Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 184 /Thursday, September 23, 1999 / Proposed Rules 51493

1This District includes the portion of Kern

County described in District rule 1020 § 3.44

(adopted November 13, 1996).

Dated: September 10, 1999.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 99–24843 Filed 9–22–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 217–0180; FRL–6442–8]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of California State

Implementation Plan for the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP) by approving rules from the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (District). EPA is

proposing to approve these rules to meet

new source review (NSR) requirements

of the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (CAA or Act), for areas that have

not attained the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The State

submitted Rules 2020 and 2201 to

satisfy these Federal requirements for an

approvable NSR SIP. EPA evaluated

Rules 2020 and 2201 based on CAA

guidelines for EPA action on SIP

submittals and general rulemaking

authority.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

October 25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted in writing to Ed Pike at the

Region IX mailing address listed below.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s evaluation

report are available for public

inspection at EPA’s Region IX office

during normal business hours. Copies of

the submitted rules are available for

inspection at the following locations:

Permits Office (AIR–3), Air Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, Central

Region, 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue,

Fresno CA 93726

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Pike, (telephone 415/744–1211), Air

Division (Air–3), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901, or pike.ed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. EPA Is Proposing to Approve District

Rules 2020 and 2201

EPA is proposing to approve District

Rules 2020 and 2201 into the California

SIP. Rule 2020 was adopted by the

District on September 17, 1998, and

submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) on October 27,

1998. Rule 2201 was adopted by the

District on August 20, 1998 and

submitted to EPA by CARB on

September 29, 1998. This proposed

approval does not include §§ 5.9 and 6.0

of Rule 2201, which specify

requirements for title V operating

permits. The title V requirements in

Rule 2201 were addressed in EPA’s

April 24, 1996 rulemaking on the

District’s title V operating permits

program (see 60 FR 55517 and 61 FR

18083), and the District has not

submitted substantive changes to these

sections of Rule 2201 since that

approval.

The District is composed of Fresno

County, a portion of Kern County 1,

Kings County, Madera County, Merced

County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus

County, and Tulare County. The eight

former County air pollution

management agencies merged to form

the unified Valley-wide District in 1992.

The District is designated as a serious

nonattainment area for ozone and

particulate matter less than ten microns

in diameter (PM10). The District is

designated attainment for the nitrogen

dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and

carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS,

although nitrogen oxides (NOx) and

sulfur oxide (SOx) are regulated as

precursors to other nonattainment

pollutants. For the detailed area

designations that apply to the District,

please refer to 40 CFR 81.305. The CAA

air quality planning requirements for

nonattainment NSR are set out in part

D of Title I of the Act, with

implementing regulations at 40 CFR

51.160 through 51.165.

The District submitted Rule 2020,

Permit Exemptions, and Rule 2201, New

Source Review, to replace existing rules

in the following SIPs: Fresno County,

Kern County, Kings County, Madera

County, Merced County, San Joaquin

County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare

County. As explained below, EPA has

evaluated Rule 2020 and 2201 and has

determined that they are consistent with

the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA

policy. Therefore, EPA is proposing to

approve Rule 2020 and Rule 2201 under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting

the requirements of section 110(a), and

part D of Title I of the Act. Please see

the Technical Support Document for a

complete list of the SIP NSR and

Exemption rules that would be replaced.

This proposed approval will also

supercede an obsolete requirement (see

40 CFR 52.232(a)(5), (6), (10), and (11))

to submit regulations meeting the EPA

NSR requirements that existed at the

time that these sub-sections were

established in the 1980s. EPA is

proposing to delete these requirements.

The air quality planning requirements

for nonattainment NSR are set out in

part 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.

EPA has also proposed regulations to

implement the changes under the 1990

Amendments in the NSR provisions in

part D of Title I of the Act. (See 61 FR

38249 (July 23, 1996)). Upon final

promulgation of those regulations, EPA

will review those NSR SIP submittals on

which it has already taken final action

to determine whether additional SIP

revisions are necessary.

II. Summary of New Source Review

Issues

A. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

District rule 2201 (section 4) requires

that sources meet the Lowest

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) as

defined at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii) for:

(1) Any new emission unit with the

potential to emit two pounds or more

per day; and (2) any existing unit with

an increase in permitted emissions of

two pounds or more per day. EPA has

determined that the two lb/day

requirement for LAER is as stringent as

the source-wide applicability triggers in

title I part D of the CAA. The CAA

triggers range from 15 to 70 tons per

year for non-attainment pollutants

depending on the pollutant and whether

the increase occurs at an existing major

source.
51494 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 184 /Thursday, September 23, 1999 / Proposed Rules

District Rule 2201 uses the term ‘‘Best

Available Control Technology’’ or

‘‘BACT’’ (rather than LAER) to define

the emission limits required for new

and modified emission units that exceed

these District thresholds. Section 3.9 of

District Rule 2201 defines BACT to

require installation of all controls

‘‘achieved in practice’’ (section 3.9.1) or

contained in a SIP unless the SIP limits

are technologically infeasible (section

3.9.2). Therefore, the District’s ‘‘BACT’’

definition is as stringent as the federal

LAER definition at 40 CFR

51.165(a)(1)(xiii). The District

confirmed, in a letter dated January 21,

1999, that the District BACT definition

requires emissions controls as stringent

as EPA’s LAER definition.

B. Offset Equivalency Tracking System

The District has committed to

demonstrate that its NSR rules will

require offsets that are, in the aggregate,

equivalent to federal non-attainment

NSR program requirements. The District

Governing Board adopted a resolution

on August 20, 1998 that requires the

District to show program-wide

equivalency with federal offset

requirements. As part of this

demonstration, the District must

calculate the quantity of offsets that

would be required under federal nonattainment NSR regulations. The District

must also calculate the quantity of

offsets that meet all Clean Air Act

requirements and are required under the

District program. The resolution

requires that the Air Pollution Control

Officer propose amendments to the

District NSR rule to correct any shortfall

if the total quantity (as an annual

aggregate) of offsets that meet all federal

requirements is less than the total

quantity required by federal regulation.

EPA is proposing to approve the offset

provisions of the District’s NSR

regulations based on this commitment

and the District’s August 24, 1999

agreement on implementing this offset

equivalency tracking system. Failure to

achieve equivalent offset reductions, or

failure to implement the tracking

system, would constitute grounds for

future EPA rulemaking to require

corrective rule amendments.

There are several differences between

the District’s program and federal offset

requirements (offsets are generally

referred to as ‘‘Emission Reduction

Credits’’ in the District rules). The

District rules require offsets for some

new sources that do not exceed the

federal major source thresholds for

offsets (section 4.5 of Rule 2201). Once

the potential to emit a source exceeds

the District offset applicability

thresholds, the source must provide

offsets for both non-major and major

emission increases. In addition, ten

percent of each credit issued under Rule

2201 is deducted for air quality

improvement.

Rule 2201 also differs from federal

requirements because it does not ensure

that sources provide offsets that are

surplus of all regulatory requirements at

the time of use. The District rule only

requires establishing that credits are

surplus when they are generated. In

addition, Rule 2201 allows some

sources to determine offset applicability

and quantities based on potential to

emit. It also does not require that new

major sources offset their full permitted

emissions, as they are required to offset

only the quantity of emissions that

exceed the District offset trigger. Please

see EPA’s Technical Support Document

(TSD) for additional information on the

offset requirements of the District

regulation.

EPA has determined that Rule 2201 is

equivalent to federal offset requirements

because the District’s program will,

overall, require that sources provide as

many offsets meeting federal

requirements as are required under

federal regulations. The federal

requirements for a valid offset program

include ensuring that the reductions

used to generate the credit are surplus

(i.e. are not required by the Clean Air

Act or otherwise relied on, such as in an

attainment plan); are based on real

reductions of actual emissions; and are

quantifiable and permanent. The

District has guaranteed that the tracking

system will demonstrate equivalency

each year.

EPA believes that it has discretion to

approve this program based on the

statutory language set forth in section

182(d)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7511a(d)(2). The Act provides for offset

program approval upon showing that

the ‘‘the ratio of total emission

reductions of VOCs to total increased

emissions of such air pollutants shall be

at least 1.3 to 1 * * * .’’ The Act,

therefore, allows EPA to approve a SIP

program that is based on demonstrating

that the total annual aggregated

emissions offsets are equivalent to the

federal offset requirement.

C. Interpollutant Trading

Rule 2201 allows for interpollutant

trading to meet offset requirements

(section 4.13.3). EPA expects that only

trades between pollutants (including

precursors) contributing to the same

NAAQS will be allowed by the District.

For instance, the rule states that

interpollutant offsets between NOX and

VOC may be allowed (section 4.13.3.4).

The rule does not contain an

interpollutant offset ratio, but states that

the Air Pollution Control Officer shall

impose appropriate ratios based on an

air quality analysis. The District

submitted a letter on January 21, 1999

that commits to following EPA

guidelines for setting appropriate

trading ratios. In addition, the rule

requires that the applicant demonstrate

that the new or modified source will not

cause or contribute to a violation of an

Ambient Air Quality Standard (which is

defined to include all NAAQS; see

sections 3.6 and 4.13.3). Therefore, EPA

is proposing to approve this provision of

the District rule.

D. Pollution Control Project Exemption

District Rule 2201 contains an

exemption from BACT (i.e. EPA LAER)

and offsets for ‘‘an emission control

technique performed solely for the

purpose of compliance with the

requirements of District, State or Federal

air pollution control laws, regulations,

or orders’’ if certain additional

qualifications listed in sections 4.2.3

and 4.6.8 are met. EPA’s July 1, 1994

guidance entitled ‘‘Pollution Control

Projects and New Source Review (NSR)

Applicability’’ allows the District to

exempt qualifying pollution control

projects from certain NSR requirements,

including BACT or LAER. The District

rule states that the project cannot cause

or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS,

PSD increment, or an Air Quality

Related Value, as required by EPA’s

policy. The District submitted a letter on

January 21, 1999 confirming that the

District Rule also excludes replacement

or reconstruction of an emission unit as

required by EPA’s policy. In addition,

the District’s exemption excludes

projects that would result in a

significant emission increase of

collateral pollutants to ensure that all

significant emission increases are

mitigated. Therefore, EPA has

determined that District rule 2201 is

consistent with the requirements of

EPA’s 1994 guidance and is proposing

to approve this exemption. If the District

implements Rule 2201 in a manner

inconsistent with the 1994 guidance and

January 21 letter, EPA may require

compliance with the NSR requirements

of the SIP and conduct rulemaking to

require corrective rule amendments.

E. Removing Conditions Established by

Prior NSR SIP Approvals

In addition to our proposed approval

of District Rules 2020 and 2201, we also

propose to delete the special SIP

obligations listed in the table below.

These conditions required the prior

County agencies to submit regulations

consistent with the EPA regulations that
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 184 /Thursday, September 23, 1999 / Proposed Rules 51495

were current at the time these

conditions were established in 1981,

1982, and 1985. These conditions are

moot today because the District has

submitted revised NSR rules that

comply with EPA’s current regulations

and the 1990 CAA amendments.

County Date of EPA action Regulatory citation

Kern County ................................................................ November 19, 1981 ................................................... 40 CFR 52.232(a)(5)(i)(A).

SJV Air Basin (all Counties) ....................................... October 30, 1985 ....................................................... 40 CFR 52.232(a)(6)(i)(A).

Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tulare

Counties.

September 7, 1982 .................................................... 40 CFR 52.232(a)(10)(i)(A).

Fresno County ............................................................ November 1, 1982 ..................................................... 40 CFR 52.232(a)(11)(i)(A).

F. Additional Information

For additional description of how

District Rules 2020 and 2201 meet the

Act’s applicable requirements, please

refer to EPA’s Technical Support

Document for this action.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 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 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

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. 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
51496 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 184 /Thursday, September 23, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, New source

review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: September 15, 1999.

Keith Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 99–24841 Filed 9–22–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[CA 013–MSWb; FRL–6440–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the California State Plan for

implementing the emissions guidelines

applicable to existing municipal solid

waste (MSW) landfills. The Plan was

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) for the State of

California to satisfy requirements of

section 111(d) of the Federal Clean Air

Act. In the Final Rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is approving the

California State Plan as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates that it will not

receive any significant, material, and

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no significant, material, and

adverse comments are received in

response to this action, no further

activity is contemplated in relation to

this proposed rule. If EPA receives

relevant adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by October 25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Andrew Steckel,

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this proposed rule are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted State Plan are

also available for inspection at the

following location: California Air

Resources Board, Stationary Source

Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020

‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia A. Bowlin, (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

section of this Federal Register.

Dated: September 10, 1999.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 99–24258 Filed 9–22–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6441–4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Pollution Contingency Plan; National

Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Baxter/Union Pacific Railroad Tie

Treating Plant Superfund Site from the

National Priorities List; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region VIII announces its

intent to delete the Baxter/Union Pacific

Railroad Tie Treating Plant (the Site)

located in Laramie, Wyoming from the

National Priorities List (NPL), and

requests public comment on this action.

The NPL, a list of sites EPA evaluates

for priority clean up of hazardous

wastes, is found in appendix B of 40

CFR part 300 which is the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances and

Pollutant Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA

promulgated the NCP pursuant to

section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA).

EPA and the State of Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality

(the State) propose this deletion under

the terms of EPA’s policy entitled ‘‘The

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites; Deletion Policy

for Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act Facilities.’’ In this policy EPA

announced that, consistent with the

NCP criteria for deletion of sites from

the NPL, the Agency would delete sites

if corrective actions proceed under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The EPA, in consultation

with the State, has determined that all

appropriate RCRA response activities

conducted at the site to date and

scheduled in the future are enforceable

and have been and will remain

protective of human health and the

environment, and that this deferral to

RCRA corrective authorities is

appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposed deletion of the site may be

submitted to EPA on or before October

25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to: Mr. Dennis Jaramillo, US

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, Mail Code: ENF–T, 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO

80202–2466.

Comprehensive information on this

site is available at the EPA Region VIII

Superfund Records Center and is

available for viewing from 8:00 am to

4:30 PM, Monday through Friday

excluding holidays. Requests for

documents should be directed to the

EPA, Region VIII Superfund Records

Center. Documents pertaining to this

proposed deletion can be found in the

deletion docket for the site, located at

the Superfund record repository.

The address for the Region VIII

Superfund Records Center is: Superfund

Records Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 999 18th Street, 5th