36358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: April 24, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Parts 52 and 81, Chapter I, Title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(91), (c)(95), and

(c)(96) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(91) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on October 6, 1997

by the Governor’s designee.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(1) Senate Bill 1002, Sections 26, 27

and 28: ARS 41–2083 (amended), 41–

2122 (amended), 41–2125 (amended),

adopted on July 18, 1996.

* * * * *

(95) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on August 11, 1998

by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(1) Senate Bill 1427, Section 14: ARS

49–401.01 (amended) and Section 15:

49–406 (amended), approved on May

29, 1998.

* * * * *

(96) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on September 1,

1999 by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(1) House Bill 2254, Section 1: ARS

41–3009.01 (amended); Section 2: 49–

541.01 (amended); Section 3: 49–542

(amended); Section 4: 49–545

(amended); Section 5: 49–557

(amended); Section 6: 49–573

(amended), approved by the Governor

on May 18, 1999.

(2) House Bill 2189, Section 3: ARS

41–796.01 (amended); Section 9: 41–

2121 (amended); Section 40: 49–401.01

(amended), Section 41: 49–402

(amended); Section 42: 49–404

(amended): Section 43:49–454

(amended); Section 44: 49–541

(amended); and Section 46: 49–571

(amended), adopted on May 18, 1999

* * * * *

3. Section 52.123 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)

and by adding paragraph (i) to read as

follows:

§ 52.123 Approval Status.

* * * * *

(i) The Administrator approves the

Maintenance Plan for the Tucson Air

Planning Area submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

on October 6, 1997 as meeting the

requirements of section 175(A) of the

Clean Air Act and the requirements of

EPA’s Limited Maintenance Plan

option. The Administrator approves the

Emissions Inventory contained in the

Maintenance Plan as meeting the

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the

Clean Air Act.

§ 52.124 [Amended]

4. Section 52.124 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 et seq.

2. In § 81.303, the table for ArizonaCarbon Monoxide is amended by

revising the entry for ‘‘Tucson Area’’ to

read as follows:

§ 81.303 Arizona.

* * * * *

ARIZONA—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

*******

Tucson Area:

Pima County (part) ........................................................................ July 10, 2000 .... Attainment.

Township and Ranges as follows: T–11–12S, R12–14E; Salt

River Baseline and Meridian excluding portions of the

Saguaro National Monument and the Coronado National Forest

* * * * * **

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 00–13978 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[GA–T5–2000–01a; FRL–6711–2]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of

Operating Permit Program; Georgia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

fully approve the operating permit

program of the State of Georgia.

Georgia’s operating permit program was

submitted in response to the directive in

the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments that States develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources

within the States’ jurisdiction. EPA

granted interim approval to Georgia’s

operating permit program on November

22, 1995. Georgia revised its program to

satisfy the conditions of the interim

approval and this action approves those

revisions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 2000 without further

notice unless EPA receives adverse

comments in writing by July 10, 2000.

If adverse comment is received, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of this

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kim

Pierce, Regional Title V Program

Manager, Operating Source Section, Air

& Radiation Technology Branch, EPA,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of the State’s submittals

and other supporting documentation

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36359

relevant to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at EPA, Air & Radiation

Technology Branch, 61 Forsyth Street,

SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Pierce, EPA, Region 4, at (404) 562–

9124.

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 States to develop operating

permit programs that met certain

Federal criteria. In implementing the

operating permit programs, the States

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

operating 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, 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, such as the

metropolitan Atlanta area in Georgia,

major sources include those with the

potential of emitting 50 tons per year or

more of volatile organic compounds or

nitrogen oxides.

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 Georgia’s

operating permit program substantially,

but not fully, met the requirements of

part 70, EPA granted interim approval to

the program in a rulemaking published

on November 22, 1995 (60 FR 57836).

The interim approval notice stipulated

three conditions that had to be met in

order for Georgia’s program to receive

full approval. Georgia submitted

revisions to its interimly approved

operating permit program on March 10,

1997, February 11, 1998, September 30,

1999, November 15, 1999, and January

11, 2000. This document describes the

changes that have been made in

Georgia’s operating permit program.

What Are the Program Changes That

EPA Is Approving?

One condition for full approval of

Georgia’s operating permit program was

a rule revision to require that operating

permits contain terms and conditions

allowing for the trading of emissions

changes within the facility. These

emissions trades are solely for the

purpose of complying with a Federallyenforceable emissions cap in accordance

with 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(iii). Moreover,

the permittee must provide written

notification to EPA at least seven (7)

days in advance of any change to the

permit, and the written notification

must state when the change will occur

and describe the changes in emissions

that will result and how these increases

and decreases in emissions will comply

with the terms and conditions of the

permit. Georgia took action in December

1997 to include these requirements in

Rule 391–3–1–.03(10)(d)1.(ii) and

submitted the final State-effective rule

changes to EPA on February 11, 1998.

Another condition for full approval of

Georgia’s operating permit program was

a rule revision to ensure that the permit

shield provision in 40 CFR 70.6(f)

would apply to any changes in

emissions resulting from emissions

trading within a facility solely for the

purpose of complying with a Federallyenforceable emissions cap. The revised

Rule 391–3–.03(10)(d)1.(ii) containing

this provision was submitted to EPA on

February 11, 1998.

The third, and final, condition for full

approval of Georgia’s operating permit

program was correction of the deficient

insignificant activities provisions in the

State’s rules. One deficiency concerned

the exemption of insignificant activities

from permit requirements. While the

State has considerable discretion

regarding the degree of monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting required

for insignificant activities, these units

cannot be categorically exempted from

title V permitting requirements.

Moreover, Georgia’s rules did not make

the distinction between activities which

could be omitted from permit

applications and those that were

considered to be insignificant but were

still required to be included in the

application.

In response to this interim approval

issue, the State revised its approach to

insignificant activities by adding Rule

391–3–1–.03(10)(g), which identifies

specific insignificant activities that must

be included in the permit application.

Moreover, rule revisions were made to

eliminate the exemption from

permitting requirements for

insignificant activities. The final Stateeffective rule changes were submitted to

EPA on February 11, 1998.

Georgia made additional program

changes after the interim approval

became effective on December 22, 1995.

The State revised its title V permit

application form to address the title VI

requirements for stratospheric ozone

and to incorporate the flexibility

described in the EPA’s July 10, 1995

guidance memorandum entitle ‘‘White

Paper for Streamlined Development of

Part 70 Permit Applications’’ (White

Paper). The revised form was submitted

to EPA on March 10, 1997 and is

available for review on Georgia’s Web

site at www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ.

The revised form incorporated the

following aspects of the White Paper:

(1) The White Paper allowed industry

to submit checklists, rather than

emission descriptions, for insignificant

activities based on size or production

rate. As a result, Georgia included

several different categories of

insignificant activities in checklist

format in section 4.10 of the permit

application form. Georgia also removed

the requirement for detailed information

regarding air pollution control devices,

since this information is requested in

the preconstruction permit application.

(2) The White Paper allowed for group

treatment of emissions units subject to

the broadly applicable requirements that

are often found in State Implementation

Plans (SIPs). The State, therefore,

created section 4.20 of the application

form to group emissions units and

36360 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

activities that were subject to the

following four State rules that are

generic SIP requirements: Rule 391–3–

1–.02(2)(b) entitled ‘‘Visible Emissions,’’

Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(d) entitled ‘‘Fuelburning Equipment,’’ Rule 391–3–1–

.02(2)(e) entitled ‘‘Particulate Emissions

from Manufacturing Process,’’ and Rule

391–3–1–.02(2)(n) entitled ‘‘Fugitive

Dust.’’

(3) The White Paper allowed for the

generic treatment of short-term

activities, so the State developed section

4.40 to address those activities that

occur infrequently or for short

durations.

(4) The White Paper identified a

number of trivial activities that could be

excluded from permit applications, so

Georgia included a similar list in the

instructions for its permit application

form.

(5) The White Paper allows industry

to provide descriptions, rather than

estimates, for emissions not regulated at

the source, unless such estimates were

needed for other purposes such as

calculating permit fees. As a result, the

State developed sections 2.10 and 2.20

of its permit application form to only

require estimates of facility-wide

potential and anticipated actual

emissions in tons per year. All

significant facility emissions are still

required to be listed by pollutant in

section 7.10.

(6) The white Paper provided that

where an emissions unit is subject to a

specific standard, the emissions data

could be reported in the units of that

standard. Georgia revised its permit

application form accordingly.

(7) In order to reduce the size and cost

of preparing title V permit applications,

the White Paper allowed for the

submittal of sample calculations to

illustrate the methodology used. As a

result, the State revised its permit

application form to require the

submittal of sample calculations to

support the emissions summary

information contained in section 7.10

The other programmatic change made

by Georgia involves the mechanism for

determining the annual title V fee

amount. The State’s operating permit

program received interim approval

based on use of the ‘‘presumptive

minimum’’ described in 40 CFR

70.9(b)(2)(i), but Georgia has been using

a mechanism based on 40 CFR 70.9(b)(1)

since September 1997. This mechanism

involves establishing a fee schedule that

results in the collection and retention of

revenues sufficient to cover the costs of

the operating permit program. To

accomplish this, the State develops a

biennial budget projection of title V

program costs and adjusts the fee

amount accordingly. Georgia described

its revised mechanism for assessing fees

in a letter to EPA dated January 11,

2000. The State submitted a fee program

update on September 30, 1999

demonstrating that its operating permit

program is adequately funded by

operating permit fees.

What Is Involved in This Final Action?

The State of Georgia has fulfilled the

conditions of the interim approval

granted on November 22, 1995, so EPA

is taking final action to fully approve

the State’s operating permit program.

EPA is also taking action to approve

other program changes made by the

State 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 August 7, 2000

unless the Agency receives adverse

comments by July 10, 2000.

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 August 7, 2000

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

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

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.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36361

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 Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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 Act 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

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–266 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 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 costeffective 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. 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).

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 7, 2000.

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).)

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 Clean Air Act. In this

context, in the absence of a prior

existing requirement for the State to use

VCS, SPA 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

36362 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the

Clean Air Act. 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: May 15, 2000.

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 paragraph (b) in the entry for

Georgia to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of

State and Local Operating Permits Programs

* * * * *

Georgia

(b) The Georgia Department of Natural

Resources submitted program revisions on

March 10, 1997, February 11, 1998,

September 30, 1999, November 15, 1999, and

January 11, 2000. The rule revisions

contained in the February 11, 1998 submittal

adequately addressed the conditions of the

interim approval effective on December 22,

1995, and which would expire on June 1,

2000. The State is hereby granted final full

approval effective on August 7, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–14166 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[TN–NASH–T5–2000–01a; FRL–6710–9]

Clean Air Act Final Approval of

Operating Permit Program Revisions;

Metropolitan Government of NashvilleDavidson County, TN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve revisions to the operating

permit program of the Metropolitan

Government of Nashville-Davidson

County (TN). The County’s operating

permit program was submitted in

response to the directive in the 1990

Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that

states develop, and submit to EPA,

programs for issuing operating permits

to all major stationary sources and to

certain other sources within the states’

jurisdiction. EPA granted full approval

to the County’s operating permit

program on February 14, 1996. The

County has revised its program since it

received full approval and this action

approves those revisions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 2000 without further

notice unless EPA receives adverse

comments in writing by July 10, 2000.

If adverse comment is received, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of this

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, Operating Source Section, Air

& Radiation Technology Branch, EPA,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of the County’s

submittals and other supporting

documentation relevant to this action

are available for inspection during

normal business hours at EPA, Air &

Radiation Technology Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Pierce, EPA, Region 4, at (404) 562–

9124.

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 states to develop operating

permit programs that met certain

Federal criteria. In implementing the

operating permit programs, the states

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 operating

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, 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.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

Nashville-Davidson County made two

changes to its approved title V program

since EPA granted full approval on

February 14, 1996 (see 61 FR 5705).

This document describes the changes.

What Are the Program Changes That

EPA Is Approving?

Nashville-Davidson County revised its

title V permit application form to

address the Title VI requirements for

protection of the stratospheric ozone

layer. The County’s application form

now contains Form APC V.34 for

information regarding air conditioning

units that use chlorofluorocarbons,

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or other

ozone depleting substances. The new

form was submitted to EPA on

December 10, 1996 and is available for

review on the Internet at http://

healthweb.nashville.org/

pollution_downloads.html.

The other programmatic change made

by Nashville-Davidson County involves

the mechanism for determining the

annual title V fee amount. The County’s

operating permit program received full

approval based on use of the

‘‘presumptive minimum’’ described in

40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). But, since the