[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: kohn.roger@epa.gov.
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
