Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollutions Control District (SJVUAPCD), 39777-39782 [2011-16882]
Download as PDF
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to the requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
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 action 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 rules
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
these actions must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by September 6,
2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
these final rules does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:26 Jul 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 23, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart T—Louisiana
2. Section 52.977 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
Control strategy and regulations:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Determination to Terminate the
Clean Air Act Section 185 Penalty Fee
Requirement. Effective September 6,
2011 EPA has determined that the State
of Louisiana is no longer required to
submit a section 185 fee program State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment
area to satisfy anti-backsliding
requirements for the 1-hour ozone
standard. This determination is based
on EPA’s determination that the area
has attained the 1-hour ozone standard
due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions.
[FR Doc. 2011–16881 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0907; FRL–9428–7]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollutions Control
District (SJVUAPCD)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
action was proposed in the Federal
Register on January 4, 2011 and
concerns volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from crude oil
production operations and refineries.
Under authority of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this
action simultaneously approves local
rules that regulate these emission
sources and directs California to correct
rule deficiencies.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: This rule is
effective on August 8, 2011.
DATES:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.977
Ozone.
ACTION:
39777
EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0907 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
https://www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be
available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information
(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.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our,’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On January 4, 2011 (76 FR 298), EPA
proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the following rules that
were submitted for incorporation into
the California SIP.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
39778
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Local agency
Rule No.
SJVUAPCD .............................
SJVUAPCD .............................
4402
4625
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
We proposed a limited approval
because we determined that these rules
improve the SIP and are largely
consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously
proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions conflict with
section 110 and part D of the Act. These
provisions include the following:
A. Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production
Sumps
1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these
requirements to help implement RACT
or demonstrate why such improvements
are not appropriate in light of analogous
requirements in neighboring districts.
a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap
and does not require seals for rigid
floating covers. In contrast, SCAQMD
Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and SLOCAPCD
Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid floating
covers to have seals, the gap cannot
exceed 1⁄8″ for a cumulative length of
95% of the perimeter, and no single gap
may exceed 1⁄2 inch.
b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers
to be equipped with a pressure/vacuum
valve set to within ten percent of
maximum safe working pressure. In
contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii)
and (6)(A) and SBCAPCD Rule 344
D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be
equipped with a 95% efficient Air
Pollution Control (APC) device.
c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic
inspection of covers and APC
equipment to ensure proper operation.
In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(f)(1)(C)
requires periodic leak inspection and
APC testing.
d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are
more broad than those found in other
districts rules. SJVUAPCD should
analyze whether these exemptions
continue to be appropriate. This
analysis should consider more current
cost data than used in the 2009 RACT
Analysis, and should consider
alternative disposal methods (e.g.,
underground injection, tanks, or
additional pretreatment) in addition to
sump and pond covers. The following
exemptions are of particular concern:
• Uncontrolled VOC emissions from
exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps.
Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less
than 6000 barrels per day with sumps
less than 1000 sf and section 4.1.3
exempts operations less than 300 barrels
per day with sumps less than 5000 sf
from substantive requirements. No other
neighboring districts allow exemptions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:26 Jul 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Rule title
Amended
Crude Oil Production Sumps .................................................
Wastewater Separators ..........................................................
for small producers except for
SBCAPCD Rule 344, and the exemption
in Santa Barbara’s rule is more
restrictive than the exemptions found in
Rule 4402.
• Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of
‘‘clean produced water’’ with less than
35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402
requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD
Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4
C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4
exempt wastewater sumps only where
the VOC/ROC content does not exceed
5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern
are VOC emissions from the ponds that
initially receive the oily wastewater
from oil production facilities.
Alternatives including additional
pretreatment to lower the VOC content
and other disposal methods such as
underground injection should be
evaluated.
e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time
that oil or oily water can be kept in an
emergency pit. In contrast, SLOCAPCD
Rule 419 C.2 requires clean-up to begin
within 24 hours and finish within 15
days.
f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps.
In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 and
VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the
operation of 1st stage sumps.
g. Provisions should be added in Rule
4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic
Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to
replace the 1st stage crude oil sumps
have adequate VOC controls.
2. The following revisions are needed
to improve rule clarity and
enforceability consistent with CAA
section 110(a).
a. Please remove the language at the
end of Section 5.3 that states ‘‘If
replacement tank exclusively serves
identical function of sump replaced,
permitting of such tank shall not be
considered an emission change for the
purposes of Rule 2201 (New and
Modified Source Review Rule)’’. Any
exemptions to NSR requirements should
be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD’s
NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and
incorporated within the NSR program
only if appropriate. Such exemptions
should not be in source-specific
prohibitory rules like Rule 4402.
b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to
remove and/or replace inappropriate or
outdated test methods such as 6.2.1
ARB Method 432, which is designed for
paints and coatings and not oily
wastewater. We also recommend adding
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12/17/92
12/17/92
Submitted
08/24/07
08/24/07
EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for
determining leaks.
c. Update the definition of clean
product water (Section 3.1) replacing
outdated EPA Test Methods 4.13.2,
418.2 and 8240 that used CFC–113 as
the extraction solvent. The new test
methods using non-CFC extraction
solvents are EPA Method 1664A and
EPA Method 8260.
d. Please revise section 6.1
(Recordkeeping) to:
• Add requirement for facilities to
keep records of all inspections for leaks
and testing of APC devices (for example,
see SCAQMD Rule 1176(g)(1)).
• Add requirement to document use
of emergency pits, including when use
started, clean-up started and clean-up
finished.
• Require documentation justifying
any exemptions claimed under section
4, including 4.1.7, which exempts pits
and ponds.
• Add requirements to verify the
sump surface area and the annual
production rates for both the small
producers and very small producers in
section 6.1.1.
• Add requirement to keep all records
for at least two, and preferably five
years.
B. Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators
The following revisions are needed to
improve rule clarity, enforceability, and
to strengthen requirements to help
implement RACT.
1. The December 1992 amendment
added exemption 4.3, which reads ‘‘For
existing facilities, if an incineration
device is added or modified for the sole
purpose of complying with the
requirements of this rule, such a device
shall be exempt from the Best Available
Control Technology and the Offset
requirements of Rule 2201 (New and
Modified Stationary Source Review
Rule)’’. This exemption should be
removed from Rule 4625. Any
exemptions to NSR requirements should
be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD’s
NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and
incorporated within the NSR program
only if appropriate. Such exemptions
should not be in source-specific
prohibitory rules like Rule 4625.
2. SJVUAPCD has not adequately
demonstrated that Rule 4625 currently
implements RACT because RACT can
change over time as control technology
improves and/or becomes more
available. More stringent requirements
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
exist in the NSPS (1988), NESHAP
(1995), BAAQMD Rule 8–8 (1993) and
SCAQMD 1176 (1996). These
regulations have requirements for
stricter VOC controls (see, e.g., 95%
requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1176,
section (e)(2)(A)(ii) and (e)(6)),
additional design requirements for
controlling fugitive emissions or
breathing losses (see, e.g., BAAQMD
Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4), and
additional requirements for inspections
and maintenance (see, e.g., BAAQMD
Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4 and
302.6).
3. The exemption for air flotation
units precludes regulation of potentially
significant VOC sources (section 4.2).
Even though these sources are currently
regulated via District permit conditions,
SJVUAPCD should subject them to SIP
requirements as part of Rule 4625 or
demonstrate why that is not necessary.
There is no specific allowance in the
CTG or other guidance documents for
exempting air flotation units from
regulation and no other California air
district rules include such an
exemption.
4. To improve enforceability,
SJVUAPCD should revise section 6.0
Test Methods to remove inappropriate
or outdated test methods such as 6.1.2
ARB Method 432 for paints and
coatings, and 6.1.3 which refers to an
obsolete document superseded by EPA
Method 204 for determining capture
efficiency (40 CFR 51). We recommend
including EPA Test Method 21
(measurements of leaks) as referenced in
SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, Section 6.4 Test
Methods, or SCAQMD Rule 1176,
Section (h).
5. The SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT SIP
Demonstration mentions that the
requirements in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455,
‘‘Components at Petroleum Refineries,
Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and
Chemical Plants’’, apply to oil-water
separators. SJVUAPCD should include
those requirements directly in Rule
4625 or by reference to improve
enforceability, or demonstrate that this
is not appropriate.
6. To ensure ongoing compliance and
strengthen enforceability, SJVUACPD
should add to the rule requirements for
inspections of covers, access hatches
and other openings and emissions
control equipment, along with
recordkeeping requirements for
inspections and testing or demonstrate
that this is not appropriate. For
example, please see SCAQMD Rule
1176, section (f) and (g).
7. SJVUAPCD should delete or justify
exemption 4.1 for wastewater separators
exceeding a set value for a sump surface
area to the rate of oil vapor loss ratio.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:26 Jul 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
The only other rule where we found
such exemption is SCAQMD Rule 464
for Wastewater Separators; last amended
December 7, 1990. This exemption is
not found in the newer SCAQMD Rule
1176, ‘‘VOC Emissions from Wastewater
Systems’’, amended September 13,
1996, which also addresses wastewater
separators and which largely supersedes
Rule 464.
Additional detailed information on the
deficiencies listed above can be found
in the TSDs and proposed notice for this
rulemaking (76 FR 298).
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received comments from the
following parties.
1. Sarah E. Jackson, Earthjustice; letter
and email dated and received February
2, 2011.
2. Samir Sheikh, San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD); letter and email dated and
received February 3, 2011.
The comments and our responses are
summarized below.
Comment #1: Earthjustice generally
supported EPA’s analysis of these rules
and the deficiencies identified.
Response #1: No response required.
Comment #2: Earthjustice raised
concerns regarding the inventory
associated with these rules and asserted
that EPA should thoroughly analyze the
inventory. Earthjustice asserted that
SJVUAPCD fails to require related
reporting as required by San Luis
Obispo Rule 419, and instead bases
inventory estimates on an industry
survey. Earthjustice provided two
inventory reports and asserted that
SJVUAPCD uses an older lower
emission factor but does not justify the
use of this lower emission factor.
Response #2: Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements must be
sufficient to ensure rule enforceability.
Rule 4402 requirements are sufficient
for this purpose except for the
deficiencies described in paragraph
A.2.d above. Nothing in San Luis
Obispo Rule 419 or elsewhere in the
comment provides evidence of
additional requirements necessary for
this purpose. Additional emissions
inventory information, such as for the
clean produced water ponds, might
clarify the importance of additional
controls from affected sources for
overall SIP planning purposes.
However, such information is not
needed to evaluate the submitted rules
with respect to rule enforceability, SIP
relaxation and RACT, the primary
criteria at issue in this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39779
Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that
the District’s inventory excludes sumps
containing ‘‘clean produced water’’ and
that the District allows a much higher
VOC content in its clean water than
other districts allow, therefore the
district could be failing to capture a
large source of emissions in its
inventory.
Response #3: Additional emissions
inventory information, such as for the
clean produced water ponds, might
clarify whether additional controls are
needed for overall SIP planning
purposes. However, such information is
not needed to evaluate the submitted
rules with respect to rule requirements,
enforceability, SIP relaxation and RACT,
the primary criteria at issue in this
action. We believe that the issue of the
higher VOC content allowed in Rule
4402 for ‘‘clean produced water’’ is
adequately addressed by the deficiency
described in paragraph I.A.1.d above.
Comment 4: Earthjustice supported
EPA’s request that SJVUAPCD should
ensure that the tanks that replace the
primary sumps have adequate VOC
controls and requested that EPA keep
this recommendation in mind as it
evaluates its options on the District’s
RACT SIP.
Response #4: No response required.
Comment #5: Earthjustice asserted
that the rules identified by EPA for
comparison to the SJVUAPCD rules are
quite old themselves and their
requirements may no longer represent
the lowest emissions these sources are
capable of achieving with reasonable
control technology. As a result,
Earthjustice asserted that an analysis of
the cost effectiveness of eliminating
more open sumps should be prepared in
order to demonstrate compliance with
RACT.
Response #5: The rules used for
comparison are older rules, however we
are not aware of newer RACT controls
likely to significantly reduce emissions
from these sources, and no other new
technologies were identified in the
comment. In addition, paragraph I.A.1.d
above directs SJVUAPCD to examine
potential additional RACT controls for
open sumps.
Comment #6: SJVUACPD agreed that
Rule 4402 imposes some requirements
that are similar to those found in other
Districts, and that Rule 4625 imposes
requirements similar to the relevant
CTG, NSPS and MACT. SJVUAPCD
further noted that rule language and test
method requirements could be updated
because these rules were last amended
in 1992.
Response #6: No response required.
Comment #7: SJVUAPCD commented
that their rule requirements do not need
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
39780
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
to be changed simply because rules in
other parts of California appear more
stringent. The District asserted that
analogous requirements in other
agencies are not comparable to
SJVUAPCD rules because the affected
sources are different. SJVUAPCD
provided the example of crude oil
sumps, and stated that other California
agencies have far fewer, if any, sumps
subject to the rules used for comparison
with SJVUAPCD Rule 4402.
Response #7: SJVUAPCD must
demonstrate that these rules fulfill CAA
RACT requirements. This demonstration
should include comparison and
consideration of rules and guidance
adopted elsewhere for analogous
sources. Our proposed action identified
examples where SJVUAPCD did not
explain why more stringent
requirements adopted in South Coast,
Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis
Obispo were not also reasonably
available in San Joaquin. While
differences among affected sources may
justify different rule requirements, the
comment did not provide support for
any specific differences among rule
provisions. The comment stated that
other districts have far fewer, if any,
sumps subject to the rules used for
comparison with SJVUAPCD Rule 4402.
However, the comment did not provide
evidence for this statement and we do
not believe it is correct. For example,
data provided by VCAPCD from their
permits database shows about 50 sumps
in their relatively small district.1
Similarly, in informal discussions with
CARB staff, they confirmed that South
Coast and Santa Barbara also have
significant numbers of sumps.2
Comment 8: SJVUAPCD commented
that the 2009 RACT SIP demonstration
showed that the cost effectiveness of
additional emission controls far exceeds
RACT. The district acknowledged that
EPA believes this analysis is based on
old cost estimates, but notes that even
if true costs are half as large, the
resulting cost effectiveness would still
be $32,000 per ton of VOC emissions
reduced, which exceeds RACT.
Response #8: The 2009 RACT SIP
demonstration for Rule 4402 provided a
cost analysis for a 5000 square foot (sf)
second stage sump cover based on a
1986 cost estimate from a Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District
1 Sumps Data from the VCAPCD Permit Database,
received by EPA from Stan Cowen via e-mail dated
May 10, 2011, Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District.
2 Based on preliminary data collected for the
‘‘CARB 2007 Oil and Gas Industry Survey Results’’,
Draft Report, March 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:26 Jul 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
staff report.3 Our proposed action
questioned SJVUAPCD’s reliance on this
cost estimate because it is over 20 years
old, because it is the only cost estimate
provided by SJVUAPCD, and because
other agencies have adopted more
stringent regulations.4 Upon further
review of this cost effectiveness analysis
in response to the comment, we also
note that it significantly underestimated
potential emission reductions, thus
overestimating cost effectiveness.
Specifically, the analysis assumed 2
tons/year VOC emissions reduced from
controlling a 5000 sf second stage heavy
crude oil sump. However, SJVUAPCD
currently estimates uncontrolled
emissions from such sumps at 0.0412
lbs VOC/sf-day.5 Assuming 90%
emission reductions from a ridged
floating cover (as required by Rule 4402
if not exempted in section 4.1.3), we
recalculate the emission reduction at 34
tons/year at less than $4000/ton.6 This
is well within the range of control cost
effectiveness that SJVUAPCD and other
agencies routinely require in prohibitory
rules.
Comment #9: SJVUAPCD commented
that, in light of their large workload,
they are hesitant to divert resources to
conduct work that is not demonstrated
to have significant potential for
additional, cost-effective emissions
reductions.
Response #9: We appreciate this
comment and acknowledge that the
District has limited resources and a
substantial workload. We are trying to
be sensitive to this issue in our various
interactions with the District, including
our actions on SIP rules such as these.
We hope that the analysis and rule
revisions called for by this action will
not be unduly burdensome, though we
believe they are needed to comply with
the CAA.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment of the rule as
described in our proposed action.
Therefore, as authorized in sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of the
submitted rule. This action incorporates
the submitted rule into the California
SIP, including those provisions
identified as deficient. As authorized
3 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009),
Rule 4402, page 4–79.
4 See Section I.A.1.d above or 76 FR 298 Section
II.C.1.d for description of this deficiency.
5 SJVUAPCD: 2007 Area Source Emissions
Inventory Methodology, 310–Oil Production
Fugitive Losses-Sumps and Pits, dated February 6,
2009, Table 7—Uncontrolled emission factors for
oil sumps.
6 5000 sf × 0.0412 lb/sfday × 365 day/yr × 2000
lb/ton × 90% = 33.8 ton/yr @$129,644 = $3836/ton
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under section 110(k)(3), EPA is
simultaneously finalizing a limited
disapproval of the rule. As a result,
sanctions will be imposed unless EPA
approves subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 18
months of the effective date of this
action. These sanctions will be imposed
under section 179 of the Act according
to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must
promulgate a Federal implementation
plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless
we approve subsequent SIP revisions
that correct the rule deficiencies within
24 months. Note that the submitted rule
has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD,
and EPA’s final limited disapproval
does not prevent the local agency from
enforcing it. The limited disapproval
also does not prevent any portion of the
rule from being incorporated by
reference into the federally enforceable
SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA
memo found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. 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 rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals and
limited approvals/limited disapprovals
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 this
limited approval/limited disapproval
action does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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).
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 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 costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome
alternative that 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 limited
approval/limited disapproval action
promulgated does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated
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.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:26 Jul 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
various levels of government.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
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. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, 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.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This rule is not subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39781
Executive Order 13045, because it
approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act
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
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
39782
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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). This rule
will be effective on August 8, 2011.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 September 6,
2011. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(351)(i)(C)(5) and
(6) to read as follows:
■
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(351) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(5) Rule 4402, ‘‘Crude Oil Production
Sumps’’, adopted on April 11, 1991 and
amended December 17, 1992.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:26 Jul 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
(6) Rule 4625, ‘‘Wastewater
Separators’’, adopted on April 11, 1991
and amended December 17, 1992.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–16882 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8187]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule identifies
communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
subsequent date.
DATES: Effective Dates: The effective
date of each community’s scheduled
suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’)
listed in the third column of the
following tables.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact David Stearrett,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–2953.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not
otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and
administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
coverage as authorized under the NFIP,
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an
appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in
this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance
with program regulations, 44 CFR part
59. Accordingly, the communities will
be suspended on the effective date in
the third column. As of that date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these
communities may adopt and submit the
required documentation of legally
enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but
prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be
suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A
notice withdrawing the suspension of
the communities will be published in
the Federal Register.
In addition, FEMA has identified the
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in
these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The
date of the FIRM, if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth
column of the table. No direct Federal
financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for
construction or acquisition of buildings
in identified SFHAs for communities
not participating in the NFIP and
identified for more than a year, on
FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of
the community as having flood-prone
areas (section 202(a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This
prohibition against certain types of
Federal assistance becomes effective for
the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final
rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month,
90-day, and 30-day notification letters
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
stating that the community will be
suspended unless the required
floodplain management measures are
met prior to the effective suspension
date. Since these notifications were
made, this final rule may take effect
within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This rule is categorically excluded from
the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Considerations. No
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39777-39782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16882]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0907; FRL-9428-7]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollutions Control District (SJVUAPCD)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on January 4,
2011 and concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from crude
oil production operations and refineries. Under authority of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously
approves local rules that regulate these emission sources and directs
California to correct rule deficiencies.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on August 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0907 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (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: Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our,'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On January 4, 2011 (76 FR 298), EPA proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP.
[[Page 39778]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD........................... 4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps. 12/17/92 08/24/07
SJVUAPCD........................... 4625 Wastewater Separators...... 12/17/92 08/24/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act.
These provisions include the following:
A. Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps
1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these requirements to help implement
RACT or demonstrate why such improvements are not appropriate in light
of analogous requirements in neighboring districts.
a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require seals for
rigid floating covers. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and
SLOCAPCD Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid floating covers to have seals,
the gap cannot exceed \1/8\'' for a cumulative length of 95% of the
perimeter, and no single gap may exceed \1/2\ inch.
b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers to be equipped with a
pressure/vacuum valve set to within ten percent of maximum safe working
pressure. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) and (6)(A) and
SBCAPCD Rule 344 D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be equipped with a
95% efficient Air Pollution Control (APC) device.
c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic inspection of covers and APC
equipment to ensure proper operation. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule
1176(f)(1)(C) requires periodic leak inspection and APC testing.
d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are more broad than those found in
other districts rules. SJVUAPCD should analyze whether these exemptions
continue to be appropriate. This analysis should consider more current
cost data than used in the 2009 RACT Analysis, and should consider
alternative disposal methods (e.g., underground injection, tanks, or
additional pretreatment) in addition to sump and pond covers. The
following exemptions are of particular concern:
Uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage
sumps. Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less than 6000 barrels per day
with sumps less than 1000 sf and section 4.1.3 exempts operations less
than 300 barrels per day with sumps less than 5000 sf from substantive
requirements. No other neighboring districts allow exemptions for small
producers except for SBCAPCD Rule 344, and the exemption in Santa
Barbara's rule is more restrictive than the exemptions found in Rule
4402.
Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of ``clean produced water''
with less than 35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402 requirements. In contrast,
SCAQMD Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419
C.4 exempt wastewater sumps only where the VOC/ROC content does not
exceed 5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern are VOC emissions
from the ponds that initially receive the oily wastewater from oil
production facilities. Alternatives including additional pretreatment
to lower the VOC content and other disposal methods such as underground
injection should be evaluated.
e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time that oil or oily water can be
kept in an emergency pit. In contrast, SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.2 requires
clean-up to begin within 24 hours and finish within 15 days.
f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344
and VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the operation of 1st stage sumps.
g. Provisions should be added in Rule 4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of
Organic Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to replace the 1st stage
crude oil sumps have adequate VOC controls.
2. The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity and
enforceability consistent with CAA section 110(a).
a. Please remove the language at the end of Section 5.3 that states
``If replacement tank exclusively serves identical function of sump
replaced, permitting of such tank shall not be considered an emission
change for the purposes of Rule 2201 (New and Modified Source Review
Rule)''. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be evaluated in
context of SJVUAPCD's NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and incorporated
within the NSR program only if appropriate. Such exemptions should not
be in source-specific prohibitory rules like Rule 4402.
b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to remove and/or replace
inappropriate or outdated test methods such as 6.2.1 ARB Method 432,
which is designed for paints and coatings and not oily wastewater. We
also recommend adding EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for determining
leaks.
c. Update the definition of clean product water (Section 3.1)
replacing outdated EPA Test Methods 4.13.2, 418.2 and 8240 that used
CFC-113 as the extraction solvent. The new test methods using non-CFC
extraction solvents are EPA Method 1664A and EPA Method 8260.
d. Please revise section 6.1 (Recordkeeping) to:
Add requirement for facilities to keep records of all
inspections for leaks and testing of APC devices (for example, see
SCAQMD Rule 1176(g)(1)).
Add requirement to document use of emergency pits,
including when use started, clean-up started and clean-up finished.
Require documentation justifying any exemptions claimed
under section 4, including 4.1.7, which exempts pits and ponds.
Add requirements to verify the sump surface area and the
annual production rates for both the small producers and very small
producers in section 6.1.1.
Add requirement to keep all records for at least two, and
preferably five years.
B. Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators
The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity,
enforceability, and to strengthen requirements to help implement RACT.
1. The December 1992 amendment added exemption 4.3, which reads
``For existing facilities, if an incineration device is added or
modified for the sole purpose of complying with the requirements of
this rule, such a device shall be exempt from the Best Available
Control Technology and the Offset requirements of Rule 2201 (New and
Modified Stationary Source Review Rule)''. This exemption should be
removed from Rule 4625. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be
evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD's NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and
incorporated within the NSR program only if appropriate. Such
exemptions should not be in source-specific prohibitory rules like Rule
4625.
2. SJVUAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4625
currently implements RACT because RACT can change over time as control
technology improves and/or becomes more available. More stringent
requirements
[[Page 39779]]
exist in the NSPS (1988), NESHAP (1995), BAAQMD Rule 8-8 (1993) and
SCAQMD 1176 (1996). These regulations have requirements for stricter
VOC controls (see, e.g., 95% requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1176, section
(e)(2)(A)(ii) and (e)(6)), additional design requirements for
controlling fugitive emissions or breathing losses (see, e.g., BAAQMD
Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4), and additional requirements for
inspections and maintenance (see, e.g., BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 8,
section 302.4 and 302.6).
3. The exemption for air flotation units precludes regulation of
potentially significant VOC sources (section 4.2). Even though these
sources are currently regulated via District permit conditions,
SJVUAPCD should subject them to SIP requirements as part of Rule 4625
or demonstrate why that is not necessary. There is no specific
allowance in the CTG or other guidance documents for exempting air
flotation units from regulation and no other California air district
rules include such an exemption.
4. To improve enforceability, SJVUAPCD should revise section 6.0
Test Methods to remove inappropriate or outdated test methods such as
6.1.2 ARB Method 432 for paints and coatings, and 6.1.3 which refers to
an obsolete document superseded by EPA Method 204 for determining
capture efficiency (40 CFR 51). We recommend including EPA Test Method
21 (measurements of leaks) as referenced in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, Section
6.4 Test Methods, or SCAQMD Rule 1176, Section (h).
5. The SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT SIP Demonstration mentions that the
requirements in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, ``Components at Petroleum
Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and Chemical Plants'',
apply to oil-water separators. SJVUAPCD should include those
requirements directly in Rule 4625 or by reference to improve
enforceability, or demonstrate that this is not appropriate.
6. To ensure ongoing compliance and strengthen enforceability,
SJVUACPD should add to the rule requirements for inspections of covers,
access hatches and other openings and emissions control equipment,
along with recordkeeping requirements for inspections and testing or
demonstrate that this is not appropriate. For example, please see
SCAQMD Rule 1176, section (f) and (g).
7. SJVUAPCD should delete or justify exemption 4.1 for wastewater
separators exceeding a set value for a sump surface area to the rate of
oil vapor loss ratio. The only other rule where we found such exemption
is SCAQMD Rule 464 for Wastewater Separators; last amended December 7,
1990. This exemption is not found in the newer SCAQMD Rule 1176, ``VOC
Emissions from Wastewater Systems'', amended September 13, 1996, which
also addresses wastewater separators and which largely supersedes Rule
464.
Additional detailed information on the deficiencies listed above can be
found in the TSDs and proposed notice for this rulemaking (76 FR 298).
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
1. Sarah E. Jackson, Earthjustice; letter and email dated and
received February 2, 2011.
2. Samir Sheikh, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD); letter and email dated and received February 3, 2011.
The comments and our responses are summarized below.
Comment #1: Earthjustice generally supported EPA's analysis of
these rules and the deficiencies identified.
Response #1: No response required.
Comment #2: Earthjustice raised concerns regarding the inventory
associated with these rules and asserted that EPA should thoroughly
analyze the inventory. Earthjustice asserted that SJVUAPCD fails to
require related reporting as required by San Luis Obispo Rule 419, and
instead bases inventory estimates on an industry survey. Earthjustice
provided two inventory reports and asserted that SJVUAPCD uses an older
lower emission factor but does not justify the use of this lower
emission factor.
Response #2: Recordkeeping and reporting requirements must be
sufficient to ensure rule enforceability. Rule 4402 requirements are
sufficient for this purpose except for the deficiencies described in
paragraph A.2.d above. Nothing in San Luis Obispo Rule 419 or elsewhere
in the comment provides evidence of additional requirements necessary
for this purpose. Additional emissions inventory information, such as
for the clean produced water ponds, might clarify the importance of
additional controls from affected sources for overall SIP planning
purposes. However, such information is not needed to evaluate the
submitted rules with respect to rule enforceability, SIP relaxation and
RACT, the primary criteria at issue in this action.
Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that the District's inventory
excludes sumps containing ``clean produced water'' and that the
District allows a much higher VOC content in its clean water than other
districts allow, therefore the district could be failing to capture a
large source of emissions in its inventory.
Response #3: Additional emissions inventory information, such as
for the clean produced water ponds, might clarify whether additional
controls are needed for overall SIP planning purposes. However, such
information is not needed to evaluate the submitted rules with respect
to rule requirements, enforceability, SIP relaxation and RACT, the
primary criteria at issue in this action. We believe that the issue of
the higher VOC content allowed in Rule 4402 for ``clean produced
water'' is adequately addressed by the deficiency described in
paragraph I.A.1.d above.
Comment 4: Earthjustice supported EPA's request that SJVUAPCD
should ensure that the tanks that replace the primary sumps have
adequate VOC controls and requested that EPA keep this recommendation
in mind as it evaluates its options on the District's RACT SIP.
Response #4: No response required.
Comment #5: Earthjustice asserted that the rules identified by EPA
for comparison to the SJVUAPCD rules are quite old themselves and their
requirements may no longer represent the lowest emissions these sources
are capable of achieving with reasonable control technology. As a
result, Earthjustice asserted that an analysis of the cost
effectiveness of eliminating more open sumps should be prepared in
order to demonstrate compliance with RACT.
Response #5: The rules used for comparison are older rules, however
we are not aware of newer RACT controls likely to significantly reduce
emissions from these sources, and no other new technologies were
identified in the comment. In addition, paragraph I.A.1.d above directs
SJVUAPCD to examine potential additional RACT controls for open sumps.
Comment #6: SJVUACPD agreed that Rule 4402 imposes some
requirements that are similar to those found in other Districts, and
that Rule 4625 imposes requirements similar to the relevant CTG, NSPS
and MACT. SJVUAPCD further noted that rule language and test method
requirements could be updated because these rules were last amended in
1992.
Response #6: No response required.
Comment #7: SJVUAPCD commented that their rule requirements do not
need
[[Page 39780]]
to be changed simply because rules in other parts of California appear
more stringent. The District asserted that analogous requirements in
other agencies are not comparable to SJVUAPCD rules because the
affected sources are different. SJVUAPCD provided the example of crude
oil sumps, and stated that other California agencies have far fewer, if
any, sumps subject to the rules used for comparison with SJVUAPCD Rule
4402.
Response #7: SJVUAPCD must demonstrate that these rules fulfill CAA
RACT requirements. This demonstration should include comparison and
consideration of rules and guidance adopted elsewhere for analogous
sources. Our proposed action identified examples where SJVUAPCD did not
explain why more stringent requirements adopted in South Coast, Santa
Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo were not also reasonably available
in San Joaquin. While differences among affected sources may justify
different rule requirements, the comment did not provide support for
any specific differences among rule provisions. The comment stated that
other districts have far fewer, if any, sumps subject to the rules used
for comparison with SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. However, the comment did not
provide evidence for this statement and we do not believe it is
correct. For example, data provided by VCAPCD from their permits
database shows about 50 sumps in their relatively small district.\1\
Similarly, in informal discussions with CARB staff, they confirmed that
South Coast and Santa Barbara also have significant numbers of
sumps.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sumps Data from the VCAPCD Permit Database, received by EPA
from Stan Cowen via e-mail dated May 10, 2011, Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District.
\2\ Based on preliminary data collected for the ``CARB 2007 Oil
and Gas Industry Survey Results'', Draft Report, March 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: SJVUAPCD commented that the 2009 RACT SIP demonstration
showed that the cost effectiveness of additional emission controls far
exceeds RACT. The district acknowledged that EPA believes this analysis
is based on old cost estimates, but notes that even if true costs are
half as large, the resulting cost effectiveness would still be $32,000
per ton of VOC emissions reduced, which exceeds RACT.
Response #8: The 2009 RACT SIP demonstration for Rule 4402 provided
a cost analysis for a 5000 square foot (sf) second stage sump cover
based on a 1986 cost estimate from a Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District staff report.\3\ Our proposed action questioned
SJVUAPCD's reliance on this cost estimate because it is over 20 years
old, because it is the only cost estimate provided by SJVUAPCD, and
because other agencies have adopted more stringent regulations.\4\ Upon
further review of this cost effectiveness analysis in response to the
comment, we also note that it significantly underestimated potential
emission reductions, thus overestimating cost effectiveness.
Specifically, the analysis assumed 2 tons/year VOC emissions reduced
from controlling a 5000 sf second stage heavy crude oil sump. However,
SJVUAPCD currently estimates uncontrolled emissions from such sumps at
0.0412 lbs VOC/sf-day.\5\ Assuming 90% emission reductions from a
ridged floating cover (as required by Rule 4402 if not exempted in
section 4.1.3), we recalculate the emission reduction at 34 tons/year
at less than $4000/ton.\6\ This is well within the range of control
cost effectiveness that SJVUAPCD and other agencies routinely require
in prohibitory rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009), Rule 4402, page 4-
79.
\4\ See Section I.A.1.d above or 76 FR 298 Section II.C.1.d for
description of this deficiency.
\5\ SJVUAPCD: 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology,
310-Oil Production Fugitive Losses-Sumps and Pits, dated February 6,
2009, Table 7--Uncontrolled emission factors for oil sumps.
\6\ 5000 sf x 0.0412 lb/sfday x 365 day/yr x 2000 lb/ton x 90% =
33.8 ton/yr @$129,644 = $3836/ton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #9: SJVUAPCD commented that, in light of their large
workload, they are hesitant to divert resources to conduct work that is
not demonstrated to have significant potential for additional, cost-
effective emissions reductions.
Response #9: We appreciate this comment and acknowledge that the
District has limited resources and a substantial workload. We are
trying to be sensitive to this issue in our various interactions with
the District, including our actions on SIP rules such as these. We hope
that the analysis and rule revisions called for by this action will not
be unduly burdensome, though we believe they are needed to comply with
the CAA.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted
rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously
finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions
will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of
this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the
Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we
approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies
within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the
SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the
local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also does not
prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference
into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA
memo found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. 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 rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/
limited disapprovals 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
this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic
[[Page 39781]]
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).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 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
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that 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 limited approval/limited disapproval
action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated 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.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
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. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act
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
[[Page 39782]]
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). This rule will be effective on August 8, 2011.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 September 6, 2011. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
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)(351)(i)(C)(5) and
(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(351) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(5) Rule 4402, ``Crude Oil Production Sumps'', adopted on April 11,
1991 and amended December 17, 1992.
(6) Rule 4625, ``Wastewater Separators'', adopted on April 11, 1991
and amended December 17, 1992.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-16882 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P