[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31575-31579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14769]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NC-T5-2001-01; FRL-6996-1]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit 
Programs; North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and Western North 
Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permit programs of 
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the 
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection, and the 
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency. 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. On November 15, 1995, EPA granted interim approval to the 
North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and Western North Carolina 
operating permit programs (60 FR 57357). These agencies have revised 
their programs to satisfy the conditions of the interim approval and 
this action proposes approval of those revisions and other program 
changes made since the interim approval was granted.

DATES: Comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed 
action must be received in writing by July 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
action should be addressed to Ms. Kim Pierce, Regional Title V Program 
Manager, Air & Radiation Technology Branch, EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909. Copies of the North Carolina, Mecklenburg 
County, and Western North Carolina submittals and other supporting 
documentation used in developing the proposed full approval are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at EPA, Air & 
Radiation Technology Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8909.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Pierce, EPA Region 4, at (404) 
562-9124 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44342d213627216a2f2d29042134256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b0a9a5b2a3a5eeaba9ad80a5b0a1eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>/.

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

What is the operating permit program?

[[Page 31576]]

What is being addressed in this document?
What are the program changes that EPA proposes to approve?
What is involved in this proposed action?

What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local 
permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met 
certain federal criteria. In implementing the title V operating permit 
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements 
under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve 
enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of 
the applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable document. 
By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility, the 
source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily 
determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those 
requirements is determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under the title V 
program include: ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other 
sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For 
example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless 
of size, must obtain operating permits. Examples of major sources 
include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more 
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), or particulate matter 
(PM<INF>10</INF>); 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 NO<INF>X</INF>.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    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 North Carolina, Mecklenburg 
County, and Western North Carolina programs substantially, but not 
fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA granted interim approval to 
these programs in a rulemaking (60 FR 57357) published on November 15, 
1995. The interim approval notice described the conditions that had to 
be met in order for the North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and Western 
North Carolina programs to receive full approval. North Carolina 
submitted eight revisions to its interimly approved operating permit 
program; these revisions were dated March 23, 1995, August 16, 1996, 
March 19, 1997, July 29, 1998, November 15, 1999, January 21, 2000, 
June 14, 2000, and August 28, 2000. Mecklenburg County, which adopts 
the State's rules, submitted five revisions to its interimly approved 
program; these revisions were dated October 11, 1999, November 2, 1999, 
December 8, 1999, December 28, 1999, and July 26, 2000. Western North 
Carolina, which also adopts the State's rules, submitted five revisions 
to its interimly approved program; these revisions were dated January 
23, 1997, September 29, 1999, November 10, 1999, January 5, 2000, and 
August 17, 2000. This document describes changes that have been made to 
the North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and Western North Carolina 
operating permit programs since interim approval was granted.

What Are the Program Changes That EPA Proposes To Approve?

    Full approval of the North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and 
Western North Carolina title V operating permit programs was made 
contingent upon the following rule changes, as stipulated in EPA's 
November 15, 1995 rulemaking:
    (1) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0507 (and the corresponding local 
regulations) to require the inclusion of all fugitive emissions in 
permit applications, in accordance with 40 CFR 70.3(d). North Carolina 
revised Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0507(b) to specify that applications include 
all the information described in 40 CFR 70.3(d); the state-effective 
rule change was submitted to EPA on March 19, 1997. Mecklenburg County 
adopted the state-effective rule change and submitted documentation of 
the adoption to EPA on December 8, 1999. Western North Carolina also 
adopted the state-effective rule change and submitted documentation of 
the adoption to EPA on January 23, 1997.
    (2) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0502(c) (and the corresponding local 
regulations) to ensure that research and development facilities which 
are collocated with manufacturing facilities and which are under common 
control and belonging to a single major industrial grouping will be 
considered as the same facility for determining title V applicability. 
North Carolina responded by removing Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0502(c) from its 
regulations; the state-effective regulatory changes were submitted to 
EPA on January 21, 2000 and August 28, 2000. Mecklenburg County adopted 
the State's rule changes and submitted documentation to EPA of the 
adoption on December 28, 1999. Western North Carolina also adopted the 
State's rule changes and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA 
on January 5, 2000 and August 17, 2000.
    (3) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0102(b)(2)(B) (and the corresponding 
local regulations) to adjust the insignificant emission threshold 
levels downward from potential emissions of 40 tons per year (tpy) to 
five tpy for criteria pollutants and 1000 pounds per year for HAPs, and 
to provide that the activities listed in Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0102(b)(2)(F) 
are subject to these caps. In addition, EPA notified North Carolina, 
Mecklenburg County, and Western North Carolina on July 15, 1996, of 
another deficiency in the insignificant activities provisions that came 
to light as a result of the court decision in Western States Petroleum 
Association (WSPA) v. EPA, 87 F.3d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Rule 15A NCAC 
2Q.0102(a) (and the corresponding local regulations) had inadvertently 
been approved without identifying the exemption of insignificant 
activities from permit requirements as a program deficiency. In the 
Federal Register document granting final interim approval to the Alaska 
operating permit program (61 FR 64466, December 5, 1996), EPA 
acknowledged that its approval of the insignificant activities 
provisions in the North Carolina programs may have been inconsistent 
with the WSPA decision. Further review revealed this to be true, which 
prompted EPA to follow up its July 1996 letter to the North Carolina 
agencies with a formal notification letter, dated August 14, 1999, that 
a Notice of Deficiency would be published in the Federal Register if 
the State and local agencies did not address the deficiencies.
    North Carolina addressed the deficiencies in its insignificant 
activities provisions by removing Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0102 from its 
operating permit program and revising Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0503 to define 
two categories of insignificant activities: ``insignificant activities 
because of category'' and

[[Page 31577]]

``insignificant activities because of size or production rate.'' The 
activities listed in the first category are identical to the 
insignificant activities identified by EPA in 40 CFR 71.5(c)(11)(i) 
except for the addition of new residential wood heaters subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart AAA, which are exempt from permit requirements 
(see 40 CFR 70.3(b)(4)(i)).
    The second category, ``insignificant activities because of size or 
production rate,'' is defined as ``any activity whose emissions would 
not violate any applicable emissions standard and whose potential 
emission of particulate, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile 
organic compounds, and carbon monoxide before air pollution control 
devices, i.e., potential uncontrolled emissions, are each no more than 
five tons per year and whose potential emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants before air pollution control devices are each below 1000 
pounds per year.'' The State also made the following rule changes: (a) 
Revised Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0508(f)(3) to remove the exemption from 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for insignificant 
activities; (b) revised Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0508(z) to eliminate the 
exemption from permitting for sources that have no applicable 
requirements; and (c) revised Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0508(aa) to require the 
inclusion of insignificant activities in permits. State-effective rule 
changes that satisfy federal requirements were submitted to EPA on 
January 21, 2000 and August 28, 2000. Mecklenburg County adopted the 
State's rule changes and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA 
on July 26, 2000. Western North Carolina also adopted the State's rule 
changes and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on January 
5, 2000 and August 17, 2000.
    (4) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0514(a) to clarify that: (a) 
Administrative permit amendments may be used to change test dates or 
construction dates only as long as no applicable requirements are 
violated in the process, and (b) an administrative permit amendment may 
be used to move terms and conditions from the state-enforceable portion 
of the permit to the state-and federal-enforceable portion of the 
permit provided that the term being moved is a requirement which has 
become federally enforceable through sections 110, 111, 112, or other 
parts of the CAA. North Carolina added language to Rule 15A NCAC 
2Q.0514(a)(4) stipulating that changes in test dates or construction 
dates qualify as administrative permit amendments ``provided that no 
applicable requirements are violated by the change in test dates or 
construction dates.'' North Carolina also added language to Rule 15A 
NCAC 2Q.0514(a)(5) stipulating that administrative permit amendments 
may be used to move terms and conditions from the state-enforceable 
portion of the permit to the state-and-federal enforceable portion of 
the permit ``provided that terms and conditions being moved have become 
federally enforceable through section 110, 111, or 112 or other parts 
of the federal Clean Air Act.'' The state-effective rule changes were 
submitted to EPA on March 19, 1997. Mecklenburg County adopted the 
State's rule changes and submitted documentation to EPA of the adoption 
on October 11, 1999. Western North Carolina also adopted the State's 
rule changes and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on 
January 23, 1997.
    (5) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0515(f) to stipulate that a permit 
shield may not be granted for a minor permit modification. North 
Carolina responded by deleting the language in Rules 15A NCAC 
2Q.0512(a)(5) and 15A NCAC 2Q.0515(g) (previously Rule 15A NCAC 
2Q.0515(f)) that allowed permit shields for minor permit modifications. 
The state-effective rule changes were submitted to EPA on March 19, 
1997. Mecklenburg County adopted the State's rule changes and submitted 
documentation to EPA of the adoption on October 11, 1999. Western North 
Carolina also adopted the State's rule changes and submitted 
documentation of the adoption to EPA on January 23, 1997.
    (6) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0515(d) to specify that in the event an 
applicant submits a single minor permit modification which exceeds the 
emissions thresholds listed in Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0515(c), the minor 
permit modification must be processed within 90 days after receiving 
the application or 15 days after the end of EPA's 45-day review period, 
whichever is later. North Carolina responded by adding a new Rule 15A 
NCAC 2Q.0515(d) to satisfy this part 70 requirement and submitted the 
state-effective rule change to EPA on March 19, 1997. Mecklenburg 
County adopted the State's rule change and submitted documentation to 
EPA of the adoption on October 11, 1999. Western North Carolina also 
adopted the State's rule change and submitted documentation of the 
adoption to EPA on January 23, 1997.
    (7) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0517(b) to provide that: (a) An 
operating permit shall be reopened and reissued within 18 months after 
a newly applicable requirement is promulgated; and (b) no reopening is 
required if the effective date of the newly applicable requirement is 
after the expiration of the permit, unless the term of the permit was 
extended based on the fact that it had not been renewed prior to its 
expiration. North Carolina revised Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0517(b) to require 
the completion of permit reopenings within 18 months after newly 
applicable requirements are promulgated. The rule was also revised to 
state that ``[n]o reopening is required if the effective date of the 
requirement is after the expiration of the permit term unless the term 
of the permit was extended pursuant to Rule .0513(c)...'' The state-
effective rule changes were submitted to EPA on March 19, 1997. 
Mecklenburg County adopted the State's rule changes and submitted 
documentation to EPA of the adoption on October 11, 1999. Western North 
Carolina also adopted the State's rule changes and submitted 
documentation of the adoption to EPA on January 23, 1997.
    (8) Revise Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0518(f) to remove the condition 
``subject to adjudication'' from the requirement to take action on a 
complete permit application. North Carolina deleted Rule 15A NCAC 
2Q.0518(f) and submitted the state-effective rule revision to EPA on 
March 23, 1995. Mecklenburg County adopted the State's rule change and 
submitted documentation to EPA of the adoption on December 8, 1999. 
Western North Carolina also adopted the State's rule change and 
submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on January 23, 1997.
    North Carolina made several additional program changes after EPA 
granted interim approval on November 15, 1995. The operating permit 
application processing schedule in Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0507(f) was deleted 
and replaced with a new application processing schedule in Rule 15A 
NCAC 2Q.0525. The new schedule established time frames for the State to 
complete various aspects of permit issuance, including acknowledging 
receipt of the application, the completeness check, the technical 
review, mailing the public notice, and holding a public hearing if one 
is requested. Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0525 was initially submitted to EPA on 
March 23, 1995 and then the State amended it to ensure that final 
action on permit applications would be taken within 18 months of being 
deemed complete, as stipulated in 40 CFR 70.7(a)(2). The amended rule 
was submitted to EPA on July 29, 1998. Mecklenburg County adopted the 
State's rule changes and submitted documentation to EPA of the adoption 
on October 11, 1999. Western North Carolina also adopted the State's 
rule

[[Page 31578]]

change and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on January 5, 
2000.
    The State also revised the permit content provisions in Rule 15A 
NCAC 2Q.0508(g) to further delineate the requirements for facilities 
subject to the Risk Management Program in section 112(r) of the CAA. 
The revised rule was submitted to EPA on January 21, 2000. Mecklenburg 
County did not adopt this rule revision, but Western North Carolina did 
adopt the revision and submitted documentation to EPA on November 10, 
1999.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(c), the State, Mecklenburg County, and 
Western North Carolina submitted fee program updates demonstrating that 
their title V programs are adequately funded by operating permit fees. 
These updates were submitted on November 15, 1999, November 2, 1999, 
and September 29, 1999, respectively. The State also submitted a Title 
V Air Quality Permit Program Accountability Report on June 14, 2000 
showing the aggregate fee payments collected from title V sources and a 
summary of the reasonable direct and indirect expenditures required to 
develop and administer the title V program. Rule 15A NCAC 2Q.0206(f) 
requires the State to prepare an annual accountability report and make 
it publicly available.

What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?

    North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and Western North Carolina have 
fulfilled the conditions of the interim approval granted on November 
15, 1995, and EPA proposes full approval of their title V operating 
permit programs. EPA also proposes approval of other program changes 
made since the interim approval was granted. The regulations in North 
Carolina's federally approved title V program include Rules 15A NCAC 
2Q.0201 through 2Q.0206 (fees), 2Q.0401 and 2Q.0402 (acid rain), and 
2Q.0501 through 2Q.0525 (title V permitting procedures). Mecklenburg 
County's title V program includes Mecklenburg County Air Pollution 
Control Ordinance (MAPCO) Regulations 1.5231 (fees), 1.5302 through 
1.5304 (enforcement), 1.5401 and 1.5402 (acid rain), and 1.5501 through 
1.5525 (title V permitting procedures). Western North Carolina's title 
V program includes Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency 
(WNCRAQA) Code Chapter 17 .0200 (fees), .0400 (acid rain), and .0501 
through .0525 (title V permitting procedures).

Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of the North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, and 
Western North Carolina submittals and other supporting documentation 
used in developing the proposed 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. EPA will consider any comments received in 
writing by July 12, 2001.

B. Executive Order 12866

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

C. 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.).

D. 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.

E. Executive Order 13084

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

F. 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

[[Page 31579]]

regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

G. 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 CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because 
this approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. [See 
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).]

H. Unfunded Mandates

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

I. 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).

J. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by August 13, 2001. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.)

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

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

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

    Dated: June 4, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 01-14769 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>