[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56996-57000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28505]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[TN-T5-2001-04; FRL-7103-2]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final full approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating full approval of the operating permit 
programs of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 
and the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department. 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 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 EPA proposed full approval 
in the Federal Register on March 20, 2001. Because EPA received adverse 
comments on the proposed action, this action responds to those comments 
and promulgates final full approval of the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby 
County operating permit programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County submittals 
and other supporting documentation used in developing the final full 
approval are available for inspection during normal business hours at 
EPA Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303-8960. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents, which are contained in EPA docket file numbered TN-T5-2001-
01, should make an appointment at least 48 hours before the visiting 
day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Pierce, Regional Title V 
Program Manager, Air Planning Branch, EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, (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 were the concerns raised by the commenters?
    What is involved in this final action?
    What is the effective date of EPA's full approval of the Tennessee 
and Memphis-Shelby County title V operating permit programs?

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 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. Interim approval of these programs expires on December 1, 
2001.

[[Page 56997]]

    Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County fulfilled the conditions of the 
interim approval and EPA published a direct final notice (66 FR 15680, 
March 20, 2001) to fully approve their operating permit programs. 
However, adverse comments were received in response to the companion 
proposal notice that was also published on March 20, 2001, so the 
direct final rule was withdrawn (see 66 FR 24061, May 11, 2001).

What Were the Concerns Raised by the Commenters?

    EPA received three comment letters during the public comment 
period. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) submitted 
two letters, dated April 19, 2001 and June 11, 2001. The Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA) also submitted a letter on June 11, 2001. Copies 
of these letters are included in the docket file maintained at the EPA 
Region 4 office.

1. Letter From NPCA Dated April 19, 2001.

    In its April letter, NPCA raised five issues regarding EPA's 
proposed full approval of the Tennessee operating permit program. The 
first issue concerned EPA's failure to extend the public comment period 
for the proposed rulemaking published on March 20, 2001. During the 
initial 30-day public comment period, NPCA submitted a Freedom of 
Information Act request to EPA for information they believed to be 
necessary for their preparation of comments on the proposed action. 
Because NPCA did not receive all of the desired information until the 
last day of the public comment period, they requested an extension in 
order to review the information and prepare comments. In response to 
this request, EPA published a notice (66 FR 24084) on May 11, 2001, 
reopening the public comment period for an additional 30 days.
    The second issue concerned EPA's incorrect identification, in the 
direct final notice published on March 20, 2001, of Paragraph 1200-3-
20-.06(5) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations as part of 
the federally approved Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) states that ``[w]here violations are 
determined from properly certified and operating continuous emission 
monitors, no notice of violation(s) will be automatically issued unless 
the specified de minimis levels are exceeded.'' EPA concurs with NPCA's 
comment and clarifies in this action that Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) is 
not part of the current Tennessee SIP.
    As a third issue, NPCA further requested that if EPA ever acts to 
approve Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) as part of the Tennessee SIP, then 
it should be confirmed that this rule does not excuse, provide an 
affirmative defense for, or automatically exempt any excess emissions. 
The NPCA maintained that Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) should apply only 
to the State's SIP-approved obligation to automatically issue a notice 
of violation for excess emissions. These comments, however, fall 
outside the scope of this rulemaking because EPA is not taking action 
on Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5). Tennessee has submitted Paragraph 1200-
3-20-.06(5) as a SIP revision and EPA will address NPCA's comments when 
it takes SIP rulemaking action.
    The fourth issue raised by NPCA involved the inclusion of Paragraph 
1200-3-20-.06(5) in Tennessee's title V operating permit program even 
though it had not been approved into the SIP. Part 70, however, only 
requires that program requirements be enforceable as a matter of state 
law, not that they be approved into the SIP prior to incorporation into 
a title V program. Moreover, since there are no federal requirements 
for including excess emissions regulations (such as Tennessee's Chapter 
1200-3-20) in title V programs, the State sent a letter to EPA, dated 
October 16, 2001, voluntarily requesting that Chapter 1200-3-20 be 
withdrawn from its title V program. This action acknowledges withdrawal 
of Chapter 1200-3-20 from Tennessee's title V program. For the record, 
Memphis-Shelby County has never submitted its excess emissions rule to 
EPA for approval as part of the County's operating permit program.
    As the fifth issue, NPCA further contended that Tennessee had used 
Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) to undercut the enforceability of permit 
limits derived from applicable requirements. The NPCA cited a permit 
condition in the title V operating permit issued to the TVA Bull Run 
plant as an example of Tennessee's use of Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) to 
weaken an opacity standard, and NPCA requested EPA to require that 
Tennessee withdraw Rule 1200-3-20-.06 from its operating permit 
program. As discussed above, the State sent a letter to EPA on October 
16, 2001, voluntarily requesting that Chapter 1200-3-20 be withdrawn 
from its title V program. This action acknowledges the withdrawal.
    Tennessee's withdrawal of Chapter 1200-3-20 from its operating 
permit program does not substantively affect the use of the permit 
language that NPCA believes is problematic. Specifically, NPCA is 
concerned about a provision in the TVA Bull Run title V permit stating 
that no automatic notice of violation shall be issued if the plant 
exceeds the applicable opacity standard for less than two percent of 
the total amount of time it operates in a calendar quarter. The permit 
condition further states that ``[w]ritten responses to the quarterly 
reports of excess emissions shall constitute prima facie evidence of 
compliance with the applicable visible emission standard.'' The NPCA 
believes that this permit condition not only limits the ability of EPA 
and citizens to enforce permit conditions independent of the State, but 
that it excuses periods of excess emissions of up to two percent of the 
operating time in a calendar quarter from being violations of the 
applicable 20 percent visible emission standard. Furthermore, NPCA 
believes that such a provision violates EPA's policy of not approving 
the use of ``director's discretion.''
    EPA disagrees with NPCA's interpretations of the provision in the 
TVA Bull Run title V permit. The condition stating that ``no notice of 
violation shall be automatically issued * * *'' refers to the automatic 
issuance provision in Rule 1200-3-20-.06, which notifies the regulated 
community how Tennessee will proceed when it receives monitoring 
information demonstrating that a violation has occurred. Neither the 
permit term or the underlying regulation stipulate that the Director 
may excuse excess emissions. Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) clearly states 
that ``Where the violations are determined from properly certified and 
operated continuous emission monitors, no notice of violation(s) will 
be automatically issued unless the specified de minimis emission levels 
are exceeded.'' The regulation stipulates that all excess emissions be 
viewed as violations of the applicable opacity standard. Such treatment 
is consistent with EPA's policy as articulated in the November 2, 1999, 
guidance memorandum entitled ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 
Shutdown.'' EPA does not believe that Tennessee can use the language in 
the TVA Bull Run permit, or in the underlying regulation, to excuse 
violations at the facility. Moreover, as stated previously, EPA is not 
taking action on Rule 1200-3-20-.06 in this rulemaking. EPA will, 
however, continue to monitor the State's use of Rule 1200-3-20-.06 in 
permits to ensure that violations are not excused.
    Furthermore, EPA does not believe that the language in the TVA Bull 
Run permit regarding Tennessee's findings of compliance restricts the 
ability of EPA

[[Page 56998]]

and citizens under the CAA to independently enforce title V operating 
permit limitations and conditions, or to call into question the State's 
analyses. Tennessee is the primary enforcement authority of the title V 
operating permit program in the state, as evidenced by EPA's interim 
approval of the State's program (61 FR 39335, July 29, 1996) and this 
final full approval. Tennessee's properly conducted analysis of a 
facility's compliance status would be considered prima facie evidence 
of the facility's compliance status. Under the CAA, EPA or citizens may 
use direct emissions monitoring data generated by continuous emission 
monitors (CEMs), as well as any other credible evidence, to establish 
or support an independent effort to determine a facility's compliance 
status.

2. Letter From NPCA Dated June 11, 2001.

    In the June letter, NPCA asserted that EPA cannot grant full 
approval to Tennessee's title V program because the State is allowed to 
exclude requirements from operating permits that should properly be 
considered applicable requirements. The NPCA cited Subparagraphs 1200-
3-9-.02(11)(e)2(ii) and 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)5 of the Tennessee Air 
Pollution Control Regulations as allowing the unlawful exemption of 
applicable requirements. However, Subparagraph 1200-3-9.02(11)(e)2(ii) 
is a verbatim incorporation of the federal requirements found in 40 CFR 
70.6(b)(2) and EPA is not in a position to request that Tennessee make 
changes to a regulation that tracks the equivalent part 70 regulation. 
EPA encourages the commenter to provide input into any future federal 
rulemaking process on this issue.
    Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)5, on the other hand, incorporates 
additional language beyond the federal minimum requirements found in 40 
CFR 70.2 for the definition of ``Applicable requirement.'' Tennessee's 
definition further specifies that ``terms and conditions that do not 
implement relevant requirements of the Federal Act'' are not considered 
applicable requirements, and NPCA believes that this language could be 
used to designate conditions from state operating permits as terms that 
are not federally enforceable. EPA concurs with NPCA that it is not 
clear why the State added this language. However, it is consistent with 
40 CFR 70.6(b)(2) and Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)2(ii), which 
specifies that ``* * * the Technical Secretary shall specifically 
designate as not being federally enforceable under the Federal Act any 
terms and conditions included in the permit that are not required under 
the Federal Act or under any of its applicable requirements.''
    EPA does not agree with NPCA that the additional language in 
Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)5, in combination with Tennessee's 
definition of ``Applicable requirements,'' gives the State authority to 
exclude requirements from operating permits that should be considered 
applicable requirements. As stated earlier, the intent of the title V 
operating permit program is the consolidation of all federal applicable 
requirements for a source in the operating permit. All federal 
requirements applicable to the source, such as national emissions 
standards for hazardous air pollutants, new source performance 
standards, and the applicable requirements of SIPs and permits issued 
pursuant to permit programs approved in the SIP \1\, are federally 
enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA. If a state does not want 
a SIP provision or a condition from a permit issued pursuant to a SIP-
approved program to be federally enforceable, it must take appropriate 
steps, in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements 
in title I of the CAA, to remove those conditions from the SIP or the 
permit. If there is no such removal and the SIP provision or permit 
condition is not carried over to the title V operating permit, then 
that title V permit would be subject to an objection by EPA pursuant to 
40 CFR 70.8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These programs include major and minor new source review 
(NSR), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), and federally 
enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its oversight role, EPA has undertaken a detailed review 
of at least 10 percent of Tennessee's title V operating permits, and a 
cursory review of numerous other operating permits, prior to issuance 
by the State. During these reviews, EPA has not found evidence that the 
State is not including conditions from permits issued pursuant to SIP-
approved programs in its title V operating permits. Moreover, no 
evidence was presented by NPCA of Tennessee's failure to adequately 
implement this requirement of the title V program. EPA does, however, 
agree that the additional language in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)5 
could be misinterpreted, and will request that Tennessee make 
clarifications in a future rulemaking. EPA will also ensure that the 
State continues to include all applicable requirements in its title V 
operating permits.

3. Letter From TVA Dated June 11, 2001.

    In its letter, TVA expressed support for EPA's full approval of the 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs, as well 
as concern that the adverse comments submitted by NPCA also affected 
full approval of the Memphis-Shelby County program. Because NPCA's 
comments solely concerned Tennessee's program, TVA recommended that EPA 
immediately publish a notice fully approving the Memphis-Shelby County 
program and clarifying that the reopened public comment period only 
applied to the Tennessee program. EPA does not agree with TVA's 
conclusion.
    Because Memphis-Shelby County incorporates the State's regulations, 
the comments received on the Tennessee operating permit program could 
have also applied to the County's program. Not only was EPA statutorily 
required to withdraw the direct final notice if any adverse comments 
were received, but the potential existed for NPCA's comments to have 
affected the Memphis-Shelby County program.

What Is Involved in This Final Action?

    Based on analysis of the comments received, EPA has determined that 
the concerns raised do not constitute deficiencies in the Tennessee 
title V operating permit program. Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County 
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 their operating permit programs. EPA is also taking action to 
approve other program changes made by Tennessee since the interim 
approval was granted. For detailed information regarding the program 
revisions, please refer to the Federal Register notices published on 
March 20, 2001, and to the information contained in the docket files.

What Is the Effective Date of EPA's Full Approval of the Tennessee 
and Memphis-Shelby County Title V Operating Permit Programs?

    EPA is using the good cause exception under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) to make full approval of the Tennessee and Memphis-
Shelby County operating permit programs effective on November 30, 2001. 
In relevant part, section 553(d) of the APA provides that publication 
of ``a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its 
effective date, except--* * * (3) as otherwise provided by the agency 
for good cause found and published with

[[Page 56999]]

the rule. Good cause may be supported by an agency determination that a 
delay in the effective date is ``impracticable, unnecessary, or 
contrary to the public interest.'' EPA believes that it is necessary 
and in the public interest to make this action effective sooner than 30 
days following publication. In this case, EPA believes that it is in 
the public interest for full approval of the Tennessee and Memphis-
Shelby County programs to take effect before December 1, 2001, which is 
the date that interim approval of these programs expires. In the 
absence of full approval taking effect before the interim approval 
expires, federal operating permit programs pursuant to 40 CFR part 71 
would automatically take effect on December 1, 2001. Since these 
federal programs would remain in place until the effective date(s) of 
fully-approved Tennessee and Memphis-County programs, the resulting 
changes could cause confusion for sources and the public with regards 
to permitting obligations.
    Furthermore, a delay in the effective date is not necessary because 
Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have been administering interim 
approved operating permit programs for more than five years. Through 
this action, EPA is approving a few revisions to the existing and 
currently operational programs. The change from an interim approved 
program, which substantially but not fully met the part 70 
requirements, to a fully approved program is relatively minor, 
especially when compared to the differences between a state or local 
program and the federal program. In addition, since sources are already 
complying with the revisions in the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County 
programs as a matter of state and local law, there is little or no 
additional burden with complying with these requirements under fully-
approved programs.

Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby 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 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 
significant 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

[[Page 57000]]

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. 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 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).

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: November 2, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 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 
Tennessee to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

Tennessee

    (a)(1) Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation: 
submitted on November 10, 1994, and supplemented on December 5, 
1994, August 8, 1995, January 17, 1996, January 30, 1996, February 
13, 1996, April 9, 1996, June 4, 1996, June 12, 1996, July 3, 1996, 
and July 15, 1996; interim approval effective on August 28, 1996; 
interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted 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, August 21, 2000, 
and October 16, 2001. 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 November 30, 2001.
    (b)(1) Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau: 
submitted on November 22, 1993, and supplemented on January 23, 
1995, February 24, 1995, October 13, 1995, and March 14, 1996; full 
approval effective on April 25, 1996.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c)(1) Knox County Department of Air Quality Management: 
submitted on November 12, 1993, and supplemented on August 24, 1994, 
January 6, 1995, January 19, 1995, February 6, 1995, May 23, 1995, 
September 18, 1995, September 25, 1995, and March 6, 1996; full 
approval effective on May 30, 1996.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d)(1) Memphis-Shelby County Health Department: submitted on 
June 26, 1995, and supplemented on August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995, 
August 24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, February 14, 
1996, March 5, 1996, and April 10, 1996; interim approval effective 
on August 28, 1996; interim approval expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted 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 November 30, 2001.
    (e)(1) Metropolitan Health Department of Nashville-Davidson 
County: submitted on November 13, 1993, and supplemented on April 
19, 1994, September 27, 1994, December 28, 1994, and December 28, 
1995; full approval effective on March 15, 1996.
    (2) Revisions submitted on December 10, 1996, August 27, 1999, 
and December 6, 1999.
    Revised approval effective on August 7, 2000.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-28505 Filed 11-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P