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

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