[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53969-53973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26928]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NJ001; FRL-7090-5]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; 
New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking proposed action to fully approve the operating 
permit program of the State of New Jersey. New Jersey's operating 
permit program was submitted in response to the directive in the 1990 
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that States develop and submit to EPA, 
programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources 
and to certain other sources within the States' jurisdiction. EPA 
granted interim approval to New Jersey's operating permit program on 
May 16, 1996. New Jersey revised its program to satisfy the conditions 
of the interim approval and submitted the corrected program on May 31, 
2001. This action approves those revisions. In addition, EPA is also 
taking proposed action to approve the following changes to New Jersey's 
Operating Permit Rule: (1) N.J.A.C.7:27-22.29(a) and 22.29(e) were 
changed to incorporate the final nitrogen oxide regulations under 40 
CFR Part 76 as required by EPA; and N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 was changed to 
add the definition of a fuel cell system and to add fuel cell systems 
with a power output of less than 500 kilowatts to the list of exempt 
activity.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
November 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to 
Steven C. Riva, Chief, Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch, EPA-
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Copies of the 
State's submittal and other supporting information used in developing 
the proposed full approval are available for inspection during normal 
business hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven C. Riva, Chief, Permitting 
Section, Air Programs Branch, at the above EPA office in New York or at 
telephone number (212) 637-4074.

[[Page 53970]]


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?
    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 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) of 1990 and its 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 70 require all States to 
develop and implement operating permit programs that meet certain 
criteria. Operating permit programs are intended to consolidate into 
a single federally enforceable document all CAA requirements that 
apply to a particular source. This consolidation of 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 Section 501 of the CAA or in EPA's 
implementing regulations (see 40 CFR 70.3).
    The EPA reviews state programs pursuant to Section 502 of the 
CAA and the Part 70 regulations, which together outline the criteria 
for approval or disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not 
fully, meets the requirements of Part 70, EPA may grant the program 
interim approval which would be effective for 2 years. If a state 
does not have in place a fully approved program by the time the 
interim program approval expires, the federal operating permit 
program promulgated under 40 CFR Part 71 will be implemented. Due to 
unexpected circumstances that affected States' timeliness in 
developing a fully approvable program, EPA took final action to 
extend the effective date of all interim approvals until December 1, 
2001. EPA's action required all States with interim approvals to 
submit a full program on or before June 1, 2001 which would allow 
EPA a period of six months to render a decision on the approvability 
of the State submittal. Any State that fails to have a fully 
approved program in place by December 1, 2001 will be required to 
cease all permitting activities under the interim program. At such 
point, the federal operating permit program promulgated under 40 CFR 
Part 71 will take effect immediately. All sources subject to the 
federal program that do not have final Part 70 permits already 
issued to them by the state are required to submit a Part 71 
application and the appropriate fees within one year to their 
respective EPA Regional offices pursuant to 40 CFR Part 71.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    New Jersey's operating permit program substantially, but not 
fully, met the requirements of Part 70; therefore, EPA granted the 
New Jersey operating permit program interim approval on May 16, 
1996, which became effective on June 17, 1996 (See 61 FR 24715). EPA 
identified four issues that needed correction before NJ would be 
eligible for full program approval. NJ submitted a corrected program 
to the EPA on May 31, 2001 which addressed each of the four 
deficiencies. This document describes the changes made in New 
Jersey's operating permit program that corrected those deficiencies.

What Are the Program Changes Made by New Jersey?

1. Nonmajor Sources

    The first condition for full program approval of NJ's operating 
permit program was a rule revision to require nonmajor sources 
subject to Section 111 standards promulgated after July 21, 1992 to 
apply for an operating permit unless EPA exempts such sources in 
future rulemaking. In accordance with the above directive, in its 
proposed changes to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22, NJ included changes to 
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.2(b) to require all nonmajor sources subject to 
Section 111 standards to apply for an operating permit unless the 
EPA completed a rulemaking exempting such sources. However, based on 
a clarification of EPA's interpretation of 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1) and 
(b)(2), NJ did not adopt the above-noted change. As a result, 
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.2(b) currently reads as follows: ``A nonmajor 
facility not included in (a) above shall become subject to this 
subchapter if EPA completes a rulemaking requiring an operating 
permit for that category of nonmajor facilities pursuant to 40 CFR 
70.3(b)(1) or (2).''
    It is EPA's position that 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1) allows states to 
defer nonmajor section 111 sources from title V permitting 
requirements until EPA affirmatively addresses whether these sources 
are to be permitted. Therefore, if a section 111 standard is 
promulgated after July 21, 1992 and the standard does not address 
whether nonmajor sources subject to it must obtain title V permits 
consistent with 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2), then States can defer the 
permitting of these sources until EPA completes the rulemaking 
described in 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1). Based on its reference to 40 CFR 
70.3(b)(1) and (2), N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.2 essentially requires all 
sources, major and nonmajor, that are subject to Section 111 of the 
CAA to apply for an operating permit unless they are specifically 
exempted by the EPA in its final rulemaking. Nonetheless, NJ may 
still exercise its discretion provided under 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1) to 
defer permitting of these nonmajor sources.
    It is important to note the difference between a deferral and an 
exemption. Under a deferral, while sources are allowed to defer the 
process of obtaining a Part 70 permit until a later date, they are 
still required to comply with all applicable provisions of the 
standard to which they are subject. An exemption, on the other hand, 
is granted by EPA in its rule promulgation. An exemption not only 
relieves the subject sources from the permitting requirement; it 
also relieves them from the substantive requirements. In the case of 
NJ, while NJ chooses to defer the permitting requirement for all 
nonmajor sources, except nonmajor sources under section 129 of the 
CAA, through its reference to 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1), NJ still enforces 
all applicable requirements to which a nonmajor source is subject.
    The above discussion relative to nonmajor sources subject to 
section 111 of the Act does not apply to solid waste incineration 
units subject to section 129 of the Act. Specifically, section 
129(e) of the Act requires solid waste incineration units to operate 
pursuant to a title V permit and the introductory phrase in 40 CFR 
70.3(b)(1) excludes such units from being exempted from title V 
permitting for any period of time. As a result, although solid waste 
incineration units are subject to standards promulgated under 
sections 111 and 129, the exemption in 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1) does not 
apply to section 129 sources. Based on this clarification, EPA has 
determined that NJ's existing rule provisions at N.J.A.C. 7:27-
22.2(b) are acceptable for full program approval.
    However, EPA believes that it would be helpful to revise 
N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.2(b) to specifically include the introductory 
phrase in 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1), which excludes major sources, affected 
sources, or solid waste incineration units from being exempted from 
title V permitting for any period of time, in order to eliminate any 
confusion for sources. In an October 3, 2001 letter, William 
O'Sullivan, Administrator, Air Quality Permitting Program, 
Department of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey, stated 
that NJ interprets 7:27-22.2(b) to incorporate 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1) in 
its entirety. Mr. O'Sullivan further stated in this letter that NJ 
does require the permitting of sources subject to section 129 of the 
Act. Such sources (both major and nonmajor) have been applying for 
title V permits in NJ. However, NJ agrees with EPA that for purposes 
of clarity to the subject sources that they would incorporate 40 CFR 
70.3(b)(1), including the introductory phrase, into N.J.A.C.7:27-
22.2(b) in a future rulemaking so as to eliminate any confusion for 
subject sources. This change will also help ensure that solid waste 
incineration units apply for and obtain title V permits consistent 
with the deadlines established in sections 129(e) and 503(c) and (d) 
of the Act, and in the regulations developed pursuant to these Act 
provisions.
    Although EPA views this rule change to be beneficial to sources 
for clarification purposes, EPA does not believe it to be crucial 
for granting full program approval because it is shown in NJ's 
October 3, 2001, commitment letter that they are complying in 
substance. Since EPA's original determination that NJ's rule was 
deficient relative to the permitting of nonmajor sources subject to 
section 111 of the Act was incorrect and given that NJ is requiring 
nonmajor sources subject to a section 129 standard to apply for 
title V permits, EPA considers this issue resolved for purposes of 
granting the State of New Jersey full program approval.

2. Affirmative Defense

    The second condition for full approval of NJ's operating permit 
program was a rule and/or legislation revision to ensure conformance 
with 40 CFR 70.6(g). Specifically, NJ has general air legislation 
(N.J.S.A.26:2C-19.1 through 19.5) which allows an affirmative 
defense for startups, shutdowns, equipment maintenance and

[[Page 53971]]

malfunctions and its operating permit rule (N.J.A.C.7:27-22.3(nn) 
and 22.16(l)) discusses when it can be used. This legislation is 
separate and apart from the title V enabling legislation and applies 
generally to New Jersey's rules. The Part 70 regulations allow an 
affirmative defense in emergency situations only and does not extend 
this defense to startups, shutdown, equipment maintenance or 
malfunctions per se. EPA found NJ's general affirmative defense 
provisions to be inconsistent with the Part 70 regulations. 40 CFR 
70.6(g) provides that the emergency affirmative defense is only 
applicable to technology-based emission limits and not health-based 
emission limits. The definition of ``emergency'' also limits 
excursions resulting from sudden and unforeseeable events. As a 
condition of full approval, EPA required NJ to revise its 
legislation as cited above to limit its affirmative defense for 
title V purposes only to emergency situations resulting from 
violations of technology-based emission standards. Alternatively, NJ 
could submit an opinion from the State Attorney General clarifying 
that the NJ Law prohibits the use of an affirmative defense for 
violations of health based emission limitations. In addition, EPA 
required NJ to revise both the legislation and N.J.A.C.7:27-22 to 
limit the use of its affirmative defense, for title V purposes, to 
sudden and unforeseeable events that are beyond the control of the 
source. This addition would ensure that the affirmative defense is 
only applicable during emergency situations.
    Since the time this issue arose in NJ's interim approval, EPA 
has differentiated the issue before it. The startup, shutdown and 
malfunction affirmative defense cited in New Jersey's legislation 
(N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19.1-19.5) is separate and apart from the emergency 
affirmative defense under 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1). In terms of conforming 
with 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1), NJ defines ``emergency'' in N.J.A.C. 7:27-
22.1 of its rule as follows:

    ``Any situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable 
events beyond the control of a facility such as an act of God, * * * 
to exceed a technology-based emission limit set forth in its 
operating permit. This term shall not include noncompliance caused 
by improperly designed equipment, lack of preventive maintenance, 
careless or improper operation or operator error.''
    As a result, NJ's rule already meets the requirements EPA placed 
upon it through EPA's interim approval of NJ's title V program to 
conform with 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1). In addition, NJ has inserted a 
sentence in the general provisions of its permits to state that any 
emergency affirmative defense asserted under 40 CFR Part 70 must 
follow the procedures set out in 40 CFR Part 70. As a result, this 
portion of the affirmative defense issue under NJ's interim approval 
has been resolved.
    The actual issue before EPA during the interim approval of NJ's 
title V operating permit program was the existence of NJ's general 
legislation, providing an affirmative defense for startups, 
shutdowns, maintenance and malfunctions, under N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19.1-
19.5. As already stated, this affirmative defense went beyond the 
emergency affirmative defense permitted under 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1). 
More importantly, it created a possible conflict between the state 
affirmative defense and affirmative defenses established under 
federal requirements such as the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and New Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP).
    As a result of the sharper delineation of the issue before us, 
EPA has since re-evaluated alternatives that may resolve this issue. 
EPA recognizes States' discretion to grant an affirmative defense 
for violations of State requirements without jeopardizing their 
operating permit programs. EPA believes limiting the affirmative 
defense to violations of non-federally promulgated standards would 
in turn limit its application to technology-based standards, rather 
than health-based standards. It should however, be noted that under 
N.J.S.A. 26:2C-19.3, New Jersey's general startup, shutdown, 
maintenance and malfunction affirmative defense cannot be used for 
public health or welfare violations. As a result, this protection 
already exists in the legislation itself. Regardless, in 
promulgating federal emissions standards such as the NSPS and 
NESHAP, EPA evaluated the appropriateness of allowing sources to 
exceed certain emission limits under particular circumstances. Where 
EPA allowed for such excursions within the standard, EPA had already 
taken into consideration the limitations of add-on controls that may 
cause unexpected excess emissions as well as health concerns 
associated with the excursion. The situation under which an 
excursion may be allowed had also been evaluated. Consequently, 
depending on the standard in question, some may excuse excursions 
and some may not. Therefore, EPA finds it more suitable to defer to 
the provisions of the federal emissions standard for appropriate 
actions regarding violations of a particular standard.
    On January 30, 2001, EPA informed NJ that as an alternative to 
the legislation and rule changes described in the May 16, 1996 
Federal Register notice for correcting this deficiency, NJ should 
(1) submit an opinion from the Attorney General stating that the 
affirmative defense provisions of N.J.S.A.26:2C-19.1 through 19.5 
are applicable to non-federally promulgated standards only and (2) 
include a statement in the General Provisions of each permit that 
reflects the Attorney General's opinion. On May 31, 2001, NJ 
submitted an Attorney General's opinion clarifying the 
inapplicability of the State's affirmative defense, N.J.S.A.26:2C-
19.1 through 19.5, to federally delegated standards. NJ also 
submitted language to be added to Section F (the general provisions 
of NJ operating permits) stating that its affirmative defense for 
startups, shutdowns, maintenance and malfunctions under 
N.J.S.A.26:2C-19.1 through 19.5 does not apply to federally 
delegated regulations, including but not limited to NSPS, NESHAP or 
MACT.

3. Administrative Amendments

    The third condition for full program approval of New Jersey's 
operating permit program was a rule revision to ensure that the 
administrative amendment procedure is properly used to incorporate 
preconstruction permits into operating permits. NJ's rule had 
allowed a preconstruction permit to be incorporated into the 
operating permit via the administrative amendment process if it was 
issued through public participation requirements substantially 
equivalent to those for operating permits. EPA identified this as a 
deficiency in the interim approval because a public participation 
process that is ``substantially equivalent'' to, may not actually 
meet, the requirements of the NJ operating permit rule. The public 
comment and EPA comment sections of NJ's operating permit rule are 
stipulated in N.J.A.C.7:27-22.11 and 22.12, respectively. As a 
condition of the interim approval, EPA required NJ to correct this 
deficiency by revising N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.20(b)(7) to require the 
preconstruction permit to undergo a process that meets 22.11 and 
22.12 as opposed to a process that is substantially equivalent to 
22.11 and 22.12. NJ revised its operating rule accordingly on August 
2, 1999. A copy of the New Jersey Register (31 N.J.R. 2202) notice 
was submitted with the full program package on May 31, 2001.

4. Permit Fees

    The fourth, and final, condition for full program approval of 
New Jersey's operating permit program was the submittal of a revised 
fee demonstration showing that the legislative limit of $9.51 
million on program appropriation will not render the NJ program 
inadequately funded. The New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act 
(NJAPCA) delineates the fee collection schedule for the operating 
permit program during the initial years of program implementation. 
While EPA found NJ's adoption of the presumptive minimum of $25 per 
ton (in 1989 dollars adjusted by the CPI) to be acceptable for 
purposes of determining adequate funding for the NJ program, EPA 
found the appropriation cap of $9.51 million stipulated in the 
legislation to be problematic. This provision allows NJ to collect 
the presumptive minimum fees from all affected sources but prevents 
any appropriation in excess of $9.51 million for purposes of 
administering the operating permit program. It was difficult to 
determine whether $9.51 million was or was not adequate to fund the 
NJ program. Therefore, as a condition of the interim approval, EPA 
required NJ to submit a revised fee demonstration to show that $9.51 
million would adequately fund the operating permit program. If the 
fee demonstration showed otherwise, NJ would be required to take 
actions to correct this deficiency prior to full program submittal. 
In the May 31, 2001, full program submittal, NJ informed EPA that 
this program deficiency is no longer an issue because the 
legislative cap on appropriation does not apply to State fiscal year 
1998 and thereafter. A copy of the pertinent section of the 
legislation (N.J.A.P.C.A. 26:2C-9.5d) was submitted to show that 
there no longer is a limit on operating permit program 
appropriations.

What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?

    The State of New Jersey has fulfilled the conditions of the 
interim approval granted on

[[Page 53972]]

May 16, 1996. EPA is therefore taking proposed action to fully 
approve the State's operating permit program. EPA is also taking 
proposed action to approve other program changes made by the State 
since the interim approval was granted.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action will not impose any collection 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.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) and 
Executive Order 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). 
Under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law 
unless the agency consults with state and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have federal 
implications. For example, under the authority of section 505 of the 
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661(d), EPA may object to a permit issued under the 
NJ's Title V Operating Permit Program. Should NJ fail to revise the 
permit based upon EPA's objection, EPA has the authority under this 
section of the Act to issue a federal permit for the facility under 40 
CFR Part 71. However, it will not impose direct compliance costs on 
State or local governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the 
requirements of sections 6(b) and Executive Order 13132, entitled 
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) require EPA to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by state 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.
    Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal Government provides the funds. Therefore, section 6(c) of 
the Executive Order does not apply to this rule.
    Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted closely with 
the Governor of NJ and her staff early and throughout the process of 
developing NJ's regulations to allow them to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of its Title V Operating Permit Program. EPA 
worked closely with the Governor's legal staff in drafting the 
legislation and regulations for this program.

E. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because Part 70 approvals under Section 502 of 
the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because 
this approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 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 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no

[[Page 53973]]

new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

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

    Dated: October 19, 2001.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 01-26928 Filed 10-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P