Air Pollution Control; Proposed Actions on Clean Air Act Grants to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5805-6]

Air Pollution Control; Proposed Actions on Clean Air Act Grants

to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed determination with request for comments and notice of

opportunity for public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA has made a proposed determination under section

105(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that a reduction in expenditures of

non-Federal funds for the Monterey Bay Unified County Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD, or ``District'') in Monterey, California is

the result of a non-selective reduction in expenditures. This

determination, when final, will permit the MBUAPCD to keep the

financial assistance awarded to it by

[[Page 15684]]

EPA for FY-96 under section 105(c) of the CAA.

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received

by EPA at the address stated below by May 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments and/or requests for a public hearing should be

mailed to: Sara Bartholomew, Grants and Program Integration Office

(AIR-8), Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105-3901; FAX (415) 744-1076.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Bartholomew, Grants and Program

Integration Office (AIR-8), Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901 at (415) 744-

1250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the authority of Section 105 of the

CAA, EPA provides financial assistance (grants) to the MBUAPCD to aid

in the operation of its air pollution control programs. In FY-95 EPA

awarded the MBUAPCD $292,856, which represented approximately 8% of the

District's budget. In FY-96, EPA awarded the MBUAPCD $272,869, which

represented approximately 7% of the District's budget.

Section 105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), provides that

``[n]o agency shall receive any grant under this section during any

fiscal year when its expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent

expenditures for air pollution control programs will be less than its

expenditures were for such programs during the preceding fiscal year.

In order for [EPA] to award grants under this section in a timely

manner each fiscal year, [EPA] shall compare an agency's prospective

expenditure level to that of its second preceding year.'' EPA may still

award financial assistance to an agency not meeting this requirement,

however, if EPA, ``after notice and opportunity for public hearing,

determines that a reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-

selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of all

Executive branch agencies of the applicable unit of Government.'' CAA

section 105(c)(2). These statutory requirements are repeated in EPA's

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.210(a).

In its FY-96 section 105 application, which EPA reviewed in early

1996, the MBUAPCD projected expenditures of non-Federal funds for

recurrent expenditures (or its maintenance of effort (MOE)) of

$2,873,212. This MOE would have been sufficient to meet the MOE

requirements of the CAA because it was not lower than the FY-95 MOE of

$2,828,502. In November of 1996, however, the MBUAPCD submitted to EPA

documentation which shows that its actual FY-96 MOE was $2,701,629.

This amount represents a shortfall of $126,873 from the MOE for FY-95.

In order for the District to be eligible to keep its FY-96 grant, EPA

must make a determination under Sec. 105(c)(2).

The MBUAPCD is a single-purpose agency whose primary source of

funding is permit fee revenue. Fees associated with permits issued by

the MBUAPCD go directly to the district to fund its operations. It is

the ``unit of Government'' for section 105(c)(2) purposes. The MBUAPCD

submitted documentation to EPA which shows that in 1995 and 1996 air

permit fee revenues decreased because of declining economic conditions

which caused the business community to curtail operations, resulting in

fewer permits issued and fees collected. As a result, the MBUAPCD's

overall budget and its MOE decreased. The MBUAPCD also submitted

documentation to EPA which shows that over the past four years the

District instituted a number of cost cutting measures, including

reductions in hiring, equipment purchases, and contract costs.

In summary, the MBUAPCD's MOE reductions resulted from budget cuts

stemming from a loss of fee revenues due to circumstances beyond the

District's control. EPA proposes to determine that the MBUAPCD's lower

FY-96 MOE level meets the section 105(c)(2) criteria as resulting from

a non-selective reduction of expenditures. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R.

35.210, this determination will allow the MBUAPCD to keep the funds

received from EPA for FY-96.

This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an

opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All

written comments received by May 2, 1997 on this proposal will be

considered. EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if

a written request for such is received by EPA at the address above by

May 2, 1997.

If no written request for a hearing is received, EPA will proceed

to the final determination. While notice of the final determination

will not be published in the Federal Register, copies of the

determination can be obtained by sending a written request to Sara

Bartholomew at the above address.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

Amy Zimpfer,

Acting Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 97-8381 Filed 4-1-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P