[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