[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53155-53159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26410]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[CA048-OPP; FRL-7087-7]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; 
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the operating permit program of 
the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (``Santa Barbara'' or 
``District''). The District operating permit program was 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' jurisdictions. 
EPA granted interim approval to the Santa Barbara operating permit 
program on November 1, 1995 but listed certain deficiencies in the 
program preventing full approval. Santa Barbara has revised its program 
to correct the deficiencies of the interim approval and this action 
proposes full approval of those revisions. The District has also made 
other revisions to its program since interim approval was granted and 
EPA is also proposing to approve those revisions in this action.

DATES: Written comments must be received by November 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to 
Gerardo Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. You 
can inspect copies of the District's submittals, and other supporting 
documentation relevant to this action, during normal business hours at 
Air Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105. You may also see copies of the submitted Title V 
program at the following locations:
    California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Santa 
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District: 26 Castilian Drive B-23, 
Goleta, CA 93117.
    You may also review the District rules by retrieving them from the 
California Air Resources Board (ARB) website. If you review rules on 
the website be sure the adoption date on the electronic version matches 
that of the rule for which EPA proposes approval. The location of the 
District rules is at
http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ven/cur.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Baker, EPA Region IX, at (415) 
744-1258 ([email protected]).

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

What is the operating permit program?
What is being addressed in this document?
Are there other issues with the program?
What are the program changes that EPA is proposing to approve?
What is involved in this proposed action?

What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required all state and local 
permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met 
certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit 
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The focus of the operating permit 
program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a permit that 
consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a federally 
enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable 
requirements for a facility, the source, the public, and the permitting 
authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and 
how compliance with those requirements is determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program 
include ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources 
specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, 
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, 
must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that have 
the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic 
compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), or particulate matter (PM10); those that 
emit 10 tons per year or more of any single hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) listed under the CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year or more 
of a combination of 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 
non-attainment classification. For example, in ozone non-attainment 
areas classified as ``serious,'' major sources include those with the 
potential of emitting 50 tons per year or more of volatile organic 
compounds or nitrogen oxides.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    Where an operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met 
the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval 
contingent on the state revising its program to correct the 
deficiencies. Because the District's operating permit program 
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA 
granted interim approval to the District's program on November 1, 1995. 
This Federal Register notice describes the changes that the District's 
has made to its operating permit program (Rules 1301, 1303, 1304 and 
370) since interim approval was granted.

Are There Other Issues With the Program?

    On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the 
interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December 
1, 2001 (65 FR 32035). The action was subsequently challenged by the 
Sierra Club and the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). 
In settling the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a notice in the 
Federal Register that would alert the public that they may identify and 
bring to EPA's attention alleged programmatic and/or implementation 
deficiencies in Title V programs and that EPA would respond to their 
allegations within specified time periods if the comments were made 
within 90 days of publication of the Federal Register notice.
    EPA received a comment letter from one organization on what they 
believe to be deficiencies with respect to Title V programs in 
California. EPA takes no action on those comments in today's action and 
will respond to them by December 1, 2001. As stated in the Federal 
Register notice published on

[[Page 53156]]

December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376), EPA will respond by December 1, 2001 
to timely public comments on programs that have obtained interim 
approval; and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 to timely comments on 
fully approved programs. We will publish a notice of deficiency (NOD) 
when we determine that a deficiency exists, or we will notify the 
commentor in writing to explain our reasons for not making a finding of 
deficiency. A NOD will not necessarily be limited to deficiencies 
identified by citizens and may include any deficiencies that we have 
identified through our program oversight.

What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve?

    As discussed above, EPA granted final interim approval on November 
1, 1995 (60 FR 55460) to the District's title V program. As stipulated 
in that rulemaking, full approval of the District operating permit 
program was made contingent upon satisfaction of certain conditions. In 
response to EPA's interim approval action, the District revised its 
operating permit program (Rules 1301, 1303, 1304 and 370) to remove the 
deficiencies identified by EPA. The District made its revised rule 
available to public review and comments. It also held a workshop on 
September 27, 2000. On January 18, 2001, the District adopted the 
revisions. The revised program was submitted to EPA on April 5, 2001. 
We have included below a discussion of each of the interim approval 
deficiencies, the conditions for correction, and a summary of how the 
District has corrected the deficiency. The Technical Support Document 
(TSD) for this action includes the District's submittal and more 
details of the revisions made. In the discussion here, each of the EPA 
cited deficiencies identified in the July 10, 1995 Federal Register 
notice (see 59 FR 60104) that proposed the interim approval is listed 
followed by a brief description of the District's revisions to its 
operating permit program to remove these deficiencies.

Changes Required for Full Program Approval

    Issue a. Variances: Rule 1305.G(1) had to be revised to read ``The 
terms and conditions of any variance or abatement order that would 
prescribe a compliance schedule shall be incorporated into the permit 
as a compliance schedule, to the extent required by Part 70 rules.''
    District's Response to Issue a. After reviewing District Rule 
1305.G(1) EPA has determined that the rule already incorporates all of 
the above language and that no further revision of the rule is 
required.
    Issue b. Permit Content: Rule 1303.D.1.f., permit content 
requirements, had to be revised to provide adequate specificity with 
regard to the applicable recordkeeping requirements. See 
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B).
    District's response to Issue b. The District incorporated all of 
the above requirements in Rule 1303.D.1.f.
    Issue c. Insignificant Activities: The District had to provide a 
demonstration that activities that are exempt from permitting under 
Rule XIII, (pursuant to Rule 202, the District's permit exemption list) 
are truly insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an 
applicable requirement. Alternatively, Rule XIII may restrict the 
exemptions to activities that are not likely to be subject to an 
applicable requirement and emit less than District-established emission 
levels. The District would have to establish separate emission levels 
for HAP and for other regulated pollutants and demonstrate that these 
emission levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions 
from and type of units that are required to be permitted or subject to 
applicable requirements. See Sec. 70.4(b)(2).
    Additionally, Rule XIII had to be revised to require that 
insignificant activities that are exempted because of size or 
production rate be listed in the permit application. See Sec. 70.5(c). 
See 1302.D.1.f., Definition of Insignificant Activities.
    Additionally, Rule 1301 definition of ``Insignificant Activities'' 
had to be revised deleting the last sentence, which contradicts the 
requirement that applications may not omit information needed to 
determine the applicability of, or to impose, any applicable 
requirement, or to evaluate the fee amount required. See Sec. 70.5(c).
    District's response to Issue c. The District deleted the current 
definition of ``Insignificant Activities'' and added: ``Insignificant 
emission levels'' means the emission levels from any emission unit, 
that for regulated air pollutants excluding Hazardous Air Pollutants, 
are less than 2 tons per year potential to emit, and less than 0.5 tons 
per year potential to emit of any Hazardous Air Pollutants regulated 
under Section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act.
    The District also deleted the last sentence in the definition of 
``Insignificant Activities'' and added: ``Insignificant Activities mean 
activities whose emissions do not exceed insignificant emission 
levels''. Activities exempted because of size, emission levels, or 
production rate shall be listed in the permit application.
    Issue d. Definition of Administrative Permit Amendment: The 
District had to revise Rule 1301, definition of ``Administrative Permit 
Amendment'' Part 6. Santa Barbara had to define by rule what ``other 
changes'' will be determined to be administrative permit amendments. In 
order for ``other changes'' to qualify as an administrative permit 
amendment, the specific changes must be approved by the Administrator 
as part of the part 70 program. See Sec. 70.7(d)(1)(iv).
    District's response to Issue d. The District deleted part 6 of the 
definition of ``Administrative Permit Amendment'' which would have 
allowed the Control Officer and the USEPA to incorporate ``other 
changes'' into a permit as an Administrative Permit Amendment.
    Issue e. Operational Flexibility Notification: Rule 1304.E.2 and 
E.3 had to be revised to incorporate a requirement that sources notify 
EPA of changes made under the operational flexibility provisions. See 
Sec. 70.4(b)(12).
    District's response to Issue e. The District added to the second 
paragraph of 1303.E.2: ``The owner or operator shall also provide 
written notification to USEPA of emission trades made, a minimum of 
seven days in advance.''
    The District also added to the first paragraph of 1303.E.3: ``The 
owner or operator shall also provide written notification to USEPA, a 
minimum of seven days in advance, of express permit conditions 
contravened.''
    Issue f. Public Notification Requirement: The District had to 
revise Rule 1304.D.6 to include notice ``by other means if necessary to 
assure adequate notice to the affected public.'' See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
    District's response to Issue f. The District added to the first 
paragraph of 1304.D.6: ``Notice shall be provided by other means if 
necessary to assure adequate notice to the affected public.''
    Issue g. Significant Changes to Monitoring Requirements: Rule 1301, 
definition of ``Minor Permit Modification'' part (4) had to be revised 
to read ``The modification does not involve any relaxation of any 
existing reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the permit, or any 
significant changes to existing monitoring requirements in the 
permit.'' See Secs. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(2) and 70.7(e)(4)(i).
    District's response to Issue g. The District revised the definition 
of ``Minor Permit Modification'' part 4 of 1301.C to add the exact 
language cited above.
    Issue h. Form of Applicable Requirement: The District rule did not 
require the identification of any

[[Page 53157]]

difference in form from the applicable requirement upon which the term 
or condition is based. Regulation XIII had to be revised to include 
this requirement. This requirement is included in the Standard Permit 
Format. See Sec. 70.6(a)(1)(i).
    District's response to Issue h. The District added text to Rule 
1303.D.1. to require that each Part 70 permit include elements that 
describe the origin of and authority for each permit term and condition 
and identify any difference in form as compared to the applicable 
requirement upon which the term or condition is based.
    Issue i. Applicable Requirement Trading: The District had to add 
emissions trading provisions to Rule 1301 consistent with 
Sec. 70.6(a)(10), which require that trading must be allowed where an 
applicable requirement provides for trading increases and decreases 
without a case-by-case approval.
    District's response to Issue i. The District revised Rule 
1301.D.1.s. and added all of the required provisions consistent with 
Sec. 70.6(a)(10).
    Issue j. Prompt Reporting of Deviations: Santa Barbara had not 
defined ``prompt'' in their program with respect to reporting of all 
deviations. Part 70 of the operating permits regulations 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. Santa Barbara's requirement for reporting of 
deviations was limited to deviations due to emergency upset conditions. 
Under part 70, deviations include, but are not limited to, upset 
conditions. In our final interim approval, we provided Santa Barbara 
three options to correct this deficiency. Santa Barbara had to revise 
rule 1303.D.1.g to be consistent with the more inclusive part 70 
requirement.
    District's response to issue j. The District revised Rules 
1303.D.1.g. and h. to require the reporting of all permit deviations 
within 7 days after discovery of the violation.
    Issue k. Exemptions: The District had to delete Rule 1301.B.4. 
Section 70.3(b) requires that major sources, affected sources (acid 
rain sources), and solid waste incinerators regulated pursuant to 
section 129(e) of the CAA may not be exempted from the program. 
Although Section 129(g)(1)(3) of the CAA exempts solid waste 
incineration units subject to Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act, part 70 does not exempt these units. Any solid waste incineration 
unit that meets the definition of ``major source'' under part 70 would 
be subject to the requirement to obtain a part 70 permit regardless of 
the unit's applicability under Section 129.
    District's response to issue k. The District deleted Rule 1301.B.4. 
which exempted solid waste incineration units from the operating permit 
program.
    Issue l. Recordkeeping for off-permit changes: Santa Barbara's rule 
did not require that the permittee keep records describing off-permit 
changes and the emissions resulting from these changes. Santa Barbara's 
rule had to be revised to be consistent with the requirements of 
Sec. 70.4(b)(14)(iv).
    District's response to issue l. Under the District's rules, a 
source is required to obtain an Authority to Construct or minor 
modification for all changes at a Part 70 source. The application for 
the Authority to Construct describes the changes and the emissions 
resulting from the change.
    Issue m. Definition of Title I Modifications and Significant Part 
70 Permit Modifications: Rule 1301 defined ``modification'' to include 
all modifications under 40 CFR part 60. However, the definitions of 
``title I (or major) modification'' and ``significant part 70 permit 
modification'' did not clearly define all modifications under part 60 
as title I modifications and did not clearly ensure that they will be 
treated as significant permit modifications. In order to receive full 
approval, Santa Barbara had to clarify the definitions of ``title I (or 
major) modification'' and ``significant part 70 permit modification'' 
to include all modifications under 40 CFR part 60.
    District response to issue m. The District revised the definitions 
of ``Significant Part 70 Permit Modification'' and ``Title I (or Major) 
Modification'' in Rule 1301.C. by adding clarifing language that these 
modifications include all modifications under 40 CFR Part 60.
    Issue n. Reporting of an Emergency: In order to obtain an 
affirmative defense in an emergency, Santa Barbara required in Rule 
1303.F.d., among other things, that the permittee submit a description 
of the emergency within 4 days of the emergency. Santa Barbara had to 
revise 1303.F.d. to require submittal of notice of emergency to the 
permitting authority within 2 working days of the time when emission 
limitations were exceeded due to the emergency, to be consistent with 
Sec. 70.6(g)(3)(iv) and in order to maintain the affirmative defense of 
emergency.
    District response to issue n. The District revised Rule 1303.F.4. 
to require the permittee to submit a description of the emergency and 
all mitigating and corrective actions taken to the District within two 
(2) working days of the emergency.

Agricultural Operations

    One of EPA's conditions for full title V program approval was the 
California Legislature's revision of the Health and Safety Code to 
eliminate the provision that exempts ``any equipment used in 
agricultural operations in the growing of crops or the raising of fowl 
or animals'' from the requirement to obtain a permit. See California 
Health and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even though the local 
Districts have, in many cases, removed the title V exemption for 
agricultural sources from their own rules, the Health and Safety Code 
has not been revised to eliminate this provision.
    In evaluating the impact of the Health and Safety Code exemption, 
EPA believes there are a couple of key factors to consider. First, many 
post-harvest activities are not covered by the exemption and, thus, are 
still subject to title V permitting. For example, according to the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Health and Safety Code 
exemption does not include activities such as milling and crushing, or 
canning or cotton ginning operations. Activities such as these are 
subject to review under the State's title V programs. See letter from 
Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to 
Jack Broadbent, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated 
September 19, 2001. In addition, since the granting of interim 
approval, the EPA has discovered that, in general, there is not a 
reliable or complete inventory of emissions associated with 
agricultural operations in California that are subject to the 
exemption. Although further research on this issue is needed, many 
sources with activities covered by the exemption may not have emission 
levels that would subject them to title V, and the State and/or 
individual Districts may be able to demonstrate that none of the 
sources that are exempt under the State law are subject to title V.
    Based, in part, on these factors, EPA has tentatively concluded 
that requiring the immediate commencement of title V permitting of the 
limited types of agricultural activities presently subject to the 
exemption, without a better understanding of the sources and their 
emissions, would not be an appropriate utilization of limited local, 
state and federal resources. As a result, despite the State of 
California's failure to eliminate the agricultural permitting 
exemption, EPA is proposing to grant full approval to local Air 
District operating permit programs and allow a

[[Page 53158]]

deferral of title V permitting of agricultural operations involved in 
the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals for a further 
brief period, not to exceed three years. During the deferral period, we 
expect to develop the program infrastructure and experience necessary 
for effective implementation of the title V permitting program to this 
limited category of sources.
    EPA believes it is appropriate to defer permitting for this limited 
category of agricultural sources because the currently available 
techniques for determining emissions inventories and for monitoring 
emissions (e.g., from irrigation pumps and feeding operations) are 
problematic and will be dramatically enhanced by several efforts 
currently being undertaken with the cooperation and participation of 
the operators and agricultural organizations, as well as EPA, other 
Federal agencies, and the State and local air pollution agencies. For 
example, the National Academy of Sciences is undertaking a study 
addressing emissions from animal feeding operations. Their report is 
due next year. In addition, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is 
working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to better address the 
impact of agricultural operations on air quality. We consider the 
effort to evaluate the existing science, improve on assessment tools, 
collect additional data, remove any remaining legal obstacles, and 
issue any necessary guidance within the three year deferral time frame 
to be ambitious. We welcome comments on other areas that might also 
warrant study, as well as ways that this work might be done more 
quickly.
    During the interim deferral period, EPA will continue to work with 
the agricultural industry and our state and federal regulatory partners 
to pursue, wherever possible, voluntary emission reduction strategies. 
At the end of this period, EPA will, taking into consideration the 
results of these studies, make a determination as to how the title V 
operating permit program will be implemented for any potential major 
agricultural stationary sources.

Other Changes

    In addition to addressing interim approval deficiencies, the 
District has also adopted additional changes to its operating permit 
program. EPA has reviewed these changes and has determined that they 
are approvable. We have listed these other changes below.
Rule 1301.C. and Rule 370
    The District revised the definitions of ``Part 70 Source'' and 
``Major Source of Regulated Air Pollutants (excluding Hazardous Air 
Pollutants)'' to reflect the redesignation of attainment status.
Rule 1303.D.1.c.i. and Rule 1304.D.1.a.v.
    The District revised its rules to allow for permit terms of less 
than five years.

What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?

    Today, we are proposing to fully approve the District's revised 
operating permit program (Rules 1301, 1303, 1304 and 370). We have 
determined that the revisions made by the District removes the 
deficiencies identified by us in 1995. In addition, the District has 
made other changes to its operating permit program that are unrelated 
to the changes made to correct interim approval deficiencies. EPA is 
also proposing to approve these changes. We will make our final 
decision on our proposal after considering public comments submitted 
during the 30-day period from this publication date.

Request for Public Comment

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of the California submittals and other 
supporting documentation used in developing the proposed full approval 
are contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region 9 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 November 19, 2001.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the Administrator certifies that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because it merely approves state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. This rule does not contain any 
unfunded mandates and does not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4) because it proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional 
enforceable duties beyond that required by state law. This rule also 
does not have tribal implications because it will not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism 
implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The rule merely proposes 
to approve existing requirements under state law, and does not alter 
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the State and the Federal government established in the Clean 
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 
13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), because it 
is not a significantly regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
This action will not impose any collection of information subject to 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
other than those previously approved and assigned OMB control number 
2060-0243. For additional information concerning these requirements, 
see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    In reviewing State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to 
Title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve

[[Page 53159]]

State programs provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act and EPA's regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a State 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 a State program 
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

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

    Dated: October 11, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26410 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P