Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2609 

relevant outcome (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), and includes a sample 

that overlaps with the populations or 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice. 

(ii) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards with reservations, 

found a statistically significant favorable 

impact on a relevant outcome (with no 

statistically significant and overriding 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse), includes a 

sample that overlaps with the 

populations or settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice, and includes a large sample 

and a multi-site sample. 

Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively 

meet the large and multi-site sample 

requirements as long as each study meets the 

other requirements in this paragraph. 

* * * * * 

Quasi-experimental design study 

means a study using a design that 

attempts to approximate an 

experimental design by identifying a 

comparison group that is similar to the 

treatment group in important respects. 

These studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations (but not What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards 

without reservations). 

* * * * * 

Randomized controlled trial means a 

study that employs random assignment 

of, for example, students, teachers, 

classrooms, schools, or districts to 

receive the intervention being evaluated 

(the treatment group) or not to receive 

the intervention (the control group). The 

estimated effectiveness of the 

intervention is the difference between 

the average outcomes for the treatment 

group and for the control group. These 

studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards 

without reservations. 

* * * * * 

Strong evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(i) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations, found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice, and 

includes a large sample and a multi-site 

sample. 

Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively 

meet the large and multi-site sample 

requirements as long as each study meets the 

other requirements in this paragraph. 

(ii) There are at least two studies of 

the effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed, 

each of which: Meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations, found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the studies or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice, and 

includes a large sample and a multi-site 

sample. 

* * * * * 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards means the standards set forth 

in the What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook 

(Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be 

found at the following link: http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–00463 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

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 online 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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Operations ................................................................ 5/3/13 2/10/14 

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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(441)(i)(C) and 

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

§ 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES