Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California,

[Federal Register: May 16, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 95)]

[Proposed Rules]

[Page 31120]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr16my00-24]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 240-0237b; FRL-6601-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern amended volatile organic compound definitions and a rule rescission. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR- 4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24850 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744- 1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local rules: MBUAPCD Rules 101 and 102. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

Dated: April 18, 2000. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00-11999Filed5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P