[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5433-5435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2183]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA236-0204; FRL-6528-5]


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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern Rule 
207 (Review of New or Modified Sources) from the Monterey Bay Unified 
Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), which is being revised to add 
an emission offsets exemption for pollution control projects that are 
mandated by District, state, or federal regulation. This approval 
action will incorporate the revised rule into the federally approved 
SIP. The intended effect of approving this rule is to regulate 
emissions from stationary sources of air pollution subject to District 
new source review (NSR) regulation in accordance with the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA is 
finalizing the approval of these revisions into the California SIP 
under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, 
SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards 
and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES:  This rule is effective on April 4, 2000 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 6, 2000. If EPA receives 
such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Written comments must be submitted to Roger Kohn at the 
Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revision and EPA's 
Technical Support Document (TSD) with the Agency's evaluation of the 
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office 
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions 
are also available for inspection at the following locations:

Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud 
Court, Monterey, CA 93940.

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 rule being approved into the California SIP is MBUAPCD Rule 
207, Review of New or Modified Sources.

II. Background

    The CAA 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

[[Page 5434]]

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 rule was adopted by the District Board of Directors on 
September 15, 1999. The rule was subsequently submitted to EPA by the 
California Air Resources Board to EPA as a proposed revision to the 
California SIP on October 29, 1999.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

    MBUAPCD submitted Rule 207 for adoption into the applicable SIP. 
This rule is intended to replace the existing SIP rule of the same 
number and title. MBUAPCD's most recent submittal of Rule 207 contains 
the following changes from the current SIP:
     A new provision has been added that provides an exemption 
from the offset provisions of the rule for projects in which an 
emission increase results from the installation of control equipment 
pursuant to District, state, or federal regulations.
     The rule has been modified to require an opportunity for 
public comment on projects using the new exemption.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted rule and has determined that it is 
consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. In 
correspondence with the District, EPA informed MBUAPCD that this rule 
change would be an acceptable SIP revision, provided that the District 
made a commitment to revise its Maintenance Plan if new air quality 
data indicates that the District has violated or may violate the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This correspondence, 
along with the rule adoption resolution in which the MBUAPCD board of 
directors makes this commitment, can be found in the docket for this 
rulemaking. Therefore, MBUAPCD Rule 207 is being approved under section 
110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and 
parts C and D.

IV. 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. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) 
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, 
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 
requires 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 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 necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also 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.
    This final rule 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. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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 
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 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 affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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 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 Executive 
Order 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.

[[Page 5435]]

    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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

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.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 4, 2000. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compound.

    Dated: January 7, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.


    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (270)(i)(B) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (270) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 207, amended on September 15, 1999.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-2183 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P