# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District et al.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6391

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** March 21, 1994

## Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OAQPS CA 13-13-6194; FRL-4852-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District et al.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which
concern the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
crude oil production wells where production has been enhanced by steam
injection, and during the transfer of organic liquids between storage
units and delivery vessels. The intended effect of proposing limited
approval and limited disapproval of these rules is to regulate
emissions of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA's final action on this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) will incorporate these rules into
the federally approved SIP. EPA has evaluated each of these rules and
is proposing a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval
under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA actions on SIP submittals and
general rulemaking authority because these revisions, while
strengthening the SIP, also do not fully meet the CAA provisions
regarding plan submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking
Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions
are also available for inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, suite #200, Fresno, CA 93721.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 ``M'' Street,
Suite 290, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3),
Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being acted on in this document are: San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 465.1, Steam-
Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well Vents; Kern County Air Pollution
Control District (KCAPCD) Rule 411.1, Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil
Production Well Vents; and South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 462, Organic Liquid Loading. These rules were submitted
by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on January 28,
1992, May 30, 1991, and May 13, 1991, respectively.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977
(1977 CAA or pre-amended act), that included the Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin, and the San Joaquin Valley Area which encompassed the
following eight air pollution control districts (APCDs): Fresno County
APCD, Kern County APCD,1 Kings County APCD, Madera County APCD,
Merced County APCD, San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus County APCD,
and Tulare County APCD. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. Because some of
these areas were unable to meet the statutory attainment date of
December 31, 1982, California requested under section 172(a)(2), and
EPA approved, an extension of the attainment date to December 31,
1987.2 40 CFR 52.238. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor
of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act,
that the portions of the California SIP associated with the SCAQMD and
the above districts were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone
standard, and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be
corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399,
codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the requirement that
nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a deadline of May 15,
1991 for states to submit corrections of those deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\At that time, Kern County included portions of two air
basins: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Southeast Desert
Air Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County
was designated as nonattainment, and the Southeast Desert Air Basin
portion of Kern County was designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR
81.305 (1991).
\2\This extension was not requested for the following counties:
Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date
for these counties remained December 31, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 20, 1991, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) was formed. The SJVUAPCD has authority over
the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which includes all of the above eight
counties except for the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Kern
County. Thus, Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) still
exists, but only has authority over the Southeast Desert Air Basin
portion of Kern County.
Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment
prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or
above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and
correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as
interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.3 EPA's SIP-Call used that
guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific
nonattainment areas. The South Coast Air Basin is classified as
extreme, and the San Joaquin Valley Area is classified as serious.
Therefore, the SCAQMD and the APCDs found in the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin (now collectively known as the SJVUAPCD) were subject to the RACT
fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.4 KCAPCD was
subject to EPA's SIP-Call, but was not subject to the RACT fix-up
requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control
technique guidelines (CTGs).
\4\The SCAQMD and the SJVUAPCD retained their designations of
nonattainment and were classified by operation of law pursuant to
section 107(d) and section 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991).
\5\KCAPCD was not subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the
May 15, 1991 deadline because the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion
of Kern County was not a pre-enactment nonattainment area, and thus,
was not automatically designated nonattainment on the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. (See section
107(d) and section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.) However, the KCAPCD is still subject to the requirements of
EPA's SIP-Call because the SIP-Call included all of Kern County. The
substantive requirements of the SIP-Call are the same as those of
the statutory RACT fix-up requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State of California submitted many revised rules to EPA for
incorporation into its SIP on May 13, 1991, May 30, 1991 and January
28, 1992, including the rules being acted on in this document. This
document addresses EPA's proposed action for the following rules:
SJVUAPCD Rule 465.1, adopted by the SJVUAPCD on September 19, 1991;
KCAPCD Rule 411.1, adopted by the KCAPCD on May 6, 1991; and SCAQMD
Rule 462, adopted by the SCAQMD on December 7, 1990. SJVUAPCD Rule
465.1 was determined to be complete on April 3, 1992, and KCAPCD Rule
411.1 and SCAQMD Rule 462 were determined to be complete on July 10,
1991 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40
CFR part 51, appendix V6 and are being proposed for limited
approval and limited disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\EPA adopted completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55 FR
5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the
criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SJVUAPCD Rule 465.1 and KCAPCD Rule 411.1 control the emission of
VOCs from crude oil production wells where production has been enhanced
by steam injection. SCAQMD Rule 462 controls emissions of VOCs during
the transfer of organic liquids between storage tanks and delivery
vessels. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and
smog. These rules were originally adopted as part of the districts'
efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone and have been revised in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the
section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation
and proposed action for these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 3. Among those provisions
is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the
implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This
requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
documents which specify the minimum requirements that a rule must
contain in order to be approved into the SIP. The CTGs are based on the
underlying requirements of the Act and specify the presumptive norms
for what is RACT for specific source categories. Under the CAA,
Congress ratified EPA's use of these documents, as well as other Agency
policy, for requiring States to ``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See
section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG documents applicable to SCAQMD Rule 462,
Organic Liquid Loading, are entitled: Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank
Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals, EPA-450/2-77-026; Control of Volatile
Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection
Systems, EPA-450/2-78-051; and Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Bulk Gasoline Plants, EPA-450/2-77-035. For some source
categories, such as steam-enhanced crude oil production wells, EPA did
not publish a CTG. In such cases, the District will make a
determination of what controls are required to satisfy the RACT
requirement, by reviewing the operations of facilities with the
affected source category. In that review, the technological and
economic feasibility of the proposed controls were considered.
Additionally, for both CTG and non-CTG categories, the Districts may
rely on EPA policy documents, such as the Blue Book, to ensure that VOC
rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
SJVUAPCD Rule 465.1, Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well
Vents, is a revision of current SIP approved rules from two of the
eight districts which combined to form SJVUAPCD. The two SIP approved
rules are Fresno Rule 413.1, Steam Drive Well Vents--Crude Oil
Production, and Kern Rule 411.1, Steam Drive Wells--Crude Oil
Production.
SJVUAPCD Rule 465.1 and KCAPCD's submitted Rule 411.1 are nearly
identical. These rules contain the following revisions from the current
SIP rules:
1. Added definitions, recordkeeping, and test methods.
2. Deleted emissions averaging and emissions offsetting.
3. Added limited exemptions and an allowable leak schedule.
4. Revised compliance schedules.
KCAPCD Rule 411.1 also specifies a more stringent emissions
reduction requirement than its current SIP rule.
SCAQMD Rule 462, Organic Liquid Loading, contains the following
significant changes from the current SIP rule:
1. Added definitions and recordkeeping requirements.
2. Deleted Executive Officer discretion in approving equivalent
control systems.
3. Added more stringent loading requirements and organic vapor
emissions limit.
EPA has evaluated these rules for consistency with the CAA, EPA
regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions address
and correct many deficiencies previously identified by EPA. These
corrected deficiencies have resulted in clearer, more enforceable
rules. Furthermore, the addition of more stringent standards in KCAPCD
submitted Rule 411.1 and SCAQMD Rule 462 should lead to more emission
reductions.
Although these rules will strengthen the SIP, they still contain
deficiencies which were required to be corrected pursuant to the
section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of part D of the CAA. SJVUAPCD Rule
465.1 and KCAPCD 411.1 have similar deficiencies associated with lack
of clarity in specifying rule applicability, an unapprovable provision
which exempts equipment modifications from New Source Review, and
insufficient recordkeeping requirements. SCAQMD Rule 462 lacks clarity
in specifying source applicability, and references unapproved and
insufficient test methods. A detailed discussion of rule deficiencies
can be found in the Technical Support Document for each rule which is
available from the U.S. EPA, Region IX office. Because of these
deficiencies, the rules are not fully approvable pursuant to the
section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA because they are not consistent with
the interpretation of section 172 of the 1977 CAA as found in the Blue
Book and may lead to rule enforceability problems.
Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval
of these rules under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the
submitted rules are not composed of separable parts which meet all the
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval
of the rules under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited
approval of the submitted rules under section 110(k)(3) in light of
EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval
is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited
disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited
approval of SJVUAPCD Rule 465.1, KCAPCD Rule 411.1, and SCAQMD 462
under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of
these rules because they contain deficiencies that have not been
corrected as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,
the rules do not fully meet the requirements of part D of the Act.
Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission
under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in
section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions
available to the Administrator: Highway funding and offsets. The 18
month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective
date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final
disapproval triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rules covered by this
NPR have been adopted by SJVUAPCD, KCAPCD and SCAQMD, and are currently
in effect in those districts. EPA's limited disapproval action in this
NPR does not prevent SJVUAPCD, KCAPCD, SCAQMD or EPA from enforcing
these rules.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Limited approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part
D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, it does not
have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
EPA's limited disapproval of the State request under sections 110
and 301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval
of the state submittal does not affect its state enforceability.
Moreover, EPA's limited disapproval of the submittal does not impose
any new federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
limited disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements nor does it impose any new federal requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future notice will inform the general public of
these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of two
years. EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2
and Table 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the waiver until
such time as it rules on EPA's request. This request continues in
effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order
12291 on September 30, 1993.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: March 8, 1994.
John Wise,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-6391 Filed 3-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6391. Public record. Not legal advice.