
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2609-2611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00643]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0781; FRL-9920-52-Region 9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions respectively concern 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum refinery 
coking operations, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary 
emissions from stationary combustion sources. We are approving local 
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on March 23, 2015 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2015. If we 
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0781, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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 on-line at 
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 
www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email directly to EPA, your email 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. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

[[Page 2610]]

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. 
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 
244-1810, shears.james@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they 
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency             Rule No.               Rule title                  Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.........................         1114  Petroleum Refinery Coking                   5/3/13         2/10/14
                                               Operations.
VCAPCD.........................           54  Sulfur Compounds..................         1/14/14         5/13/14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 5, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD, Rule 
1114, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which 
must be met before formal EPA review.
    On July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for VCAPCD, 
Rule 54, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, 
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is not an earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 1114. We approved an 
earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 54 into the SIP on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 
20913).

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

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SCAQMD Rule 1114 
addresses petroleum refinery coking operations and is designed to 
minimize VOC emissions generated during the delayed coking process. It 
requires that coke drums be depressurized to less than two psig prior 
to venting to atmosphere.
    Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an 
array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and 
increased asthma symptoms. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to 
submit regulations that control SO2 emissions. VCAPCD Rule 
54 limits emissions of sulfur compounds to the atmosphere from fossil 
fuel combustion in Ventura. The rule adds a .075 ppm 1-hour 
SO2 facility property line concentration limit consistent 
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated 
nationally in 2010. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) for SCAQMD 
and VCAPCD have more information about these various rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    40 CFR part 81 describes SCAQMD as regulating a non-attainment area 
classified as extreme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. VCAPCD is currently 
designated as being ``better than the national standards'' for the 1971 
NAAQS for SO2. Therefore, VCAPCD does not need to implement 
RACT at this time, but it must comply with enforceability and other CAA 
requirements for SO2. SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA 
section 110(a)(2), must not interfere with applicable requirements 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA 
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP 
control requirements in non-attainment areas without ensuring 
equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'', 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations'', EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies'', EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. 40 CFR 60.103a, ``Work Practice Standards'', EPA, July 1, 2011 
edition.
    5. Federal Register ``Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology 
Review and New Source Petroleum Standards; Proposed Rule'', EPA, 79 FR 
36879, June 30, 2014.
    6. 40 CFR 50.17, ``National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide), EPA, June 22, 2010.
    7. Method 100.1, ``Source Test Protocol for Determining Oxygen 
Corrected Pollutant Concentrations from Combustion Sources with High 
Stack Oxygen Content Based on Carbon Dioxide Emissions'', SCAQMD, March 
3, 2011.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The 
respective TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    We have no recommendations for SCAQMD Rule 1114 at this time. Our 
TSD for Rule 54 describes an additional revision that we recommend for 
the next time VCAPCD modifies the rule.

[[Page 2611]]

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we 
receive adverse comments by February 19, 2015, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on March 23, 2015. This will incorporate these 
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     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 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, 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 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 March 23, 2015. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
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 review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed 
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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)(441)(i)(C) and 
(c)(442)(i)(C) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (441) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 54, ``Sulfur Compounds,'' revised on January 14, 2014.
    (442) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1114, ``Petroleum Refinery Coking Operations,'' adopted on 
May 3, 2013.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00643 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


