[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 117 (Monday, June 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35157-35159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5508]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0281; FRL-8182-2]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of a revision to the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (District) portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision was proposed in the 
Federal Register on March 29, 2006. The revision adds qualifying 
electric generating facilities to the list of stationary sources that 
are allowed to use emission reduction credits from a bank of credits 
maintained by the District. We are approving the revision of a local 
District rule that was approved in 1996 under the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0281 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3534, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

    On March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15656), EPA proposed to approve a revision 
of District Rule 1309.1, Priority Reserve Bank, into the California 
SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Rule
              Local agency                  number            Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.................................       1309.1  Priority Reserve..........        05/03/02        12/23/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this revision of Rule 1309.1 because we 
determined that the revision complied with the relevant CAA 
requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the 
revised rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received two comment letters: one from Adams 
Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of California Unions for Reliable 
Energy, Kristopher Johns and Donald Lee Selby, Jr. (hereinafter 
collectively ``CURE'') and one from the District. We have prepared a 
separate detailed response to CURE's comment that is available in the 
final docket on this rulemaking. In this action, we are providing a 
summary of the comment and our response.

[[Page 35158]]

    In summary, CURE commented that the revision of Rule 1309.1 does 
not ensure that emission reduction credits provided to qualifying 
electric generating facilities from the Priority Reserve fund will 
comply with the requirements of section 173(c) of the Clean Air Act. 
EPA disagrees with the comment. EPA approved Rule 1309.1 on December 4, 
1996. 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996). In approving Rule 1309.1 in 1996, 
we determined that the District's implementation of a tracking system 
demonstrated that the Priority Reserve bank's emission reduction 
credits complied with the requirements of section 173(c). 61 FR 64292. 
CURE's comment that the Priority Reserve bank's emissions reduction 
credits should be reserved for use by essential public services rather 
than qualifying electric generating facilities seeks to overturn a 
policy decision that is within the discretion of the local permitting 
authority. In this instance, the District Board decided in 2002, 
following an electricity shortage, to provide banked emission reduction 
credits to qualifying electric generating facilities if credits were 
not otherwise available. The District's basis for its decision is set 
forth in its comment letter dated April 25, 2006, which is available in 
the docket. EPA's role is to determine whether the SIP revision meets 
the requirements of the CAA. The comment does not provide information 
showing that adding qualifying electric generating facilities to the 
list of sources eligible to use emission reduction credits from the 
Priority Reserve Fund does not satisfy the requirements of section 
173(c).

III. EPA Action

    CURE's comment letter has not changed our assessment that the 
District's revision of Rule 1309.1 complies with the relevant CAA 
requirements. The District's comment letter supports EPA's proposed 
action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA 
is fully approving this revision of Rule 1309.1 into the California 
SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 18, 2006. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 25, 2006.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.


0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(311)(i)(A)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (311) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *

[[Page 35159]]

    (3) Rule 1309.1, adopted on May 3, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-5508 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P