Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0281-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2006-03-29T16:06:07Z

[Federal Register: March 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 60)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 15656-15658]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29mr06-28]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0281; FRL-8051-1]

 
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the existing 
Priority Reserve rule, Rule 1309.1, into the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (District) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 1309.1 was approved into the SIP in 
1996 to allow the District to provide emission reduction credits (ERCs) 
for specific priority sources, such as sources using innovative 
technology, conducting research operations or providing essential 
public services. The revision to Rule 1309.1 that we are proposing to 
approve merely adds specific types of electrical generating facilities 
to the list of sources entitled to use ERCs from the Priority Reserve. 
We are proposing to approve the revision to Rule 1309.1 and taking 
comment on the revision that adds specific types of electrical 
generating facilities to the sources eligible for ERCs from the 
Priority Reserve. We plan to follow this proposal with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0281, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.    1. E-mail: rios.gerardo@epa.gov..

    2. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action 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, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date it 
was adopted by District and submitted by the California Air Resources 
Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Rule < greek-
             Local agency                   i>               Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...............................       1309.1  Priority Reserve............        05/03/02        12/23/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 15657]]

    On December 30, 2002, the rule submittal was found to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved the Priority Reserve rule, Rule 1309.1, into the SIP on 
December 4, 1996. 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996). The District adopted 
revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rule 1309.1 on April 20, 2001, 
November 9, 2001 and May 5, 2002 and CARB submitted those revisions to 
us on October 30, 2001, January 22, 2002 and December 23, 2002, 
respectively. While we can act on only the most recently submitted 
version of the rule, we have reviewed materials provided with previous 
submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    The only purpose of revising Rule 1309.1 is to include specific 
types of electrical generating facilities (EGFs) to become eligible to 
use ERCs in accordance with the previously approved Priority Reserve 
rule. The revision adds section 1309.1(1)(4) to the list of priority 
sources allowed to use ERCs established by the District.
    The revision to Rule 1309.1 requires qualified EGFs to meet the 
specific requirements prior to receiving access to ERCs held by the 
District as priority reserve offsets. Such sources must: Apply BARCT 
control to all sources at the facility for the pollutants for which 
ERC's are obtained from the priority reserve within 3 years of permit 
issuance; pay a non-refundable mitigation fee to the District for each 
pound of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 
particulate matter (PM10) obtained from the priority 
reserve; submit a complete application during the specified time 
period; conduct a due diligence effort to secure available ERCs from 
other sources; operate the source at full capacity within 3 years; and 
enter into a long-term contract with the state of California to sell at 
least 50% of the power generated by the use of Priority Reserve 
credits. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information 
about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Our analysis of Rule 1309.1 in 1996 occurred during approval of a 
package of rules submitted to meet the CAA air quality planning 
requirements for nonattainment NSR as set out in part D of Title I of 
the Act, with implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165. 
61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996) The revised version of Rule 1309.1 being 
evaluated in this action is a minor change that does not change 
fundamental approvability of Rule 1309.1. The revisions to Rule 1309.1 
merely establish an additional source category, EGFs, as eligible to 
receive ERCs from the priority reserve provided certain criteria are 
met. The revisions also add some administrative provisions that EGFs 
must meet to obtain ERCs from the Districts Priority Reserve.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that the revision to Rule 1309.1 to allow EGFs to 
qualify for ERCs from the Priority Reserve is consistent with the Act, 
EPA regulations and EPA policy.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the District 
modifies Rule 1309.1.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes revision to the existing Priority Reserve 
rule, Rule 1309.1, fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing 
to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We 
will accept comments from the public on this proposal, specifically the 
proposal to allow the District to add EGFs to the priority sources for 
receiving ERCs from the Priority Reserve, for the next 30 days. Unless 
we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we 
intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate revised 
Rule 1309.1 into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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.).

[[Page 15658]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compound.

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

    Dated: March 17, 2006.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06-3028 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P