[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 73 (Friday, April 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18858-18860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9469]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA079-0141 FRL-6324-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern stationary source permitting 
requirements.
    The intended effect of proposing approval of these rules under 
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) sections 110 and 112(l) is to regulate 
permitting of stationary sources in accordance with the requirements of 
the Act, as amended in 1990. The proposed rules include revisions to 
the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District's New Source 
Review (NSR) program, as well as Acid Rain program monitoring 
requirements, and a rule that creates federally enforceable limits on 
potential to emit for sources with actual emissions less than 50% of 
the major source thresholds. EPA's final action on this proposed rule 
will incorporate these rules into the federally approved

[[Page 18859]]

SIP. EPA has evaluated each of these rules and is proposing to approve 
them under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP 
submittals.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
May 17, 1999.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments or receive further information, please 
contact Roger Kohn, Environmental Protection Specialist, Permits 
Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Copies of the State's submittal and other 
information are available for inspection during normal business hours 
at the following locations: (1) EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105; (2) California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, 
Sacramento, CA 95814; (3) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 
District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey CA 93940. A courtesy copy 
of these rules may be available via the Internet at http://
arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/mbu/cur.htm. However, these versions of the 
District rules may be different than the versions submitted to EPA for 
approval. Readers are cautioned to verify that the adoption date of the 
rule listed is the same as the rule submitted to EPA for approval. The 
official submittals are only available at the three addresses listed 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Kohn, Permits Office, (AIR-3), 
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; Telephone: (415) 744-
1238; E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being proposed for approval into the California SIP are: 
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), Rule 
200, Permits Required; Rule 204, Cancellation of Applications; Rule 
207, Review of New or Modified Sources; Rule 213, Continuous Emissions 
Monitoring; Rule 215, Banking of Emissions Reductions; and Rule 436, 
Title V: General Prohibitory Rule.

II. Background

    The air quality planning requirements for Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment NSR are set out in parts C and D 
of title I of the Clean Air Act. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' 
describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs 
and SIP revisions submitted under part D, including those State 
submittals containing nonattainment NSR SIP requirements (see 57 FR 
13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA 
is describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader 
should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion.
    The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of the Act provide that each 
implementation plan or revision to an implementation plan submitted by 
a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. 
Section 172(c)(7) of the Act provides that plan provisions for 
nonattainment areas shall meet the applicable provisions of section 
110(a)(2).
    The rules were adopted by the District Board of Directors on the 
following dates: December 17, 1986 (Rule 200); July 17, 1985 (Rule 
204); December 18, 1996 (Rule 207); February 16, 1994 (Rule 213); March 
26, 1997 (Rule 215); May 17, 1995 (Rule 436).
    The rules were subsequently submitted to EPA by the California Air 
Resources Board to EPA as proposed revisions to the California SIP on 
the following dates: June 9, 1987 (Rule 200); February 10, 1986 (Rule 
204); March 3, 1997 (Rule 207); March 29, 1994 (Rule 213); June 3, 1997 
(Rule 215); and August 10, 1995 (Rule 436).
    EPA deemed the submittals complete on the following dates: August 
12, 1997 (Rule 207); June 3, 1984 (Rule 213); September 5, 1997 (Rule 
215); and October 4, 1995 (Rule 436). The following is EPA's evaluation 
and proposed action for these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

    MBUAPCD submitted the rules listed in the Applicability section of 
this action for adoption into the applicable SIP. With the exception of 
Rule 436, which has not been previously incorporated into the SIP, all 
of these rules are intended to replace the existing SIP rules of the 
same number and title. MBUAPCD's most recent submittals for Rules 200, 
204, 207, 213, and 215 contain the following changes from the current 
SIP:

Rule 200

     Adding a provision to explicitly state that a violation of 
any permit term or condition will be considered a violation of District 
regulations;

 Rule 204

     Allowing the District to extend the life of Authority to 
Construct permits for up to seven years if the source is pursuing the 
project;

Rule 207

     Deleting the definition of Halogenated Compounds;
     Deleting the definition of Reactive Organic Compounds;
     Replacing the term Reactive Organic Compounds with 
Volatile Organic Compounds;
     Adding a new reference to Rule 101 (approved into the SIP 
on February 6, 1998, 63 FR 6073) for definitions of Exempt Compounds 
and Volatile Organic Compounds;
     Revising two chemical formulae used to determine whether 
specific compounds are VOCs;

Rule 213

     Adding monitoring requirements for Acid Rain sources;

Rule 215

     Deleting the definition of Halogenated Compounds;
     Deleting the definition of Reactive Organic Compounds;
     Replacing the term Reactive Organic Compounds with 
Volatile Organic Compounds;
     Adding a new reference to Rule 101 (approved into the SIP 
on February 6, 1998, 63 FR 6073) for definitions of Exempt Compounds 
and Volatile Organic Compounds;
     Revising two chemical formulae used to determine whether 
specific compounds are VOCs;
    There is currently no version of Rule 436 in the SIP. The submitted 
rule contains the following provisions:
     This rule provides a mechanism for sources to limit their 
potential to emit (PTE) to avoid being subject to MBUAPCD's title V 
Operating Permit Program.
    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) also submitted Rule 436 
for approval under section 112(l) of the Act. The separate request for 
approval under section 112(l) is necessary because the proposed SIP 
approval only provides a mechanism for controlling criteria pollutants.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they 
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, the MBUAPCD rules cited above are being proposed for 
approval under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements 
of section 110(a) and Parts C and D.

[[Page 18860]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal 
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or 
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

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 E.O. 
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 E.O. 13045 because it is 
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

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

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    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 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to 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 annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: April 6, 1999.
Laura K. Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-9469 Filed 4-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P