[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 11, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-11468] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: May 11, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 55 [FRL-4883-9] Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its decision not to change the corresponding onshore area (``COA'') designations for outer continental shelf (``OCS'') platforms Habitat, Henry, Hillhouse, Houchin, Hogan, and Union A, B, and C (collectively, the ``OCS platforms''). This decision on the reconsideration proceeding was proposed in the Federal Register on November 19, 1993. Pursuant to petitions filed by Unocal and Ventura, the reconsideration proceeding was convened on March 16, 1993 to determine whether the COA for the OCS platforms should be changed to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (``Ventura County APCD'' or ``VCAPCD''). The COA for these platforms is currently the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (``Santa Barbara County APCD'' or ``SBCAPCD'') as established in the final OCS rule promulgated September 4, 1992. The intended effect of this document is to finalize the designation of the Santa Barbara County APCD as the COA for the OCS platforms so that the sources can comply with the OCS air regulations (40 CFR part 55) by the September 4, 1994 compliance date. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on June 10, 1994. ADDRESSES: Material relevant to the COA designations for the OCS platforms listed above can be found in EPA docket A-91-76. This docket is available for public inspection and copying at the following locations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. These locations are open to the public Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. (415) 744-1197. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated the OCS rule (40 CFR part 55) in the Federal Register pursuant to section 328 of the Clean Air Act (the ``Act''). (57 FR 40792). The OCS rule established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in order to attain and maintain Federal and state ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the Act. The rule applies to all OCS sources located offshore of the United States except for those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. The Act requires new OCS sources (as defined in section 111(a)) to comply with the OCS rule immediately upon promulgation, and existing sources to comply 24 months thereafter, or by September 4, 1994. Pursuant to section 328, the requirements for sources located within 25 miles of a state's seaward boundary must be the same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. The Administrator designated the nearest onshore area (``NOA'') as the COA for all existing and proposed sources offshore of California in the preamble to the final rule.1 If an area other than the NOA desires to become the COA, that area must submit a request and make a demonstration pursuant to 40 CFR 55.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The COA designations were codified on March 16, 1993. 58 FR 14157. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 2 and 3, 1992, Union Oil Company of California, Pacific Operators, Inc. d.b.a. Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc., and Texaco Exploration and Production Inc. (collectively, ``Unocal'') and the Ventura County APCD filed petitions for reconsideration with EPA, asking EPA to reconsider the COA designations for the OCS platforms Habitat, Henry, Hillhouse, Houchin, Hogan, and Union A, B, and C. The Ventura County APCD and Unocal also filed petitions for review in the Courts of Appeal for the District of Columbia and the Ninth Circuits, but these cases have been stayed pending EPA's review of their petitions for reconsideration.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\Ventura County Air Pollution Control District v. U.S. EPA, No. 92-1572 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 3, 1992); Ventura County Air Pollution Control District v. U.S. EPA, No. 92-70730 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 1992); Union Oil Co. v. U.S. EPA, No. 92-1570 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 21, 1992); Union Oil Co. v. U.S. EPA, No. 70727 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 1992). In addition, the Santa Barbara County APCD filed a petition for review of the OCS rule in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District v. EPA, No. 92-1569 (D.C. Cir Nov. 2, 1992), and intervened in the four Unocal and Ventura County APCD actions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA granted the parties' requests for reconsideration on March 16, 1993. The parties agreed to a June 15, 1993 deadline for the submittal of a stringency analysis and any other relevant data by the Ventura County APCD and the Santa Barbara County APCD. Rules applicable to OCS sources that were already adopted by both the Ventura and Santa Barbara County APCDs as of September 4, 1992, the date of the OCS rule promulgation and the version of the rule to which the petition pertains, were to be used for the stringency comparison. EPA encouraged the parties to work together to reach consensus on as many issues as possible. The Santa Barbara County APCD agreed to submit any issues and information to EPA by June 15, as opposed to after EPA's proposal, to facilitate a timely resolution. On June 15, 1993, both the Ventura County APCD and the Santa Barbara APCD submitted the relevant information to EPA. Pursuant to Sec. 55.5 (b), the chief executive officer of an APCD, such as the Ventura County APCD, who believes that the District has more stringent air pollution control requirements than the NOA for a proposed OCS source, may submit a request to EPA for the APCD to be designated as the COA. The Ventura County APCD submitted such a request for the OCS platforms at issue. In order to substantiate its request, the Ventura County APCD, not being the NOA, must make a demonstration that: (1) The Ventura County APCD has more stringent requirements with respect to the control and abatement of air pollution than the Santa Barbara County APCD; (2) the emissions from the OCS platforms are or would be transported to the Ventura County APCD; and (3) the transported emissions would affect the Ventura County APCD's effort to attain or maintain a Federal or state ambient air quality standard or to comply with the requirements of part C of title I of the Act, taking into account the effect of air pollution control requirements that would be imposed if the Santa Barbara County APCD were designated as the COA. Sec. 55.5(b)(2). EPA examined the material submitted by the Ventura County APCD and the Santa Barbara County APCD regarding EPA's COA designation for the OCS platforms at issue. The submittal was evaluated on a rule by rule basis comparing the rules' requirements, standards, and exemptions. A copy of this evaluation is contained in the Technical Support Document (TSD) dated September 24, 1993. In response to comments, EPA has prepared a supplement to the TSD dated February 23, 1994. After review of the submitted analyses, EPA determined that Ventura County did not demonstrate that the Ventura County APCD's requirements are more stringent with respect to the control of air pollutants than those of the Santa Barbara County APCD. For this reason, EPA is finalizing the decision not to change the OCS platform COA designations. Response to Public Comments A 30-day public comment period was provided in the proposed action to deny Ventura APCD's request to be designated the COA. 58 FR 61041. EPA received comments from the Ventura County APCD, the Santa Barbara County APCD, Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc. and Unocal. These comments and the responses are summarized below: 1. Ground Rules To Be Used for the Stringency Analysis 1-1. Comment: EPA violated and ignored its own established ground rules for the stringency determination by relying on Santa Barbara's interpretation of Rule 331. EPA established ground rules for the stringency analysis that among other things established the requirement that actual rule language must be used to determine which agencies' rules would result in greater emission reductions, and that innovative interpretations would not be allowed. Response: EPA disagrees that it violated established ground rules for the analysis. EPA established the following requirements for the reconsideration proceedings: (1) The criteria outlined in 40 CFR 55.5 must be used; and (2) the date of September 4, 1992 should be used for rule comparisons. Section 55.5 states that the area requesting to be designated the COA in place of the NOA must demonstrate that: a. The area has more stringent requirements with respect to the control and abatement of air pollution than the NOA; b. The emissions from the source are or would be transported to the requesting area; and c. The transported emissions would affect the requesting area's efforts to attain or maintain a Federal or state ambient air quality standard or to comply with the requirements of part C of title I of the Act, taking into account the effect of air pollution control requirements that would be imposed if the NOA were designated as the COA. At the request of the Ventura County APCD, EPA Region 9 hosted a meeting of interested parties on March 4, 1993. EPA reiterated at that time the 3 regulatory criteria of Sec. 55.5 that Ventura County must meet to have the Ventura County APCD designated the COA for the eight (8) platforms in question. Other issues discussed included: (1) The rules to be evaluated in the stringency comparison would be those adopted by the Districts as of September 4, 1992 (the rules actually on the books at the time of promulgation). EPA did not impose any requirements that limited the stringency analysis to a rule's ``actual language'' and the issue of regulatory interpretation was not discussed. (2) The inclusion/exclusion of modifications, proposed modifications, and future/hypothesized modifications was discussed. (3) Ventura County and Santa Barbara County APCDs were to reach an agreement on workable emission factors. (4) A schedule was discussed for gathering and submitting the necessary information for the reconsideration. In conclusion, EPA set only 2 ``ground rules'': the criteria of 40 CFR 55.5 must be used, and rules adopted by the Districts as of September 4, 1992 should be compared. There was no requirement limiting the stringency analysis to a rule's actual language. 1-2. Comment: EPA selected a cut off date for rule comparison which coincided with the promulgation of the final rule, September 4, 1992. By fixing this date instead of the December 5, 1991 promulgation of the proposed rule additional Santa Barbara County rules qualified for inclusion in the stringency analysis. Response: The parties asked EPA which date should be used for the stringency analysis. EPA set September 4, 1992. This date was not chosen to include or exclude specific rules but rather was chosen because it was the date of promulgation of the final OCS rule. Neither party objected to that date at the time it was selected. If the December 5, 1991 date had been chosen, the following rule revisions from both districts would not have been included: SBCAPCD: Rule 331, Fugitive Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (Adopted 12/ 10/91) Rule 333, Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (Adopted 12/10/91) VCAPCD: Rule 71.1, Crude Oil Production and Separation (Adopted 6/16/92) Rule 74.10, Components at Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production Processing Facilities (Adopted 6/16/92) 2. Quantification of Emissions 2-1. Comment: EPA failed to quantify emissions reductions. The basis of EPA's analysis is simply a rule by rule comparison between the Santa Barbara and Ventura County rules, versus an analysis on a platform by platform basis that shows actual emission reductions. Response: Neither section 328 of the Act nor 40 CFR 55.5 requires EPA to specifically quantify emission reductions. Pursuant to 40 CFR 55.5, VCAPCD had to demonstrate that: (1) It had more stringent air pollution requirements than SBCAPCD; (2) the emissions from the source are or would be transported to VCAPCD; and (3) the transported emissions would affect the VCAPCD's effort to attain or maintain a Federal or state ambient air quality standard or to comply with the requirements of part C of title I of the Act, taking into account the effect of air pollution control requirements that would be imposed if the NOA were designated as the COA. EPA received a stringency analysis from VCAPCD and SBCAPCD, and reviewed both of the submittals in detail. After review of the Districts' submittals, EPA conducted an independent rule analysis that compared the rules' standards, requirements, and exemptions to determine if VCAPCD's requirements were more stringent than SBCAPCD. EPA also requested SBCAPCD to submit additional information on its Rule 331, and provided VCAPCD an opportunity to also submit additional information on SBCAPCD Rule 331. Based on its independent rule analysis, EPA concluded that for all the requirements found to be applicable by VCAPCD, none were more stringent than the SBCAPCD. As a result of EPA's conclusion that VCAPCD's requirements were not more stringent, it was not necessary in this case for EPA to quantify emission reductions at each platform. 2-2. Comment: EPA did not quantify emission differences in real terms between the districts' fugitive emissions and architectural coatings rules. Response: As stated above, because EPA found the VCAPCD's rules were not more stringent than SBCAPCD's rules when comparing each element of the rules, a further quantitative analysis was not required. A detailed analysis of both Districts' fugitive emissions rules is included in the TSD. In response to comments, EPA again reviewed the exemption provisions of the Districts' fugitive emissions rules and concluded that VCAPCD's inspection requirements, leak thresholds, and exemptions are not more stringent than SBCAPCD's fugitive emission rule. Therefore, VCAPCD's rule would not have resulted in greater reductions. VCAPCD's analysis found that there is no difference in the Districts' architectural coatings rules. Although EPA's rule comparison showed the rules are substantiallly similar, SBCAPCD has lower limits for some coatings. Based on this analysis, EPA properly determined that the VCAPCD rules are not more stringent. EPA did not need to quantify the difference in reductions to make that determination. 3. Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 331-Fugitive Emissions Inspection and Maintenance 3-1. Comment: EPA erred in adopting Santa Barbara's administrative interpretation of the scope of the application of Rule 331, Fugitive Emissions Inspection and Maintenance. Response: EPA received opposing interpretations of SBCAPCD's rule 331 in the initial analyses submitted by the Districts. First, VCAPCD contended that SBCAPCD's Rule 331 does not cover venting of emissions; and second, SBCAPCD interpreted its rule to cover venting. EPA requested that SBCAPCD support its interpretation, and on August 30, 1993, the Santa Barbara County Counsel submitted an interpretation of Rule 331 on behalf of the SBCAPCD. On September 9, 1993, the Ventura County Counsel submitted a different interpretation of the rule on behalf of the VCAPCD. After careful consideration of the two positions, EPA determined that SBCAPCD's interpretation of its own rule was reasonable and consistent with the Act, and therefore, concluded that deference to Santa Barbara's reasonable interpretation of its own rule was appropriate. 3-2. Comment: The TSD failed to mention the letter from Ventura County Counsel on behalf of the Ventura County APCD, explaining why EPA should not and need not follow Santa Barbara's interpretation. Response: Failure to mention Ventura County Counsel's letter in the TSD was simply an oversight. It was, however, included in the docket upon its receipt. Moreover, as stated above, EPA carefully reviewed the letter from Ventura County Counsel. EPA decided to defer to SBCAPCD's interpretation of Rule 331 because it was consistent with the language of the rule and the Act, and was a reasonable interpretation. 3-3. Comment: If Rule 331 has the ability to regulate venting as claimed by Santa Barbara County Counsel, why is the SBCAPCD currently seeking the adoption of Rule 325 (which states ``emissions of produced gas shall be controlled at all times'')? Response: EPA does not know the District's intentions. However, Federal, state, and local agencies often revise existing rules and adopt new provisions to clarify the intent of the existing rules. In any event, the critical issue is whether VCAPCD has shown that its rules are more stringent than SBCAPCD's rules. Based on EPA's analysis, as reflected in the response to comments, VCAPCD did not make such a showing. 3-4. Comment: In EPA's TSD, EPA concludes that VCAPCD's exemption provisions in its fugitive emissions rule appear to be more stringent than SBCAPCD's rule exemption requirements (i.e. the VCAPCD provision would result in greater emission reductions). This is not the case. SBCAPCD's fugitive emissions rule allows fewer components to be exempt than Ventura's rule. In addition, exempted components are still subject to other control requirements of SBCAPCD Rule 331 (e.g., capping of open-ended lines, repair of leakers, leak threshold requirements) while components exempted under Ventura Rule 74.10 are exempted from all rule requirements. Response: The commenter is correct. The TSD should have read that VCAPCD's rule's exemption requirements do not appear to be more stringent than the provisions in SBCAPCD's rule. The supplemental TSD has been revised to reflect this correction.VCAPCD's rule's exemption requirements do not control as many components and thus are not more stringent than the provisions in SBCAPCD's rule. VCAPCD's Rule 74.10 exempts: (1) Components, not at natural gas processing plants, with gaseous streams with ROC concentrations of 12% by weight or less. (2) Any component at a natural gas processing plant with gaseous streams with ROC concentrations, less the ethane concentration, equal to or less than 1% by weight. (3) Components, except for components at natural gas processing plants, in liquid service, with ROC concentrations of 12% by weight or less. SBCAPCD's Rule 331 exempts: (1) Components exclusively handling natural gas. (Natural gas by the District's rule definition is a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons, with at least 80 percent methane, and less than one percent of ROC, on a weight basis, excluding ethane, determined according to specified test methods.) (2) Components buried below ground. (3) One-half inch and smaller stainless steel tube fittings which have been determined to be leak-free by the Control Officer based on an initial inspection in accordance with the test method section. 3-5. Comment: The exemption element of the fugitive emission rules may be the most significant element of the rule since that determines whether the rules apply at all. Response: As stated and outlined above, the exemptions in both Districts' fugitive emissions rules were thoroughly evaluated. 3.6. Comment: EPA seemingly gives the edge to Santa Barbara's fugitive hydrocarbon emission rule even though Ventura's rule results in a greater reduction of approx. 67 tons per year (t/y) ROC (reactive organic compounds). Response: The commenter misstates the conclusion of VCAPCD's stringency submittal. The 67 t/y difference was not based on this one rule; rather the VCAPCD stringency submittal contained a comparative analysis of all VCAPCD and SBCAPCD requirements and stated that application of all of VCAPCD's rules would result in a reduction of 67 t/y more than application of the SBCAPCD rules. However, when evaluating individual rules such as VCAPCD's fugitive emissions rule against SBCAPCD's fugitive emissions rule, EPA concluded that SBCAPCD's rule has more stringent requirements for inspection practices, leak thresholds, and exemptions, and would not result in less emission reductions than VCAPCD's rule. 4. Marine Loading Rule 4-1. Comment: EPA neglected to recognize that the difference in VOC emission reductions caused by the difference between Ventura and Santa Barbara marine vessel loading requirements is insignificant (0.07 tons per year) when compared to the overall difference in VOC emissions found when all Ventura and Santa Barbara requirements are compared (67.4 tons per year). 4-2. Comment: A simplistic comparison of rule language will bias the results if equal weight is given to both insignificant and significant rules. EPA apparently gives Santa Barbara full credit for having a marine loading rule in place, yet the rule only results in a reduction of 0.07 t/y ROC. Response: EPA evaluated the marine vessel loading requirements because VCAPCD included a review of those requirements in the stringency analysis. EPA analyzed all rules submitted to it by VCAPCD and SBCAPCD. If this requirement and the reductions from this requirement are not significant, VCAPCD could have omitted it from its stringency analysis. According to VCAPCD's analysis, a marine loading rule would apply to OCS sources. Moreover, SBCAPCD has a marine loading rule but VCAPCD does not. EPA's evaluation showed that SBCAPCD's marine loading rule did apply to OCS sources and VCAPCD did not have a marine loading rule. Therefore, for sources subject to the marine loading rule, VCAPCD's requirements are not more stringent. As stated in response to comment 2-1, EPA did not attach ``credit'' or ``weight'' to the rules. The analyses submitted by both VCAPCD and SBCAPCD were reviewed in detail by comparing the rules' standards, requirements, and exemptions, which allowed EPA to determine which District's requirements are more stringent. Since EPA determined that none of Ventura's rules evaluated were more stringent, there was no need to assign credit or weight to the rules. 5. Oil Drilling Operations 5-1. Comment: EPA disregarded Ventura's application of its oilfield drilling requirements to drilling engines while they are being used for operations that are not specifically listed in the rule's definition of ``Drilling Operations.'' Response: EPA has re-evaluated this issue by consulting with VCAPCD, Texaco, and Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc. on the type of drilling rigs on platforms Habitat, Hogan, and Houchin. After consultation and review of the types of drilling rigs on the platforms, EPA concluded that the drilling rigs in question were defined as vehicular rigs and would not be subject to VCAPCD Rule 74.16 by definition. 5-2. EPA gives Santa Barbara full credit for a stricter architectural coating rule without investigating if such coatings are actually used, yet denies Ventura credit for a more restrictive diesel internal combustion (I.C.) engine rule because, in EPA's opinion, there are currently no drilling activities offshore which could be regulated under Ventura's rule. In our opinion, this biased mistreatment demonstrates the need to return to a quantification method of comparing rules. Response: There was no ``biased mistreatment.'' EPA evaluated all the information contained in VCAPCD's stringency analysis. First, the architectural coatings rule was listed in VCAPCD's analysis as an applicable requirement. EPA reviewed that requirement and determined that although VCAPCD's stringency analysis stated VCAPCD and SBCAPCD rules are equivalent, SBCAPCD's rule has lower limits for some coatings. Second, the Stationary Internal Combustion Engines rule and Oilfield Drilling Operations rule were listed in VCAPCD's analysis as applicable requirements. EPA reviewed the requirements and determined that the Stationary I.C. Engines rule does apply but the Oilfield Drilling Operations rule did not apply. VCAPCD's analysis listed two rules applicable to diesel I.C. engines: a) 74.9, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines and b) 74.16, Oilfield Drilling Operations. According to VCAPCD's analysis, Rule 74.9 does not set emission limits for diesel engines (non-drilling), while SBCAPCD's Rule 333 (Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) limits NOx emissions from diesel engines (non-drilling) to 797 ppmV (corrected to 15% oxygen). All other requirements in the rules are equivalent. VCAPCD's analysis also states that if Rule 74.16 (Oilfield Drilling Operations) was applied, greater reductions would be achieved when compared to SBCAPCD's Rule 333. VCAPCD's analysis asserted that two engines on platform Habitat (Texaco), one engine on Hogan (Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc.), and one engine on Houchin (Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc.) would be subject to the rule. Again, after consultation with VCAPCD, Texaco, and Pacific Operators, Inc., EPA determined that by definition these engines on Habitat, Hogan, and Houchin would not be subject to Rule 74.16. In conclusion, VCAPCD does not have a more restrictive diesel I.C. engine rule because: (1) For Oilfield Drilling Operations, VCAPCD's Rule 74.16 does not apply to the drilling engines on the three platforms; and (2) For stationary I.C. engines, VCAPCD's Rule 74.9 does not set limits for non-drilling diesel engines and the other requirements of the rule are equivalent to SBCAPCD's Rule 333. 6. Other 6-1. Comment: EPA disregarded Ventura's submittal regarding the relative stringency of the districts' New Source Review (NSR) rules- rules that could generate significant emission reductions. Response: EPA did not disregard VCAPCD's submittal. In fact, VCAPCD stated in its submittal that no major projects are budgeted at this time on the platforms, and the future difference in emissions caused by the difference between the NSR requirements of VCAPCD and SBCAPCD cannot be quantified. In addition to the fact that these rules do not appear to be applicable in the near future, it would be very difficult to determine the relative stringency of NSR rules. NSR rules do not involve specific limitations or standards, but are applied on a case by case basis. Based on this information, EPA did not review the requirements of the NSR rules. 6-2. Comment: The decision proposed in the November 19, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking seems not to be based on sound scientific or technical analysis. Response: EPA's decision was based on a detailed technical analysis of the VCAPCD and SBCAPCD rule requirements, which is set forth in the TSD, and additional analysis in response to comments to the proposed action to deny VCAPCD's request to be designated the COA for the OCS platforms. 6-3. Comment: EPA's decision will cause a dual agency jurisdiction for Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc. facilities, with the onshore plant being regulated by Ventura County, and the offshore platforms being regulated by Santa Barbara County. EPA should not financially damage a small business operator, further weaken the local and California economies, and further increase U.S. dependency on foreign oil, regarding an issue that has little or no air quality impact on the county EPA is currently designating as the COA. Response: In determining the COA for the OCS platforms, EPA followed the requirements of section 328 of the Act and 40 CFR 55.5. The Act addressed only air quality concerns with regard to redesignation of a COA for an OCS source, and not the relationship to onshore facilities. Many companies onshore also have facilities in multiple locations, thereby having to comply with different local requirements. 6-4. Comment: Santa Barbara's overall enforcement capabilities have recently been questioned by David Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxics Div. of EPA in a letter dated June 11, 1993. Response: This issue has no bearing on the stringency analysis. The reference correspondence was in response to the District's proposed reorganization plans. EPA expressed concern that the reorganization might jeopardize the District's ability to comply with the Federal law due to a possible reduction in staff and resources. The letter did not reflect any specific allegations of current failure to enforce in Santa Barbara County. However, if a District fails to enforce the requirements of the Act, EPA has the authority to take independent enforcement action. EPA Action EPA has evaluated the comments received and is reaffirming the following OCS platform COA designations as provided in the final rule. The designated COA shall remain the COA for the lifetime of each source: Platform A: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform B: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform C: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform Habitat: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform Henry: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform Hillhouse: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform Hogan: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Platform Houchin: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer continental shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7627). Dated: May 4, 1994. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. [FR Doc. 94-11468 Filed 5-10-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F