[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