6724 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

Administrative practice and

procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

21 CFR Part 520

Animal drugs.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21

CFR parts 510 and 520 are amended as

follows:

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 510 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503,

512, 701, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,

353, 360b, 371, 379e).

2. Section 510.600 is amended in the

table in paragraph (c)(1) by

alphabetically adding a new entry for

‘‘Teva Pharmaceuticals USA’’ and in the

table in paragraph (c)(2) by numerically

adding a new entry for ‘‘000093’’ to read

as follows:

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug

labeler codes of sponsors of approved

applications.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

Firm name and address Drug labeler code

* * * * * * *

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 650 Cathill Rd., Sellersville, PA 18960 ...... 000093

* * * * * * *

(2) * * *

Drug labeler code Firm name and address

* * * * * * *

000093 ...................................................................................................... Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 650 Cathill Rd., Sellersville, PA 18960

* * * * * * *

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM

NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

3. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 520 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b).

§ 520.1010a [Amended]

4. Section 520.1010a Furosemide

tablets or boluses is amended in

paragraph (b) by removing the number

‘‘000332’’ and adding in its place

‘‘000093’’.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Robert C. Livingston,

Director, Office of New Animal Drug

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc. 97–3662 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–155–1–7178; TN–MEM–149–3–9701;

FRL–5669–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County, Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

the Tennessee State Implementation

Plan (SIP) to allow the State to issue

Federally enforceable state operating

permits (FESOP). EPA is also approving

revisions to the Memphis-Shelby

County portion of the Tennessee SIP to

allow the County to issue Federally

enforceable local operating permits

(FELOP). EPA is also approving the

State’s FESOP program and the County’s

FELOP program pursuant to section 112

of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) so that both

permitting agencies may issue Federally

enforceable state operating permits

containing limits for hazardous air

pollutants (HAP).

DATES: This final rule is effective April

14, 1997 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by March 17,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Gracy R. Danois at the

EPA Regional Office listed below.

Copies of the documents used in

developing this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the locations listed

below. Interested persons wanting to

examine these documents, contained in

files TN155 and TN149–3, should make

an appointment with the appropriate

office at least 24 hours before the

visiting day:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air and Radiation

Technology Branch, Atlanta Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6725

Center, 100 Alabama Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation, L & C Annex, 401

Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee,

37243–1531.

Memphis-Shelby County Health

Department, 814 Jefferson Avenue,

Room 437–E, Memphis, Tennessee,

38105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gracy R. Danois, Air and Radiation

Technology Branch, Air, Pesticides &

Toxics Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 100

Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303, 404/562–9119. Reference files

TN155 and TN149–3.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

On January 10, 1995, and May 3,

1995, Memphis-Shelby County and the

State of Tennessee, respectively,

through the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation (TDEC),

submitted SIP revisions to make certain

permits issued under the County’s and

the State’s existing minor source

operating permit program Federally

enforceable pursuant to the EPA

requirements specified in the Federal

Register notice entitled ‘‘Requirements

for the Preparation, Adoption, and

Submittal of Implementation Plans;

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans’’ (see 54 FR

27274, June 28, 1989). Additional

materials concerning HAPs and the

implementation of the FESOP and

FELOP programs were provided by the

State and the County to EPA on March

8, 1996, and June 12, 1996, and March

13, 1996, and September 4, 1996,

respectively.

EPA has always had and continues to

have the authority to enforce state

permits which are issued under permit

programs approved into the SIP.

However, EPA has not always

recognized, as valid, certain state

permits which purport to limit a

source’s potential to emit. The principle

purpose for adopting the regulations

that are the subject of this notice is to

give the State of Tennessee and

Memphis-Shelby County a Federally

recognized means of expeditiously

restricting potential emissions such that

sources can avoid major source

permitting requirements. A key

mechanism for such limitations is the

use of Federally enforceable state or

local operating permits. The term

‘‘Federally enforceable,’’ when used in

the context of permits which limit

potential to emit, means ‘‘Federally

recognized.’’

The voluntary revision that is the

subject of this action approves Division

Rule 1200–3–9–.02(11)(a) into both the

State and the County portions of the

Tennessee SIP. This rule and the

additional materials provided by the

State and the County satisfy the five

criteria outlined in the June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice. Please refer to

section II of this notice for the analysis

of each of the criteria.

II. Analysis of State and County

Submittals

Memphis-Shelby County has adopted

the majority of the State of Tennessee’s

Division Rules in the Memphis City

Code. The County maintains the

numbering system used by the State of

Tennessee within its regulations.

Therefore, all references to the State of

Tennessee’s Division Rules are also

applicable to Memphis-Shelby County,

unless otherwise noted.

Criterion 1. The state’s operating

permit program (i.e. the regulations or

other administrative framework

describing how such permits are issued)

must be submitted to and approved by

EPA as a SIP revision. On January 10,

1995, and May 3, 1995, respectively,

Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

submitted SIP revision requests to EPA

consisting of Division Rule 1200–3–9–

.02(11)(a), amending the stationary

source general requirements. Additional

materials concerning hazardous air

pollutants and the operating permit

program were submitted to EPA by

Memphis-Shelby County and Tennessee

on March 8, 1996, and June 12, 1996,

and on March 13, 1996, and September

4, 1996, respectively. These submittals

are the subject of this rulemaking action.

Criterion 2. The SIP revision must

impose a legal obligation that operating

permit holders adhere to the terms and

limitations of such permits (or

subsequent revisions of the permit made

in accordance with the approved

operating permit program) and provide

that permits which do not conform to

the operating permit program

requirements and the requirements of

EPA’s underlying regulations may be

deemed not ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ by

EPA. Division Rule 1200–3–9–.02(6)

requires each air contaminant source to

obtain a permit to operate and to operate

in accordance with ‘‘the provisions and

stipulations set forth in the operating

permit, all provisions of these

regulations, and all provisions of the

Tennessee Air Quality Act.’’ In addition,

Tennessee has committed to include the

following statement in all operating

permits issued pursuant to Division

Rule 1200–3–9–.02(11): ‘‘The permittee

is placed on notice that Condition(s)

llll of this operating permit

contain(s) limitations that allow the

permittee to opt-out of the major source

operating permit program requirements

specified in Division Rule 1200–3–9–

.02(11). Failure to abide by these limits

will not only subject the permittee to

enforcement action by the State of

Tennessee, but it may also result in the

imposition of Federal enforcement

action by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency and

the loss of being Federally recognized as

a conditional major source.’’ MemphisShelby County has committed to

incorporate similar language in the

operating permits it issues pursuant to

the same Division Rule.

Criterion 3. The state operating permit

program must require that all emission

limitations, controls, and other

requirements imposed by such permits

will be at least as stringent as any

applicable limitations and requirements

contained in the SIP, or enforceable

under the SIP, and that the program may

not issue permits that waive, or make

less stringent, any limitations or

requirements contained in or issued

pursuant to the SIP, or that are

otherwise ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ (e.g.

standards established under sections

111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act).

Division Rule 1200–3–9–.02(6) contains

regulatory provisions which state that

operating permits issued by Tennessee

and Memphis-Shelby County will be at

least as stringent as any applicable

requirement. Applicable requirement is

defined in Division Rule 1200–3–9–

.02(11)(b)(5) to include all SIP

requirements.

Criterion 4. The limitations, controls

and requirements of the state’s operating

permits must be permanent,

quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable

as a practical matter. Division Rules

1200–3–9–.02(6) and 1200–3–9–

.02(11)(a) contain regulatory provisions

which satisfy this criterion. Permits

must contain a statement of basis

comparing the source’s potential to emit

with the more restrictive limit and the

procedures to be followed that will

insure that the more restrictive limit is

not exceeded. Concerning permanence,

Division Rule 1200–3–9–.02(11)(a),

establishes that in order to obtain a

synthetic non-title V permit, the facility

must agree to be bound by a permit that

establishes more restrictive limitations.

Also, the State relies on the

requirements of Division Rule 1200–3–

13–.01 as their authority to seek

enforcement action against a source that

violates the conditions of an operating

permit. Memphis-Shelby County relies
6726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1 1 EPA issued guidance on January 25, 1995,

addressing the technical aspects of how these

criteria pollutant limits may be recognized for

purposes of limiting a source’s potential to emit of

HAPs to below section 112 major source thresholds.

on the requirements of sections 16–56,

16–59, and 16–77 of the Memphis City

Code to meet this criterion. Section 16–

56, gives the County the authority to

seek enforcement action against sources

that violate any of the requirements of

the local air pollution code, which

includes a failure to meet all permit

conditions as required by Section 16–

77.

Criterion 5. The state operating

permits must be issued subject to public

participation. This means that the State

and the County agree, as part of their

programs, to provide EPA and the

public with timely notice of the

proposal and issuance of such permits,

and to provide EPA, on a timely basis,

with a copy of each proposed (or draft)

and final permit intended to be

‘‘Federally enforceable.’’ This process

must also provide for an opportunity for

public comment on the permit

applications prior to issuance of the

final permits. Division Rules 1200–3–9–

.02(11)(a), 1200–3–9–.02(11)(f)8. and

1200–3–9–.02(11)(g) contain provisions

establishing that the State and the

County will either deny the request for

a permit or give EPA and the public

notice of an intention to issue the

permit and provide for a 30 day public

comment period.

A. Applicability to Hazardous Air

Pollutants

Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County have also requested approval of

their FESOP and FELOP programs

under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act

for the purpose of creating Federally

recognized limitations on the potential

to emit for HAPs. Approval under

section 112(l) is necessary because the

SIP revisions discussed above only

extend to criteria pollutants for which

EPA has established national ambient

air quality standards under section 109

of the Act. Federally enforceable limits

on criteria pollutants or their precursors

(i.e. VOCs or PM–10) may have the

incidental effect of limiting certain

HAPs listed pursuant to section 112(b).1

As a legal matter, no additional program

approval by the EPA is required beyond

SIP approval under section 110 in order

for these criteria pollutant limits to be

recognized as Federally enforceable.

However, section 112 of the Act

provides the underlying authority for

controlling all HAP emissions,

regardless of their relationship to

criteria pollutant controls.

EPA has determined that the five

criteria, published in the June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice, used to

determine the validity of a permit which

limits potential to emit for criteria

pollutants pursuant to section 110 are

also appropriate for evaluating the

validity of permits which limit the

potential to emit for HAPs pursuant to

section 112(l). The June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice does not address

HAPs because it was written prior to the

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act;

however, the basic principles

established in the June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice are not unique

to criteria pollutants. Therefore, these

criteria have been extended to

evaluations of permits limiting the

potential to emit of HAPs.

To be recognized by EPA as a valid

permit which limits potential to emit,

the permit must not only meet the

criteria in the June 28, 1989, Federal

Register notice, but it must meet the

statutory criteria for approval under

section 112(l)(5). Section 112(l) provides

that EPA will recognize a permit

limiting the potential to emit for HAPs

only if the state program: (1) Contains

adequate authority to assure compliance

with any section 112 standard or

requirement; (2) provides for adequate

resources; (3) provides for an

expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112

requirements; and (4) is otherwise likely

to satisfy the objectives of the Act.

EPA plans to codify in Subpart E of

Part 63 the approval criteria for

programs limiting potential to emit

HAPs. EPA anticipates that these

criteria will mirror those set forth in the

June 28, 1989, Federal Register notice.

Permit programs which limit potential

to emit for HAPs and are approved

pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act

prior to the planned regulatory revisions

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, will be

recognized by EPA as meeting the

criteria in the June 28, 1989, Federal

Register notice. Therefore, further

approval actions for those programs will

not be necessary.

EPA believes it has authority under

section 112(l) to recognize FESOP and

FELOP programs that limit a source’s

potential to emit HAPs directly under

section 112(l) prior to this revision to

Subpart E. EPA is therefore approving

the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County FESOP and FELOP programs so

that Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County may issue permits that EPA will

recognize as validly limiting potential to

emit for HAPs.

Regarding the statutory criteria of

section 112(l)(5) referred to above, EPA

believes the FESOP and FELOP

programs submitted by Tennessee and

Memphis-Shelby County contain

adequate authority to assure compliance

with section 112 requirements since the

third criterion of the June 28, 1989,

notice is met; that is, Division Rule

1200–3–9–.02(11)(b)(5) states that all

requirements in the permits issued

under the authority of the operating

permit programs must be at least as

stringent as all other applicable

Federally enforceable requirements. In

connection with EPA’s review of the

Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

title V operating permit programs, EPA

has also conducted an extensive

analysis of Tennessee and MemphisShelby County’s underlying authority to

enforce HAP limits. It should be noted

that a source that receives a Federally

recognized operating permit may still

need a Title V operating permit under

Division Rule 1200–3–9–.02 if EPA

promulgates a MACT standard which

requires non-major sources to obtain

Title V permits.

Regarding the requirement for

adequate resources, Tennessee and

Memphis-Shelby County have

committed to provide for adequate

resources to support their respective

FESOP and FELOP programs. EPA

expects that resources will continue to

be sufficient to administer those

portions of the minor source operating

permit programs under which the

subject permits will be issued, because

both the State of Tennessee and

Memphis-Shelby County have

administered minor source operating

permit programs for a number of years.

However, EPA will monitor the

implementation of the FESOP and

FELOP programs to ensure that

adequate resources are in fact available.

EPA also believes that the Tennessee

and Memphis-Shelby County programs

provide for an expeditious schedule

which assures compliance with section

112 requirements. These programs will

be used to allow a source to establish a

voluntary limit on potential to emit to

avoid being subject to a CAA

requirement applicable on a particular

date. Nothing in the Tennessee or

Memphis-Shelby County programs

would allow a source to avoid or delay

compliance with a CAA requirement

applicable on a particular date. In

addition, nothing in the Tennessee or

Memphis-Shelby County program

would allow a source to avoid or delay

compliance with a CAA requirement if

it fails to obtain an appropriate

Federally recognized limit by the

relevant deadline. Finally, EPA believes

it is consistent with the intent of section

112 of the Act for States to provide a

mechanism through which a source may
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6727

avoid classification as a major source by

obtaining a Federally recognized limit

on its potential to emit HAPs. EPA has

long recognized as valid, permit

programs which limit potential to emit

for criteria pollutants as a means for

avoiding major source requirements

under the Act. The portion of this

approval which extends Federal

recognition to permits containing limits

on potential to emit for HAPs merely

applies the same principles to another

set of pollutants and regulatory

requirements under the Act.

EPA has reviewed this SIP revision

and determined that the criteria for

approval as provided in the June 28,

1989, Federal Register notice (54 FR

27282) and in section 112(l)(5) of the

Act have been satisfied.

B. Eligibility for Previously Issued

Permits

Eligibility for Federally enforceable

permits extends not only to permits

issued after the effective date of this

rule, but also to permits issued under

the State’s and the County’s existing

rules prior to the effective date of

today’s rulemaking. If the State and

County followed their own regulations,

then each agency issued a permit that

established a Federally recognized

permit condition that was subject to

public and EPA review. Therefore, EPA

will consider all such operating permits

Federally enforceable upon the effective

date of this action provided that any

permits that the State wishes to make

Federally enforceable are made

available to EPA and are supported by

documentation that the procedures

approved today have been followed.

EPA may review any such permits to

ensure their conformity with the

program requirements.

III. Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving

Tennessee’s FESOP program and

Memphis-Shelby County’s FELOP

program. EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective April 14,

1997 unless, by March 17, 1997, adverse

or critical comments are received. If

EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule.

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective April 14, 1997.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by the July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. Nothing in this action shall

be construed as permitting or allowing

or establishing a precedent for any

future request for a revision of any SIP.

Each request for revision of the SIP shall

be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors, and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990

EPA has reviewed the requests for

revision of the Federally-approved

Tennessee SIP described in this notice

to ensure conformance with the

provisions of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990. EPA has determined

that this action conforms with those

requirements.

B. Petition for Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1), petitions for

judicial review of this action must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

April 14, 1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for 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, 42 U.S.C. 7607

(b)(2).)

C. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because approval of Federal SIP does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

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.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(R).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State has elected to adopt the

program provided for under section

112(l) of the Clean Air Act. These rules

may bind the State government to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. To the extent that the rules being

approved by this action would impose

no new requirements, such sources are

already subject to these regulations

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to the State

government, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this final action does

not include a mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to the State government in the

aggregate or to the private sector.
6728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

F. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, Ozone, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: December 16, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(145) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(145) Revisions to Division Rule

1200—Stationary Sources—General

Requirements, submitted by the

Tennessee Department of

Environmental Protection on May 3,

1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Division of Air Pollution Control

Rule 1200–3–9–.02(11)(a), effective

September 21, 1994.

(B) Memphis City Code Section 16–

77, reference 1200–3–9–.02(11)(a),

effective October 28, 1994.

(ii) Other materials. None.

[FR Doc. 97–3577 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 58

[FRL–5683–4]

Modification of the Ozone Monitoring

Season; Alabama, Georgia, and

Mississippi

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Previously, the ozone

monitoring season in Region 4 was

twelve months in Florida; March—

November in Georgia, Alabama, and

Mississippi; and April—October in

North Carolina, South Carolina,

Tennessee, and Kentucky. Based on

review of ozone monitoring data, Region

4 has determined that the appropriate

ozone monitoring ozone season should

be April 1–October 31 for all Region 4

states except Florida. Florida will

continue to have a twelve month

monitoring season.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

concerning this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

The Region 4 office may have

additional background documents not

available at the other locations.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 100

Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Dick Schutt, (404) 562–9033.

Alabama Department of Environmental

Management, 1751 Congressman W.

L. Dickinson Drive, Montgomery,

Alabama 36109. (334) 271–7861.

Air Protection Branch, Environmental

Protection Division, Georgia

Department of Natural Resources,

4244 International Parkway, Suite

120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354. (404)

363–7000.

Air Division, Office of Pollution

Control, Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality, P.O. Box

10385, Jackson, Mississippi, 39289–

0385. (601) 961–5171.

Bureau of Environmental Health,

Jefferson County Department of

Health, P.O. Box 2648, Birmingham,

Alabama 35202. (205) 930–1225.

The City of Huntsville, Department of

Natural Resources & Environmental

Management, 305 Church Street,

Huntsville, Alabama 35801. (205)

535–4206.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dick

Schutt at 404/562–9033.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 40 CFR

58.13(a)(3) provides that ambient air

quality data must be collected except

periods or seasons exempted by the

Regional Administrator. EPA Region 4

has analyzed ozone monitoring data for

all of the Region 4 states except Florida

during the years 1991–1995. Air

monitoring stations in the seven states

recorded ozone values at or above .100

ppm on only three days between

November 1–April 14. Based on this

data, the EPA has determined that the

appropriate ozone monitoring season

should be April 1–October 31 for all

Region 4 states except Florida. Florida

will continue to have a twelve month

monitoring season.

Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR

58.13(a)(3), by letter dated September 5,

1996, from John H. Hankinson, EPA

Region 4 Administrator, the EPA

changed the Alabama, Georgia, and

Mississippi ozone monitoring season to

be April 1–October 31.

The ozone monitoring season for

Region 4 states will be re-evaluated

when the national ambient air quality

standard for ozone is revised. The ozone

monitoring season will be revised, if

necessary at that time.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. EPA certifies that this

rule will not have an impact on any

number of small entities.

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

Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1),

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by April 14, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition