Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Title V Operating Permit Programs; State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County, Tennessee

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[TN-96-01; TN-MEMP-96-01; FRL-5439-2]

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Title V Operating

Permit Programs; State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County,

Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes interim approval of the operating permit programs

submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

and by the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department for the purpose of

complying with Federal requirements which mandate that authorized

permitting authorities develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other

sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by

April 10, 1996.

[[Page 9662]]

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Carla

E. Pierce, Chief, Air Toxics Unit/Title V Program Development Team, Air

Programs Branch, at the EPA Region 4 office listed below. Copies of the

State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County submittals, and other

supporting information used in developing this proposed interim

approval, are available for inspection during normal business hours at

the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,

345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365. Interested persons wanting

to examine these documents, contained in the EPA dockets numbered TN-

96-01 and TN-MEMP-96-01, should make an appointment at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Gates, Title V Program Development

Team, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland

Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-3555, Ext. 4146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act''), as

amended by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA promulgated rules on

July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250) that define the minimum elements of an

approvable operating permit program and the corresponding standards and

procedures by which EPA will approve, oversee, and withdraw approval of

state and local operating permit programs. These rules are codified at

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70. Title V and part 70

require that authorized permitting authorities develop, and submit to

EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources.

The Act requires permitting authorities to develop and submit these

programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and EPA to approve or disapprove

each program within one year after receiving the submittal. If the

program submission is materially changed during the one-year review

period, 40 CFR 70.4(e)(2) allows EPA to extend the review period for no

more than one year following receipt of the additional materials. EPA

received the State of Tennessee's title V operating permit program

submittal on November 10, 1994. The State supplemented the original

program submittal with additional materials on December 5, 1994, August

8, 1995, January 17, 1996, January 30, 1996, and February 13, 1996.

Because the August 8, 1995 supplement materially changed the State's

title V program submittal, EPA extended the one-year review period. EPA

received Memphis-Shelby County's title V program submittal on June 26,

1995. Supplemental materials dated August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995,

August 24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, and February 14,

1996 were submitted by the County to complete the title V program

submittal.

EPA reviews title V operating permit programs pursuant to section

502 of the Act and 40 CFR part 70, which together outline the criteria

for approval and disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not

fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program

interim approval for a period of up to two years. If EPA has not fully

approved a program by November 15, 1995, or by the end of the interim

program approval period, it must establish and implement a Federal

operating permit program for that state or local agency.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

If EPA grants interim approval to the State of Tennessee and

Memphis-Shelby County programs, the interim approvals will extend for

two years following the effective date of the final interim approvals,

and cannot be renewed. During the interim approval period, the State

and the County will not be subject to sanctions and EPA will not be

obligated to promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal operating

permit program for the State or the County. Permits issued under a

program with interim approval are fully effective with respect to part

70. The 12-month time period for submittal of permit applications by

sources subject to part 70 requirements and the three-year time period

for processing the initial permit applications begin upon the effective

date of final interim approval.

Following the granting of final interim approval, if the State of

Tennessee or Memphis-Shelby County fail to submit a complete corrective

program for full approval by the date six months before expiration of

the interim approval, EPA will start an 18-month clock for mandatory

sanctions. If the State or the County then fail to submit a corrective

program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of that 18-month

period, EPA is required to apply one of the sanctions in section 179(b)

of the Act, which will remain in effect until EPA determines that the

State or the County has corrected the deficiency by submitting a

complete corrective program. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a

lack of good faith on the part of the State of Tennessee or Memphis-

Shelby County, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply after the

expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determines

that the State or the County has come into compliance. In any case, if,

six months after application of the first sanction, the State or the

County still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA determines

to be complete, a second sanction will be required.

If, following final interim approval, EPA disapproves the State of

Tennessee's or Memphis-Shelby County's complete corrective program, EPA

will be required to apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the

date 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless

prior to that date the State or the County has submitted a revised

program and EPA has determined that it corrected the deficiencies that

prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack

of good faith on the part of the State or the County, both sanctions

under section 179(b) will apply after the expiration of the 18-month

period until the Administrator determines that the State or the County

has come into compliance. In all cases, if six months after EPA applies

the first sanction, the State of Tennessee or Memphis-Shelby County has

not submitted a revised program that EPA determines to have corrected

the deficiencies that prompted disapproval, a second sanction will be

required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

any time after the end of an interim approval period if a state or

local agency has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or

EPA has disapproved a submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA

has not granted full approval to a state or local program by the

expiration of an interim approval and that expiration occurs after

November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer, and enforce a

Federal operating permit program for that state or local agency upon

interim approval expiration.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State and County Submittals

EPA has concluded that the operating permit programs submitted by

the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County substantially meet the

requirements of title V and part 70, and proposes to interimly approve

the programs. For detailed information on the analyses of the State and

County submittals, please refer to the Technical

[[Page 9663]]

Support Documents (TSDs) contained in the dockets at the address noted

above. The TSDs describe the manner in which the programs satisfy the

operating permit program requirements of part 70.

1. Support Materials

Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Act, each permitting authority

must develop and submit to the Administrator an operating permit

program under state or local law or under an interstate compact that

meets the requirements of title V of the Act. On November 10, 1994, EPA

received the title V operating permit program submitted by the

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The State

requested, under the signature of the Tennessee Governor's designee,

approval of its operating permit program with full authority to

administer the program in ninety-one of the State's ninety-five

counties. Four of the State's counties (Shelby, Davidson, Hamilton, and

Knox) are regulated by local air pollution control agencies operating

under certificates of exemption issued pursuant to Tennessee Code

Annotated (T.C.A.) Section 68-201-115. The State's jurisdiction also

does not extend to sources of air pollution over which an Indian Tribe

has jurisdiction. The State of Tennessee supplemented its initial title

V program submittal on December 5, 1994, August 8, 1995, January 17,

1996, January 30, 1996, and February 13, 1996.

On June 26, 1995, EPA received the Memphis-Shelby County title V

operating permit program submittal. The State requested, under the

signature of the Tennessee Governor's designee, approval of the

County's program on behalf of the Memphis-Shelby County Health

Department. The Memphis-Shelby County Health Department has authority

to administer the operating permit program in all areas of Shelby

County, Tennessee, including the incorporated municipalities of

Arlington, Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown, Lakeland, Memphis, and

Millington. The County's jurisdiction does not extend to sources of air

pollution over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. The County

supplemented its initial program on August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995,

August 24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, and February 14,

1996.

The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County submittals

address, in the Workload Analyses contained therein, the requirement of

40 CFR 70.4(b)(1) by describing how the State and County intend to

carry out their responsibilities under part 70. EPA has deemed the

program descriptions to be sufficient for meeting the requirement of 40

CFR 70.4(b)(1).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3), each permitting authority is

required to submit a legal opinion from the Attorney General (or the

attorney for the air pollution control agency that has independent

legal counsel) demonstrating adequate authority to carry out all

aspects of the title V operating permit program. The State of Tennessee

submitted an Attorney General's Opinion demonstrating adequate legal

authority as required by Federal law and regulation. The Memphis-Shelby

County submittal contains an Opinion Letter by the County Attorney.

This letter, with the supplements dated August 24, 1995 and January 29,

1995, adequately demonstrate the required legal authority.

The program submittals also contain supporting documentation, such

as evidence of the procedurally correct adoption of the permitting

rules, permit application forms, and copies of the enforcement

agreements with EPA. The State's submittal was determined by EPA to be

administratively complete on January 24, 1995. The County's submittal

was determined to be administratively complete on September 5, 1995.

2. Program Implementation

The State of Tennessee developed Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(11),

entitled ``Major Stationary Source Operating Permits'', of the

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations to implement the

substantive requirements of part 70. The State also developed Rule

1200-3-10-.04 entitled ``Enhanced and Periodic Monitoring for Title V

Sources'' and Chapter 1200-3-30 entitled ``Control of Acidic

Precipitation'' to implement other title V requirements. These rules,

and several other rules and statutes providing for administrative

actions and the assessment of fees, were submitted by the State with

sufficient evidence of procedurally correct adoption as required by 40

CFR 70.4(b)(2).

The County's operating permit program is implemented and enforced

through the Shelby County Air Pollution Control Code, which was amended

on April 24, 1995 to incorporate by reference in entirety the State's

Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(11) entitled ``Major Stationary Source Operating

Permits'', Rule 1200-3-10-.04 entitled ``Enhanced and Periodic

Monitoring for Title V Sources'', and Chapter 1200-3-30 entitled

``Control of Acidic Precipitation''.1 These regulations, and

several other rules and statutes providing for administrative actions

and the assessment of fees, were submitted by Memphis-Shelby County

with sufficient evidence of procedurally correct adoption as required

by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2).

\1\ The current Memphis-Shelby County codifications make

reference to the entire Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-9, which was

adopted and incorporated by reference into Section 16-77 of the

City's code and into Section 3-5 of the County's code. In addition,

Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-10 was adopted into Sections 16-85 and 3-7,

and Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-30 was adopted into Sections 16-91.2

and 3-36. Since the City and the County have not yet codified

subsections, all references in this notice will be to applicable

parts of Tennessee regulations.

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

3. Regulations

a. Applicability. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

title V program submittals, in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.02(11) (b) and

(c), substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR 70.2 and 70.3 with

regards to applicability.

The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title V programs

provide for the treatment of research and development (R&D) facilities

as sources that are separate from other stationary sources that are

located on contiguous and adjacent properties and that are under common

control. Neither program, however, requires a ``support facility test''

(see 60 FR 45556, August 31, 1995) before R&D is treated as a separate

source when it is co-located with an industrial activity. EPA does not

consider the lack of the support facility test as an issue for program

approval because the definition of ``Research and Development

Facility'' found in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)24. requires that

the facility not be ``engaged in the manufacture of products for

commercial sale in commerce, except in a de minimis manner''.

Therefore, it is EPA's understanding that if co-located R&D facilities

contribute to industrial activities in material rather than de minimis

capacities, the State and the County will consider them as support

facilities and thus not separable. This interpretation is consistent

with the support facility test, which treats co-located and commonly

owned sources as one source (with aggregated emissions) if the output

of one source is more than 50 percent devoted to the support of the

other source.

The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs, in

Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)14.(iv), provide that ``* * * all

activities claimed by an applicant to be

[[Page 9664]]

research and development at the contiguous or adjacent property shall

have their emissions aggregated as a single source for the purposes of

determining whether or not the research and development activities

constitute a major source.'' It is EPA's understanding that the term

``activities'' in this provision is intended to address the R&D

activities at the R&D facility, as referenced in the preceding sentence

of Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)14.(iv) and defined in Subparagraph

1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)24., and is not intended to apply to any activities

occurring within a stationary source that is not considered to be a R&D

facility. Given this understanding, EPA does not consider this

provision to be a title V program approval issue for the State or the

County.

Neither the State or the County addressed 40 CFR 70.3(b)(3), which

allows exempted sources to apply for a permit, in their program

submittals. Justification of this omission of a part 70 provision is

requested from the State and the County as a condition of full program

approval.

b. Permit Applications. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County title V programs, in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(d) and in the

permit application forms, substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR

70.5 for complete permit application forms. However, the regulatory

provisions in both programs do not specifically require the permit

applications to contain the information described in 40 CFR 70.5(c),

including the compliance certification requirements of 40 CFR

70.5(c)(9).

The State's and County's application forms, which were submitted

for approval as part of both title V programs, do require all the

information referred to in 40 CFR 70.5(c), including a certification of

compliance status with respect to all applicable requirements. EPA is

concerned in particular that the compliance certification be a binding,

regulatory requirement upon the source. The State asserts that, because

its regulations require sources to provide the information specified in

the application form, and because the application form submitted for

approval as part of the State's title V program requires a compliance

certification, the compliance certification is a regulatory requirement

that is binding upon the source. EPA finds this explanation plausible,

but seeks confirmation in the form of a legal opinion from the State.

Therefore, as a condition of full approval for both programs, EPA

is requesting that the State and the County clarify in supplemental

legal opinions that their permitting regulations require a source

submitting an application for a title V permit to certify its

compliance status with regards to all applicable requirements.

Alternatively, the State and the County could revise their regulations

to directly incorporate this requirement.

In addition, because neither the State nor the County have

regulatory provisions for permit applications to contain the

information described in 40 CFR 70.5(c), EPA is reminding the State and

the County that any revisions to their forms must be submitted as title

V program revisions for EPA review and approval pursuant to 40 CFR

70.4(i).

c. Insignificant Activities. Pursuant to part 70, a permitting

authority must request and EPA may approve as part of that program, a

list of insignificant activities and emission levels which need not be

included in the permit applications. Although part 70 does not define

appropriate emission levels for insignificant activities, 40 CFR

70.4(b)(2) requires permitting authorities to include in their title V

program submittals any criteria used to determine insignificant

activities or emission levels. Based on the information provided in the

submittal, EPA determines whether the insignificant emission levels for

the particular program under review are approvable.

For other title V program submittals, EPA has accepted ``generic''

(that is, not keyed to a specific type of activity) emission thresholds

of no more than five tons per year for regulated air pollutants and

1000 pounds per year for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as

insignificant. EPA believes that these levels are sufficiently below

applicability thresholds for many applicable requirements to ensure, in

combination with appropriate ``gatekeepers'', that units potentially

subject to applicable requirements are included in permit applications.

In addition to insignificant activity lists or threshold levels with

appropriate emissions limitations, a State's program must provide, as

required in 40 CFR 70.5(c), that an application may not omit

information needed to determine the applicability of and to impose

applicable requirements, and to collect fees. If a state or local

agency's permitting regulations include this ``gatekeeper'' language,

and the insignificant activities list and generic threshold levels are

reasonable (that is, if they are not on their face likely to interfere

with the determination and imposition of applicable requirements), then

EPA will approve the insignificant activities provisions.

The initial State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title V

program submittals contained the version of Rule 1200-3-9-.04 entitled

``Exemptions'' that became state-effective on November 21, 1993. Rule

1200-3-9-.04 identifies over 50 different insignificant activities and

emission units that are exempt from permitting requirements. Because

Rule 1200-3-9-.04 purports to exempt the listed activities from

``permitting'', rather than from description in the permit application,

it is broader than the exemption contemplated by 40 CFR 70.5(c).

Activities and emission units deemed ``insignificant'' for purposes

of title V permitting are not exemptions from the obligation to

consider all emissions from the source in determining whether the

source is major, nor are they exemptions from the requirement to comply

with the permit content provisions of 40 CFR 70.6 for all applicable

requirements. Rather, provisions for insignificant activities and

emission units allow sources subject to title V to avoid description of

EPA-approved insignificant activities in the application, or to include

only limited information in the application (as in the case of

activities deemed insignificant based on size or production rate).

Therefore, the exemption from ``permitting'' requirements contained in

Rule 1200-3-9-.04 must be removed as a condition of full approval for

both programs.

Moreover, neither the State nor the County submitted information

regarding the estimated levels of emissions from the activities and

units listed in Rule 1200-3-9-.04, nor has a demonstration been made

that these activities are not likely to be subject to applicable

requirements or to have emissions that affect major source status. EPA

has examined the list of excluded activities and believes that

exclusion of these items would unduly hamper a reviewer's ability to

verify whether the source has correctly identified all applicable

requirements in its application.

Therefore, as a condition of full approval for both programs, the

State and the County must provide a demonstration that adequately

quantifies the potential emissions (based on maximum capacity or on

specified size/operational limitations) from each of the activities and

emission units listed in Paragraphs 1200-3-9-.04 (1) and (4) sufficient

to allow EPA to determine that exclusion of the activities and units

from permit applications will not interfere with the determination and

imposition of applicable requirements. In the

[[Page 9665]]

alternative, the State and the County could specifically limit the

emissions from each listed activity and emissions unit to the

recommended 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants and 1000 pounds per year

for HAPs. In addition, Rule 1200-3-9-.04 must be revised to include

``gatekeeper'' language consistent with that in 40 CFR 70.5(c), as

discussed above, and to remove any language implying that insignificant

activities may be excluded from major source applicability

determinations.

On August 8, 1995, the State of Tennessee supplemented Rule 1200-3-

9-.04 in its title V program with Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) entitled

``Major Source Operating Permits Insignificant Emission Units'', which

became state-effective on August 26, 1995. Memphis-Shelby County has

not yet formally supplemented its title V program with Paragraph 1200-

3-9-.04(5), but the County is in the process of amending its code to

include this paragraph. The County has informed EPA that it will

supplement its title V program with Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) when the

amended code is local-effective.

Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) contains two lists of insignificant

emission units and activities. The list in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.04(5)(f) includes more than 120 emission units and activities that are

categorically exempt from permitting requirements and allowed to be

omitted from the permit application. The list in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.04(5)(g) contains more than 23 emission units and activities that are

defined as insignificant based on size or production rate. The units

and activities in the second list are required to be included in the

permit application.

Based on EPA's review of Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5), a number of the

activities and emission units contained in the two lists either

directly or potentially conflict with applicable requirements as

defined in part 70, or are so vaguely or broadly articulated that EPA

cannot determine whether a conflict or potential conflict exists.

Obvious conflicts that were noted by EPA are discussed in the

aforementioned TSDs. However, EPA could not adequately evaluate the two

lists because neither the State or the County submitted information

quantifying the potential emissions from the listed activities and

units, or the criteria that were used to determine the insignificant

activities and emission units. And, because the rule purports to

exclude activities and emission units listed in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.04(5)(f) from permitting requirements, EPA has the same concerns as

discussed above with regards to the initially submitted Rule 1200-3-9-

.04, namely that the rule would authorize excluding insignificant

activities from major source applicability determinations or from other

requirements of part 70 for units that are listed as insignificant but

that are in fact subject to applicable requirements.

Therefore, as conditions of full approval for both programs, the

State and the County must complete the following:

(1) Provide a demonstration that adequately quantifies the

potential emissions (based on maximum capacity or on specified size/

operational limitations) from each of the activities and emission units

listed in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.04(5) (f) and (g) sufficient to allow

EPA to determine that exclusion of the activities and units from permit

applications will not interfere with the determination and imposition

of applicable requirements. In the alternative, the State and County

could specifically limit the emissions from each listed activity and

emissions unit to the recommended 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants

and 1000 pounds per year for HAPs.

(2) Address the conflicts with applicable requirements that are

discussed in the TSDs.

(3) Remove the exemption from permitting requirements contained in

Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(f) to ensure that the insignificant

activities provisions are not broader than that allowed under 40 CFR

70.5(c), and include ``gatekeeper'' language consistent with that in 40

CFR 70.5(c).

In addition to the exemption from permitting in Subparagraph 1200-

3-9-.04(5)(f), the provisions of Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)3.

exempt sources subject to generally applicable SIP requirements from

the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and certification

requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3) and (c). However, part 70 does not

exempt insignificant activities and emission units subject to

applicable requirements from the permit content requirements of 40 CFR

70.6. That is to say, although insignificant activities may be omitted

from description in the permit application, nothing in part 70 allows

the permitting authority to issue permits that exempt the source from

compliance certification or (as appropriate) monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting required under 40 CFR 70.6 for all emissions units

subject to applicable requirements. Part 70 does, however, allow

permitting authorities the flexibility to tailor the amount and quality

of information required in the permit application, and the rigor of

compliance requirements contained in the permit, to the type of

emission unit and applicable requirement in question.

EPA has discussed this issue previously in the interim approval

notices on the State of Washington's title V program (see 60 FR 50166

(September 28, 1995) and 60 FR 62992 (December 8, 1995)). This issue is

also addressed in the July 10, 1995 guidance memorandum entitled

``White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit

Applications'' from Lydia Wegman, Deputy Director of EPA's Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the EPA Regional Air Directors.

EPA is committed to issuing additional guidance to aid state and local

permitting authorities in drafting permits which comply with the permit

content requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 for insignificant activities, and

intends to issue such guidance in the very near future.

Therefore, as a condition of full approval for both programs,

Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)3. must be revised to eliminate the

exemption from the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and

certification requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3) and (c) for sources

subject to generally applicable SIP requirements.

In addition, Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) exempts increases in

regulated air pollutant emissions from permit amendment and

modification procedures. Because this provision conflicts with the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7, it must be revised to be consistent with

the part 70 criteria for administrative permit amendments and permit

modifications as a condition of full approval for both programs.

d. Permit Content. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

title V programs, in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.02(11) (a) and (e),

substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR 70.4 and 70.6 for permit

content, including operational flexibility and off-permit changes.

However, Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) entitled ``Definitions''

contains the following restriction:

``All references in this paragraph to the Federal Act or to

federal regulations or requirements shall be to (i) that Act and

those regulations and requirements as in effect on December 15,

1993, and (ii) any other federal regulations or requirements to the

extent that they are adopted and are effective as Rules of the State

of Tennessee.

This restriction applies to all Federal requirements referenced in

Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(11), including the definition of ``Applicable

requirement'' in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b). The State's and

County's definition of

[[Page 9666]]

``Applicable requirement'' is, therefore, not equivalent to the part 70

definition because it restricts the domain of applicable requirements

to those in effect before a certain date. As a result, neither program

ensures that issued permits will address all applicable requirements in

accordance with 40 CFR 70.6(a). Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) must

be revised for consistency with part 70 as a condition of full approval

for both programs.

The State and County program submittals, in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.02(11)(e)4., provide for the issuance of general permits. However,

this provision allows a source to operate without an appropriate title

V permit and not be subject to enforcement action. Subparagraph 1200-3-

9-.02(11)(e)4. initially indicates that a source shall be subject to

enforcement action if it operates under a general permit but is later

found not to qualify for a general permit. However, the next sentence

states that if the source is required to have an individual permit, the

permit shield will apply until the individual permit becomes effective,

which relieves the source from liability. Because this provision

conflicts with 40 CFR 70.6(d)(1), it must be changed as a condition of

full approval of the State and County programs.

Part 70 requires prompt reporting of deviations from the permit

requirements. Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) requires the permitting

authority to define ``prompt'' in relation to the degree and type of

deviation likely to occur and the applicable requirements. Although the

permit program regulations should define ``prompt'' for purposes of

administrative efficiency and clarity, an acceptable alternative is to

define ``prompt'' in each individual permit. EPA believes that

``prompt'' should generally be defined as requiring reporting within

two to ten days of the deviation. Two to ten days is sufficient time in

most cases to protect public health and safety as well as to provide a

forewarning of potential problems. For sources with a low level of

excess emissions, a longer time period may be acceptable. However,

prompt reporting must be more frequent than the semiannual reporting

requirement, given this is a distinct reporting obligation under

section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Where ``prompt'' is defined in the

individual permit but not in the program regulations, EPA may veto

permits that do not contain sufficiently prompt reporting of

deviations.

The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have not defined

``prompt'' in their title V programs with respect to the reporting of

deviations. Instead, Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1.(iii)(III)II.

references the provisions of Rule 1200-3-20-.03 to define ``prompt

reporting''. Rule 1200-3-20-.03 specifies that in the event of a

malfunction, a source shall notify the State and the County by

telephone within 24 hours of the malfunction. The notification must

contain a statement giving all pertinent facts, including the estimated

duration of the malfunction. Chapter 1200-3-20, which contains Rule

1200-3-20-.03, was included in the State's title V program submittal,

but not in the County's submittal. The County clarified, in a letter

dated February 7, 1996, that the prompt reporting provision of Rule

1200-3-20-.03 is effective in all of the County's jurisdictions.

Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1.(iii)(III)II. also references

Chapter 1200-3-20 to define deviations from permit conditions, such as

upset, malfunction, or emergency conditions. However, Paragraph 1200-3-

20-.06(5) identifies a number of different exceedances that will not be

considered by the State as violations. This provision conflicts with

part 70, which requires that any emissions not permitted at a source be

in violation of permit terms and conditions. Specifically, 40 CFR

70.6(g) classifies excess emissions due to emergency situations as a

violation of an existing permit, and allows the State to provide an

affirmative defense in certain circumstances.

If a regulation such as Chapter 1200-3-20 is approved into the SIP,

it becomes a part of an applicable requirement and therefore may

function with respect to that requirement or requirements of which it

is a part. This would be true even after the applicable requirement is

incorporated into the permit. However, the version of Chapter 1200-3-20

contained in the State's title V program submittal is not approved into

the Tennessee SIP. More importantly, from the standpoint of part 70,

Chapter 1200-3-20 is on its face limited to SIP requirements. It would,

therefore, affect the definition of violations for any applicable

requirement incorporated into the permit, including those that the

State has no authority to change, such as Federal standards. To remedy

this inconsistency with part 70, and as a condition of full program

approval, the State must revise Chapter 1200-3-20 to clarify that it

applies only with respect to requirements in the SIP. Furthermore, the

revised rule must be submitted to EPA for approval into the Tennessee

SIP.

The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have the authority

to issue variances from the requirements imposed by State and County

law. The State has discretion, pursuant to T.C.A. Section 68-201-118,

to grant relief from compliance with State statutes and rules. The

County has discretion, pursuant to Section 3-10 of the Shelby County

Code, to grant relief from compliance with County statutes and rules.

EPA regards these provisions as wholly external to the programs

submitted for approval under part 70, and consequently proposes to take

no action on these provisions of State and County law.

EPA has no authority to approve provisions of state and local law,

such as the variance provisions referred to above, that are

inconsistent with title V. EPA does not recognize the ability of a

permitting authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a

Federally enforceable title V operating permit, except where such

relief is granted through the procedures allowed by part 70. A title V

permit may be issued or revised (consistent with part 70 permitting

procedures) to incorporate those terms of a variance that are

consistent with applicable requirements. A title V permit may also

incorporate, via part 70 permit issuance or modification procedures,

the schedule of compliance set forth in a variance. However, EPA

reserves the right to pursue enforcement of applicable requirements

notwithstanding the existence of a compliance schedule in a permit to

operate. This interpretation is consistent with 40 CFR

70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule of compliance ``shall

be supplemental to, and shall not sanction noncompliance with, the

applicable requirements on which it is based.''

The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title V program

submittals contain provisions for the issuance of Federally enforceable

state and local minor source operating permits to limit an air

pollution source's potential to emit. Limiting a source's potential to

emit through Federally enforceable minor source operating permits can

affect the applicability of Federal regulations to a source, including

the regulations governing title V operating permits, New Source Review

(NSR) preconstruction permits, Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) preconstruction permits for criteria pollutants, and Federal air

toxics requirements mandated under section 112 of the CAA.

EPA promulgated the criteria for Federal enforceability of minor

source

[[Page 9667]]

operating permits in the Federal Register on June 28, 1989 (see 54 FR

22274). One of the criteria is EPA's approval of the minor source

operating permit program into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Both

the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have submitted the

provisions for issuing Federal enforceable minor source operating

permits as SIP revisions. Therefore, EPA is not taking action in this

notice on the ``opt out'' provisions contained in Paragraph 1200-3-9-

.02(11)(1) as part of either the State or the County title V program.

Both program submittals contain Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(4) entitled

``Permits for Non-Complying Sources'', which is an approved SIP rule

that does not address any part 70 requirements. Moreover, the version

of the rule included in the submittals contains revisions that have not

yet been submitted for incorporation in either the State of Tennessee's

or Memphis-Shelby County's SIP. EPA has provided comments to the State

on the revised version of the rule, but the comments have not yet been

addressed by the State. EPA is, therefore, not taking action on

Paragraph 1200-3-9-.02(4) as part of either the State or the County

title V program.

e. Permit Processing and Review. The State of Tennessee and

Memphis-Shelby County title V programs, in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.02(11)(f) and (g), substantially meet the permit processing and review

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7 (including minor permit modifications and

public participation) and 70.8. However, the State's and County's

permit reopenings provisions for HAP sources are not consistent with

part 70 requirements.

According to Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a), the State and the

County will call applications for permit revisions when EPA promulgates

new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Sources

will have 360 days to submit applications, and the permitting authority

shall issue the permit revision within 18 months of the date the

application is deemed complete. This provision conflicts with 40 CFR

70.7(f)(1)(i), which requires completion of permit reopenings not later

than 18 months after promulgation of a new applicable requirement in

cases of permits with remaining terms of three or more years. As a

result, Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) must be revised for

consistency with part 70 requirements as a condition of full approval

for both programs.

f. Enforcement Authority. The State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County title V programs, in T.C.A. Sections 68-201-101 et seq., address

the requirements of 40 CFR 70.11 with respect to enforcement authority.

4. Permit Fee Demonstration

Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires each permitting authority to

collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and indirect

costs necessary for the development and administration of its title V

operating permit program. Each title V program submittal must contain

either a detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that

aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per

ton of emissions per year (adjusted from 1989 by the Consumer Price

Index (CPI)). The $25 per ton is presumed, for program approval, to be

sufficient to cover all reasonable program costs and is thus referred

to as the ``presumptive minimum''.

Both the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County have elected

to assess title V operating permit fees below the Federal presumptive

minimum fee amount, and both program submittals contained Workload

Analyses satisfying the 40 CFR 70.9(b)(5) requirement for detailed fee

demonstrations. The fee demonstrations showed that the fees collected

will adequately cover the anticipated costs of the State and the County

operating permit programs for the years 1995 through 1999.

The specified activities that constitute the State's program are

consistent with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(1), but the County's fee provisions

allow use of the operating permit fees for any purpose rather than

solely for the funding of title V program activities in accordance with

40 CFR 70.9(a). Moreover, the County's program does not specify that

the fees used to cover the direct and indirect costs of the operating

permit program will be collected only from part 70 sources, as required

by 40 CFR 70.9(a). Memphis-Shelby County, therefore, must revise its

fee provisions to be consistent with the part 70 requirements as a

condition of full program approval.

5. Provisions Implementing Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority for Section 112 Implementation. In the title V program

submittals, the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

demonstrate adequate legal authority to implement and enforce all

section 112 requirements through title V permits. This legal authority

is contained in T.C.A. Sections 68-201-101 et seq., and in

Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b)5. and 1200-3-9-.02(11)(c)(iii) of the

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. EPA has determined that

this legal authority is sufficient to allow the State and the County to

issue permits that assure compliance with all section 112 requirements.

EPA is interpreting the above legal authority to mean that the

State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County are able to carry out all

section 112 activities with respect to part 70 and non-part 70 sources.

For further rationale on this interpretation, please refer to the

aforementioned TSDs.

Both program submittals contain Chapter 1200-3-32 entitled

``Prevention of Accidental Releases'', which was promulgated by the

State and adopted by the County to implement the provisions of section

112(r) of the Act. However, EPA has not yet promulgated a Federal rule

to implement the provisions of section 112(r), so the State and County

rules may not be equivalent to the final Federal rule. Therefore, EPA

is not taking action in this notice on Chapter 1200-3-32 as part of

either the State or the County title V program.

b. Implementation of Section 112(g) During Transition Period EPA

issued an interpretive notice on February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which

outlines the Agency's revised interpretation of section 112(g)

applicability. The notice postpones the effective date of section

112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that

provision. The notice explains that EPA is considering whether the

effective date of section 112(g) should be delayed beyond the date of

promulgation of the Federal rule so as to allow permitting authorities

time to adopt rules implementing the Federal rule, and that EPA will

provide for any such additional delay in the final section 112(g)

rulemaking. A detailed discussion of the rationale for the revised

interpretation is included in the February 14, 1995 notice.

Unless and until EPA provides for an additional postponement of the

section 112(g) effective date, the State of Tennessee and Memphis-

Shelby County must have Federally enforceable mechanisms for

implementing section 112(g) during the period between promulgation of

the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State and

County regulations. Both program submittals contain Chapter 1200-3-31

entitled ``Case by Case Determinations of Hazardous Air Pollutant

Control Requirements'', which will serve as an adequate implementation

vehicle during the transition period. Chapter 1200-3-31 became state-

effective on September 18, 1994, and the County adopted and

[[Page 9668]]

incorporated it by reference on April 24, 1995.

However, Chapter 1200-3-31 contains several discrepancies with

respect to the provisions of section 112(g) of the Act. As a condition

of full program approval, the State and the County must correct the

following discrepancies in order to use this chapter to implement

section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) rule and the adoption of equivalent State and

County regulations:

(1) The definition of ``modification'' in Paragraph 1200-3-31-

.02(10) conflicts with the section 112(g) definition regarding offsets.

The State/County definition indicates that increased emissions of one

HAP may be offset by an equal or greater decrease of another HAP that

is deemed by the permitting authority to be equal to or more hazardous.

However, according to section 112(g)(1)(A), the offset must be by a HAP

which is deemed to be more hazardous, and the determination must be

based on guidance issued by the Administrator under section

112(g)(1)(B).

(2) According to Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.05(1), the State and the

County shall only make case-by-case determinations for new sources in a

source category scheduled for action under sections 112(e)(1) and (3).

However, section 112(g) applies to all major sources of HAPs,

regardless of whether or not they have been included in a scheduled

source category.

c. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated.

The requirements for title V program approval, specified in 40 CFR

70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of an

operating permit program for delegation of section 112 standards

promulgated by EPA as they apply to title V sources. Section 112(l)(5)

requires that operating permit programs contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation, and expeditious compliance

schedules, which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA

also proposes to approve, under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, the

State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards and programs that are unchanged

from the Federal rules as promulgated. In addition, EPA proposes to

delegate to the State and the County all existing standards and

programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for part 70 sources and non-part

70 sources.2

\2\ The radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section 112 regulation and therefore,

also an applicable requirement under the State operating permits

program for part 70 sources. There is not yet a Federal definition

of ``major'' for radionuclide sources. Therefore, until a major

source definition for radionuclide is promulgated, no source would

be a major section 112 source solely due to its radionuclide

emissions. However, a radionuclide source may, in the interim, be a

major source under part 70 for another reason, thus requiring a part

70 permit. EPA will work with the State in the development of its

radionuclide program to ensure that permits are issued in a timely

manner.

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

The State of Tennessee has informed EPA that it intends to accept

the delegation of section 112 standards under part 61 on a case-by-case

basis and the delegation of section 112 standards under part 63 on an

automatic basis. The details of the State's use of these delegation

mechanisms are set forth in letters dated November 4, 1994, January 30,

1996, and February 13, 1996.

Memphis-Shelby County has informed EPA that it too intends to

accept delegation of section 112 standards under part 61 on a case-by-

case basis and the delegation of section 112 standards under part 63 on

an automatic basis. The details of the County's use of these delegation

mechanisms are set forth in letters dated June 14, 1995, February 7,

1996, and February 14, 1996.

d. Title IV Acid Rain Program Requirements. The State of Tennessee

promulgated Chapter 1200-3-30 to implement the Phase II acid rain

permitting requirements of 40 CFR part 72. This chapter became state-

effective on September 13, 1994, and has been determined by EPA to be

acceptable for the purposes of administering an acid rain program.

Memphis-Shelby County adopted and incorporated the State's Chapter

1200-3-30 by reference on April 24, 1995. The County's acid rain

program has also been determined by EPA to be acceptable for the

purposes of administering an acid rain program.

B. Proposed Actions

EPA proposes interim approval of the title V operating permit

program submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation on November 10, 1994, and as supplemented on December 5,

1994, August 8, 1995, January 17, 1996, January 30, 1996, and February

13, 1996. EPA also proposes interim approval of the title V program

submitted by the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department on June 26,

1995, and as supplemented on August 22, 1995, August 23, 1995, August

24, 1995, January 29, 1996, February 7, 1996, and February 14, 1996. If

this interim approval is finalized, the changes identified below must

be made for full approval of the State and County programs.

1. Opt-in Provision for Exempted Sources

Neither the State or the County program addressed 40 CFR

70.3(b)(3), which allows exempted sources to apply for a permit.

Justification of the omission of this part 70 provision is requested

from the State and the County.

2. Certification of Compliance With Applicable Requirements

Neither the State or the County program contains regulatory

provisions that require sources to certify compliance with all

applicable requirements. EPA is, therefore, requesting the State and

the County to clarify in supplemental legal opinions that their

permitting regulations require a source submitting an application for a

title V permit to certify its compliance status with regards to all

applicable requirements. In the alternative, the State and the County

could revise their regulations to directly incorporate this

requirement.

3. Insignificant Activities

As discussed above in section II.A.3.c., the State and the County

must complete the following:

a. Remove the exemptions from permitting requirements contained in

Paragraphs 1200-3-9-.04(1) and (4), and in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.04(5)(f), and include ``gatekeeper'' language consistent with that in

40 CFR 70.5(c).

b. Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)3. to eliminate the

exemption from the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and

certification requirements of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and (c) for sources

subject to generally applicable SIP requirements.

c. Provide a demonstration that adequately quantifies the potential

emissions (based on maximum capacity or on specified size/operational

limitations) from each of the activities and emission units listed in

Paragraphs 1200-3-9-.04(1) and (4), and Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-

.04(5)(f) and (g), sufficient to allow EPA to determine that exclusion

of the activities and units from permit applications will not interfere

with the determination and imposition of applicable requirements. In

the alternative, the State and the County could specifically limit the

emissions from each listed activity and

[[Page 9669]]

emissions unit to the recommended 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants

and 1000 pounds per year for HAPs.

d. Address EPA's concerns, as discussed in the TSDs, about

potential conflicts of certain activities and emission units listed in

Paragraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) with applicable requirements.

e. Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) to be consistent with the

criteria in 40 CFR 70.7 for administrative permit amendments and permit

modifications.

4. Applicable Federal Requirements

Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) in the State and County programs

restricts the domain of Federal requirements referenced in Paragraph

1200-3-9-.02(11) to those in effect on December 15, 1993. As a result,

neither program ensures that issued permits will address all applicable

requirements in accordance with 40 CFR 70.6(a). Subparagraph 1200-3-9-

.02(11)(b) must therefore be revised for consistency with part 70.

5. General Permits

Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)4. in both programs provides for

the issuance of general permits. However, this provision allows a

source to operate without an appropriate title V permit and not be

subject to enforcement action. This provision must be revised for

consistency with the requirements of 40 CFR 70.6(d)(1).

6. Excess Emissions Due to Malfunction, Startup, and Shutdown

The State must revise Chapter 1200-3-20 to make clear that it

applies only with respect to the requirements in the Tennessee SIP, and

the revised rule must be submitted to EPA for approval in the SIP.

7. Permit Reopenings

Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) must be revised in both programs

for consistency with the permit reopening requirements in 40 CFR

70.7(f)(1)(i), which requires completion of permit reopenings not later

than 18 months after promulgation of a new applicable requirement in

cases of permits with remaining permit terms of three or more years.

8. Use of Title V Fees

Memphis-Shelby County's fee provisions allow for use of operating

permit fees for any purpose rather than solely for the funding of title

V program activities, as required by 40 CFR 70.9(a). Moreover, the

County's program does not specify that the fees used to cover the

direct and indirect costs of the operating permit program will be

collected only from part 70 sources, as required by 40 CFR 70.9(a).

Memphis-Shelby County, therefore, must revise its fee provisions to be

consistent with the part 70 requirements.

9. Implementation of Section 112(g) During Transition Period

Both the State and the County title V program submittals contain

Chapter 1200-3-31 entitled ``Case by Case Determinations of Hazardous

Air Pollutant Control Requirements''. As discussed above in section

II.A.4.b., the discrepancies between Chapter 1200-3-31 and Federal

requirements must be addressed for EPA to approve this mechanism of

implementing section 112(g) during the transition period between

Federal 112(g) rule promulgation and adoption of appropriate State and

County rules.

In addition, as discussed above in section II.A.4.c., EPA proposes

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 to the State of

Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs for receiving delegation

of section 112 standards and programs that are unchanged from Federal

rules as promulgated. EPA also proposes to delegate existing standards

and programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for both part 70 sources and

non-part 70 sources.

This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends for a

period of up to two years. During the interim approval period, the

State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County are protected from

sanctions for failure to have programs, and EPA is not obligated to

promulgate Federal operating permit programs in the State or the

County. Permits issued under a program with interim approval are fully

effective with respect to part 70, and the one-year time period for

submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the

effective date of interim approval, as does the three-year time period

for processing the initial permit applications.

The scope of the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County title

V programs that EPA proposes to interimly approve in this notice

applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program)

within the ninety-one counties under the State's jurisdiction and in

Shelby County, except any sources of air pollution over which an Indian

Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-18 (November 9,

1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any

Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,

including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally recognized as

eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United

States to Indians because of their status as Indians.'' See section

302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (August 25, 1994); 58 FR

54364 (October 21, 1993).

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the State of Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County

title V program submittals, and other information relied upon for the

proposed interim approval, are contained in the dockets numbered TN-96-

01 and TN-MEMP-96-01, which are maintained at the EPA Region 4 office.

These dockets are organized and complete files of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of

this notice. The principal 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 by April 10, 1996.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address operating permit programs submitted to

satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this action does

not impose any new requirements, it does not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Under section 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 cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

[[Page 9670]]

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 proposed interim approval action

promulgated today does not include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to 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 Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs

to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, and Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: February 26, 1996.

Phyllis P. Harris,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-5720 Filed 3-8-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P