal Register (see 66 FR 45253) proposing 
full approval of the Alabama, Huntsville, and Jefferson County title V 
operating permit programs, and proposing approval of other program 
revisions. Since EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal, this 
action promulgates final full approval of the Alabama, Huntsville, and 
Jefferson County programs and final approval of the other program 
changes described in the proposal.

Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the Alabama, Huntsville, and Jefferson County submittals 
and other supporting documentation used in developing the final full 
approval are contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region 4 
office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the 
development of this proposed full approval. The primary purposes of the 
docket are: (1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and 
locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
approval process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial 
review. The docket files are available for public inspection at the 
location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

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

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 13132

    This rule does not have Federalism implications because it 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

[[Page 54446]]

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999). This rule merely approves existing requirements under state law, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the state and the federal government 
established in the CAA.

E. Executive Order 13175

    This rule does not have tribal implications because it will not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000).

F. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 
significantly regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

G. 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 operating permit program 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.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 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 proposed 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.

I. 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 and 
EPA's regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. 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.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action will not impose any collection of information subject 
to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., other than those previously approved and assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0243. For additional information concerning these 
requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

K. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 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. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

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

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

    Dated: October 18, 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 revising the entry for 
Alabama to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

Alabama

    (a) Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
    (1) Submitted on December 15, 1993, and supplemented on March 3, 
1994; March 18, 1994; June 5, 1995; July 14, 1995; and August 28, 
1995; interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; interim 
approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on July 19, 1996; April 9, 1997; August 
4, 1999; January 10, 2000; and May 11, 2001. The rule revisions 
contained in the July 19, 1996; January 10,

[[Page 54447]]

2000; and May 11, 2001 submittals adequately addressed the 
conditions of the interim approval which expires on December 1, 
2001. The State is hereby granted final full approval effective on 
November 28, 2001.
    (b) City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources:
    (1) Submitted on November 15, 1993, and supplemented on July 20, 
1995; interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; interim 
approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on March 21, 1997; July 21, 1999; 
December 4, 2000; February 22, 2001; April 9, 2001; and September 
18, 2001. The rule revisions contained in the March 21, 1997; April 
9, 2001; and September 18, 2001 submittals adequately addressed the 
conditions of the interim approval which expires on December 1, 
2001. The City is hereby granted final full approval effective on 
November 28, 2001.
    (c) Jefferson County Department of Health:
    (1) Submitted on December 14, 1993, and supplemented on July 14, 
1995; interim approval effective on December 15, 1995; interim 
approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on February 5, 1998; September 20, 1999; 
August 8, 2000; March 30, 2001; May 18, 2001; and September 11, 
2001. The rule revisions contained in the August 8, 2000; May 18, 
2001; and September 11, 2001 submittals adequately addressed the 
conditions of the interim approval which expires on December 1, 
2001. The County is hereby granted final full approval effective on 
November 28, 2001.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-27105 Filed 10-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P