[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53170-53174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26420]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[CA052-OPP; FRL-7086-8]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; 
South Coast Air Quality Management District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve certain revisions of Rule 3000 
(General), Rule 3002 (Requirements), Rule 3004 (Permit Types and 
Content), and Rule 3005 (Permit Revisions), which are part of the 
operating permit program of the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (``South Coast'' 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 
District operating permit program on August 29, 1996, but listed 
certain deficiencies in the program preventing full approval. The 
District has revised Rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 to correct the 
deficiencies of the interim approval and this action proposes full 
approval of those revisions. South Coast has made other changes to its 
part 70 program since EPA granted interim approval to the program. EPA 
is not taking action on these other changes at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
November 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to 
Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. You can 
inspect copies of the South Coast submittals, and other supporting 
documentation relevant to this action, during normal business hours at 
Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105. You may also see copies of the District's submitted 
operating permit program at the following locations:
    California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
    The South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley 
Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4182.
    An electronic copy of South Coast's operating permit program 
(Regulation XXX, rules 3000-3007, Title V Permits) may be available via 
the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. However, the 
versions of District rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 may be different 
from the versions submitted to EPA for approval. Readers are cautioned 
to verify that the adoption dates of rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 
are the same

[[Page 53171]]

dates as the rules submitted to EPA for approval. The official 
submittal is available only at the three addresses listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Sims, EPA Region IX, Permits 
Office (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 
744-1229 or [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 approving?
What is involved in this proposed action?

What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local 
permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met 
certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit 
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements 
under the CAA. A goal of the operating permit program is to improve 
compliance 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 of any single hazardous air pollutant 
(specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per 
year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In 
areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are 
defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. For 
example, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``extreme,'' major 
sources include those with the potential of emitting 10 tons per year 
or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides. EPA has 
classified the South Coast Air Basin as an extreme nonattainment area 
for ozone and a serious nonattainment area for PM10 (70 ton 
per year major source threshold). (See 40 CFR 81.305).

What Is Being Addressed In This Document?

    The California Air Resources Board submitted to EPA the District's 
title V program on December 27, 1993, except for the District permit 
application forms, which were submitted on March 6, 1995. On March 30, 
1995, EPA deemed the District's operating permit program to be 
administratively complete. Because the District's 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 of the program, and 
conditioned full approval on the District revising its program to 
correct the deficiencies. Thus, EPA granted interim approval to the 
District's program in a rulemaking published on August 29, 1996 (61 FR 
45330). The interim approval notice described the program deficiencies 
and revisions that had to be made in order for the District program to 
receive full approval. Since that time, the District has revised and 
the California Air Resources Board, on behalf of the District, has 
submitted revisions to the District's operating permit program on 
August 2, 2001, and October 2, 2001. This Federal Register notice 
describes the changes that South Coast has made to its operating permit 
program to correct interim approval deficiencies, and the basis for EPA 
proposing full approval of these changes. EPA is not taking action on 
other rule changes made since interim approval.

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 document 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 document.
    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 document published on 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 commenter 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 Approving?

    As discussed in the August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45330) rulemaking, full 
approval of the South Coast operating permit program was made 
contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
    Issue (1): 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,

[[Page 53172]]

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 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.
    Issue (2): The District was required to revise its insignificant 
activities permit exemption list or submit information or criteria 
justifying these exemptions. (40 CFR 70.5(c)).
    Rule or Program Change: In 1998, the District revised its Technical 
Guidance Document by deleting the List of Insignificant Activities. The 
District now requires Title V permit applicants to list all equipment 
claimed as exempt from New Source Review permit requirements (per Rule 
219). The District created Form 500-B, List of Exempt Equipment, for 
this purpose. EPA interprets this list of ``exempt'' equipment to apply 
only to New Source Review requirements. Any equipment exempt from 
permitting per Rule 219 is not exempt from the Title V permit program, 
is subject to all applicable requirements, and must be listed in the 
Title V permit along with all applicable requirements.
    Issue (3): The District was required to revise its minor permit 
modification procedures to not allow significant permit modifications 
to be processed as minor permit modifications. (40 CFR 
70.7(e)(2)(i)(3),(4), and (4)(A).)
    Rule or Program Change: The District revised Rules 3000(b)(12) and 
3005(c) to correct this deficiency. Rule 3005(c) now allows minor 
permit revision procedures to be used only for permit revisions 
described in Rule 3000(b)(12), and does not allow modifications which 
result in emission increases up to the higher ``de minimis'' emission 
thresholds contained in Rule 3000(b)(6) to be processed as minor permit 
revisions. The District made the following three revisions to correct 
the deficiencies specifically cited in the 1996 Federal Register 
document:
    (1) The District added to Rule 3000(b)(12)--Minor Permit Revision--
sections (viii) and (ix) that allow minor permit revisions for NSPS and 
NESHAP sources provided that the source ``is not an installation of a 
new permit unit subject to an NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, or a 
NESHAP pursuant to 40 CFR part 61 or 63; and is not a modification or 
reconstruction of an existing permit unit, resulting in new or 
additional NSPS requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, or new or 
additional NESHAP requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 61 or 63;''
    (2) The District revised Rule 3005(c) to refer to a minor permit 
revision definition consistent with 40 CFR part 70, and does not allow 
revisions that trigger other regulatory requirements such as New Source 
Review. In addition, Rule 3005(d), Group Processing Procedures for 
Multiple Minor Permit Revisions, only allows minor permit revisions if 
emissions from such changes are collectively below 5 tons per year of 
criteria pollutants; and
    (3) District Rule 3000(b)(12)(vii) only allows minor permit 
revisions for any Title V permit revision that does not establish or 
change a permit condition that a facility has assumed to avoid an 
applicable requirement.
    Issue (4): Initial implementation of the District program did not 
include all Title V sources and the District received source category 
limited interim approval. The District's regulation, however, included 
language that expanded the applicability of the program three years 
after the program effective date, and ensured that all Title V sources 
will be permitted within five years of full, partial, or interim 
approval by EPA of the District Title V program. Although EPA 
considered this ``phase-in'' to be an interim approval issue, no change 
to the regulation is required to resolve the issue.
    Rule or Program Change: No rule revision was necessary to correct 
this deficiency, since the phase-in period ended in February 2000 and 
the issue is now moot. All known Title V sources have by this time 
submitted Title V permit applications as required by Rules 3001(b) and 
3003(a)(3).
    Issue (5): The District was required to amend Rule 3005(d), Group 
Processing Procedures for Multiple Minor Permit Revisions, to delete 
reference to Rule 3000(b)(6), the District's higher de minimis 
significant permit revision levels when instructing an applicant of its 
responsibilities.
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised Rule 3005(c)(1), Minor Permit Revisions Applicability, to 
delete the reference to the higher de minimis significant permit 
revision levels contained in Rule 3000(b)(6). Rule 3005(d)(1) now 
clearly states that group processing procedures

[[Page 53173]]

for multiple minor permit revision applications are only valid for 
emissions collectively below 5 tons per year. Although still 
referencing Rule 3000(b)(6), Rule 3005(d)(2) now has no bearing on 
whether applications subject to group processing provisions qualify as 
minor permit revisions.
    Issue (6): The District was required to amend Rule 3004(a)(4)(C) to 
conform with part 70 language. The rule required that the permit 
include periodic monitoring or recordkeeping representative of the 
source's compliance for the terms of the permit'' rather than ``with 
the terms of the permit.'' 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B).
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised the language of Rule 3004(a)(4)(C) from ``for the term of the 
permit'' to ``with the terms of the permit.''
    Issue (7): The District was required to revise Rule 3004(a)(9) to 
specify that any trading of emission increases and decreases allowed 
without changes to the permit must meet the requirements of the part 70 
program. 40 CFR 70.6(a)(10)(iii).
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised Rule 3004(a)(9)(C) to state that the terms and conditions of 
emission trades ``must meet all applicable requirements and 
requirements of this regulation.''
    Issue (8): The District was required to amend its operating permit 
program to provide that a source that is granted a general permit shall 
be subject to enforcement action for operating without a permit if the 
source is later determined not to qualify for the conditions and terms 
of the general permit, regardless of any applicable shield provisions. 
40 CFR 70.6(d)(1).
    Rule or Program Change: The District added Rule 3004(e)(8) to 
correct this deficiency. The rule states that if the equipment that has 
been approved for coverage under a general permit is later determined 
not to qualify for the conditions and terms of the general permit, the 
Title V facility shall be subject to enforcement action for operating 
without a Title V permit.
    Issue (9): The District was required to amend Rule 3002(g)(1). The 
rule allows an emergency to constitute an affirmative defense if 
properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other credible 
evidence are kept at the facility, but the rule did not require the 
logs or other evidence to demonstrate that conditions set out in the 
rule were met by the facility. 40 CFR 70.6(g)(3).
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised Rule 3002(g)(1) to require that properly signed, 
contemporaneous operating logs or other credible evidence that 
demonstrates compliance with the rule are kept at the facility.
    Issue (10): The District was required to modify the definition of 
``renewal'' in Rule 3000(b)(22) to clarify that permits will be renewed 
at least every 5 years, regardless of whether renewal is necessary to 
incorporate new regulatory requirements.
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised Rule 3000(b)(22) to reference Rule 3004(f), Permit Expiration 
and Renewal, which specifies that except for solid waste incineration 
facilities, Title V permits expire 5 years from the date of issuance 
unless such permits have been renewed. Rule 3004(f) further states that 
Title V permits for solid waste incineration facilities subject to 
section 129(e) of the Clean Air Act expire 12 years after issuance, but 
must be reviewed every 5 years. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(iii) and (iv).
    Issue (11): The District was required to revise Rule 3005(g)(1), 
changes that violate an express permit term or condition, to not allow 
changes that would violate compliance certification requirements 
instead of compliance plan requirements. Clean Air Act Section 
502(b)(10).
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised Rule 3005(i)(1)(C)(i) from ``compliance plan requirements'' to 
``compliance certification requirements.'' The rule now correctly 
states that changes that would violate compliance certification 
requirements are not allowed.
    Issue (12): The District was required to revise Rule 3005(g) to 
specify that the District and the source must attach a copy of any 
notice of Clean Air Act Section 502(b)(10) changes to the permit. 40 
CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
added Rule 3005(i)(1)(D) which states that the District and the 
facility have attached the written notice to their copy of the relevant 
permit.
    Issue (13): The District was required to add provisions to Rule 
3005(i) to specify the following: (1) Any change allowed under this 
section must meet all applicable requirements and shall not violate 
existing permit terms; (2) the source must provide contemporaneous 
notice to the District and EPA; and (3) the source must keep a record 
of the change. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14).
    Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District 
revised Rule 3005(k), Prohibition on Changes Not Specifically Allowed 
by Permit, and Rule 3005(i), Operational Flexibility. Rule 
3005(i)(1)(C)(i) requires a change to meet all regulatory requirements; 
Rule 3005(i)(1)(A) requires contemporaneous notice; and Rule 
3005(i)(1)(D) requires recordkeeping in that the written notice must be 
attached to the relevant permit. Rule 3005(i)(1) prohibits the 
violation of express permit terms as required under 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14).
    Issue (14): The District was required to either submit to EPA an 
approvable version of Rule 430, Breakdown Provisions, for inclusion 
into the State Implementation Plan, or revise Rule 3002(g), Emergency 
Provisions, by deleting the reference to Rule 430 as a requirement a 
source must meet to avail itself of an affirmative defense. 40 CFR 
70.6(g).
    Rule or Program Change: On October 2, 2001, the California Air 
Resources Board on behalf of the District requested to EPA that Rule 
3002(g)(6), the reference to Rule 430, be withdrawn from the original 
Title V program and from the August 2, 2001, submittal. By removing 
Rule 3002(g)(6) from the federal Title V program, the District 
corrected this program deficiency.

What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?

    South Coast has corrected the deficiencies cited in the interim 
approval on August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45330), and EPA proposes full 
approval the South Coast operating permit program. EPA is only taking 
action to approve program changes made by South Coast to correct 
interim approval deficiencies. EPA is not taking action on other 
program changes made since interim approval was granted, but will 
evaluate these additional changes and take appropriate action at a 
later date.

Request for Public Comment

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of the South Coast submittals and other 
supporting documentation used in developing the proposed full approval 
are contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region IX 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

[[Page 53174]]

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 on 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 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 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 12, 2001.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26420 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P