SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix B: EPA Documents December 15, 2011 

B - 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 

APPENDIX B 

Federal Register Notice 

And 

EPA Technical Support Document (TSD) 

December 15, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

APPENDIX B: EPA Documents December 15, 2011 

 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 B - 2

This page intentionally blank. 
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 39777 

• 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 the 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, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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 rules 

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 

these actions must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 6, 

2011. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

these final rules 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. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 23, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 2. Section 52.977 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.977 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination to Terminate the 

Clean Air Act Section 185 Penalty Fee 

Requirement. Effective September 6, 

2011 EPA has determined that the State 

of Louisiana is no longer required to 

submit a section 185 fee program State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment 

area to satisfy anti-backsliding 

requirements for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. This determination is based 

on EPA’s determination that the area 

has attained the 1-hour ozone standard 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16881 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0907; FRL–9428–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollutions Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on January 4, 2011 and 

concerns volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from crude oil 

production operations and refineries. 

Under authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this 

action simultaneously approves local 

rules that regulate these emission 

sources and directs California to correct 

rule deficiencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on August 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0907 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: 

Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our,’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On January 4, 2011 (76 FR 298), EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the following rules that 

were submitted for incorporation into 

the California SIP. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
39778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps ................................................. 12/17/92 08/24/07 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4625 Wastewater Separators .......................................................... 12/17/92 08/24/07 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that these rules 

improve the SIP and are largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions conflict with 

section 110 and part D of the Act. These 

provisions include the following: 

A. Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production 

Sumps 

1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these 

requirements to help implement RACT 

or demonstrate why such improvements 

are not appropriate in light of analogous 

requirements in neighboring districts. 

a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap 

and does not require seals for rigid 

floating covers. In contrast, SCAQMD 

Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and SLOCAPCD 

Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid floating 

covers to have seals, the gap cannot 

exceed 1⁄8′′ for a cumulative length of 

95% of the perimeter, and no single gap 

may exceed 1⁄2 inch. 

b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers 

to be equipped with a pressure/vacuum 

valve set to within ten percent of 

maximum safe working pressure. In 

contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) 

and (6)(A) and SBCAPCD Rule 344 

D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be 

equipped with a 95% efficient Air 

Pollution Control (APC) device. 

c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic 

inspection of covers and APC 

equipment to ensure proper operation. 

In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(f)(1)(C) 

requires periodic leak inspection and 

APC testing. 

d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are 

more broad than those found in other 

districts rules. SJVUAPCD should 

analyze whether these exemptions 

continue to be appropriate. This 

analysis should consider more current 

cost data than used in the 2009 RACT 

Analysis, and should consider 

alternative disposal methods (e.g., 

underground injection, tanks, or 

additional pretreatment) in addition to 

sump and pond covers. The following 

exemptions are of particular concern: 

• Uncontrolled VOC emissions from 

exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps. 

Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less 

than 6000 barrels per day with sumps 

less than 1000 sf and section 4.1.3 

exempts operations less than 300 barrels 

per day with sumps less than 5000 sf 

from substantive requirements. No other 

neighboring districts allow exemptions 

for small producers except for 

SBCAPCD Rule 344, and the exemption 

in Santa Barbara’s rule is more 

restrictive than the exemptions found in 

Rule 4402. 

• Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of 

‘‘clean produced water’’ with less than 

35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402 

requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD 

Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 

C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4 

exempt wastewater sumps only where 

the VOC/ROC content does not exceed 

5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern 

are VOC emissions from the ponds that 

initially receive the oily wastewater 

from oil production facilities. 

Alternatives including additional 

pretreatment to lower the VOC content 

and other disposal methods such as 

underground injection should be 

evaluated. 

e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time 

that oil or oily water can be kept in an 

emergency pit. In contrast, SLOCAPCD 

Rule 419 C.2 requires clean-up to begin 

within 24 hours and finish within 15 

days. 

f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. 

In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 and 

VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the 

operation of 1st stage sumps. 

g. Provisions should be added in Rule 

4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic 

Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to 

replace the 1st stage crude oil sumps 

have adequate VOC controls. 

2. The following revisions are needed 

to improve rule clarity and 

enforceability consistent with CAA 

section 110(a). 

a. Please remove the language at the 

end of Section 5.3 that states ‘‘If 

replacement tank exclusively serves 

identical function of sump replaced, 

permitting of such tank shall not be 

considered an emission change for the 

purposes of Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Source Review Rule)’’. Any 

exemptions to NSR requirements should 

be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD’s 

NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and 

incorporated within the NSR program 

only if appropriate. Such exemptions 

should not be in source-specific 

prohibitory rules like Rule 4402. 

b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to 

remove and/or replace inappropriate or 

outdated test methods such as 6.2.1 

ARB Method 432, which is designed for 

paints and coatings and not oily 

wastewater. We also recommend adding 

EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for 

determining leaks. 

c. Update the definition of clean 

product water (Section 3.1) replacing 

outdated EPA Test Methods 4.13.2, 

418.2 and 8240 that used CFC–113 as 

the extraction solvent. The new test 

methods using non-CFC extraction 

solvents are EPA Method 1664A and 

EPA Method 8260. 

d. Please revise section 6.1 

(Recordkeeping) to: 

• Add requirement for facilities to 

keep records of all inspections for leaks 

and testing of APC devices (for example, 

see SCAQMD Rule 1176(g)(1)). 

• Add requirement to document use 

of emergency pits, including when use 

started, clean-up started and clean-up 

finished. 

• Require documentation justifying 

any exemptions claimed under section 

4, including 4.1.7, which exempts pits 

and ponds. 

• Add requirements to verify the 

sump surface area and the annual 

production rates for both the small 

producers and very small producers in 

section 6.1.1. 

• Add requirement to keep all records 

for at least two, and preferably five 

years. 

B. Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators 

The following revisions are needed to 

improve rule clarity, enforceability, and 

to strengthen requirements to help 

implement RACT. 

1. The December 1992 amendment 

added exemption 4.3, which reads ‘‘For 

existing facilities, if an incineration 

device is added or modified for the sole 

purpose of complying with the 

requirements of this rule, such a device 

shall be exempt from the Best Available 

Control Technology and the Offset 

requirements of Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review 

Rule)’’. This exemption should be 

removed from Rule 4625. Any 

exemptions to NSR requirements should 

be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD’s 

NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and 

incorporated within the NSR program 

only if appropriate. Such exemptions 

should not be in source-specific 

prohibitory rules like Rule 4625. 

2. SJVUAPCD has not adequately 

demonstrated that Rule 4625 currently 

implements RACT because RACT can 

change over time as control technology 

improves and/or becomes more 

available. More stringent requirements 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 39779 

exist in the NSPS (1988), NESHAP 

(1995), BAAQMD Rule 8–8 (1993) and 

SCAQMD 1176 (1996). These 

regulations have requirements for 

stricter VOC controls (see, e.g., 95% 

requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1176, 

section (e)(2)(A)(ii) and (e)(6)), 

additional design requirements for 

controlling fugitive emissions or 

breathing losses (see, e.g., BAAQMD 

Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4), and 

additional requirements for inspections 

and maintenance (see, e.g., BAAQMD 

Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4 and 

302.6). 

3. The exemption for air flotation 

units precludes regulation of potentially 

significant VOC sources (section 4.2). 

Even though these sources are currently 

regulated via District permit conditions, 

SJVUAPCD should subject them to SIP 

requirements as part of Rule 4625 or 

demonstrate why that is not necessary. 

There is no specific allowance in the 

CTG or other guidance documents for 

exempting air flotation units from 

regulation and no other California air 

district rules include such an 

exemption. 

4. To improve enforceability, 

SJVUAPCD should revise section 6.0 

Test Methods to remove inappropriate 

or outdated test methods such as 6.1.2 

ARB Method 432 for paints and 

coatings, and 6.1.3 which refers to an 

obsolete document superseded by EPA 

Method 204 for determining capture 

efficiency (40 CFR 51). We recommend 

including EPA Test Method 21 

(measurements of leaks) as referenced in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, Section 6.4 Test 

Methods, or SCAQMD Rule 1176, 

Section (h). 

5. The SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT SIP 

Demonstration mentions that the 

requirements in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, 

‘‘Components at Petroleum Refineries, 

Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and 

Chemical Plants’’, apply to oil-water 

separators. SJVUAPCD should include 

those requirements directly in Rule 

4625 or by reference to improve 

enforceability, or demonstrate that this 

is not appropriate. 

6. To ensure ongoing compliance and 

strengthen enforceability, SJVUACPD 

should add to the rule requirements for 

inspections of covers, access hatches 

and other openings and emissions 

control equipment, along with 

recordkeeping requirements for 

inspections and testing or demonstrate 

that this is not appropriate. For 

example, please see SCAQMD Rule 

1176, section (f) and (g). 

7. SJVUAPCD should delete or justify 

exemption 4.1 for wastewater separators 

exceeding a set value for a sump surface 

area to the rate of oil vapor loss ratio. 

The only other rule where we found 

such exemption is SCAQMD Rule 464 

for Wastewater Separators; last amended 

December 7, 1990. This exemption is 

not found in the newer SCAQMD Rule 

1176, ‘‘VOC Emissions from Wastewater 

Systems’’, amended September 13, 

1996, which also addresses wastewater 

separators and which largely supersedes 

Rule 464. 

Additional detailed information on the 

deficiencies listed above can be found 

in the TSDs and proposed notice for this 

rulemaking (76 FR 298). 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following parties. 

1. Sarah E. Jackson, Earthjustice; letter 

and email dated and received February 

2, 2011. 

2. Samir Sheikh, San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD); letter and email dated and 

received February 3, 2011. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice generally 

supported EPA’s analysis of these rules 

and the deficiencies identified. 

Response #1: No response required. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice raised 

concerns regarding the inventory 

associated with these rules and asserted 

that EPA should thoroughly analyze the 

inventory. Earthjustice asserted that 

SJVUAPCD fails to require related 

reporting as required by San Luis 

Obispo Rule 419, and instead bases 

inventory estimates on an industry 

survey. Earthjustice provided two 

inventory reports and asserted that 

SJVUAPCD uses an older lower 

emission factor but does not justify the 

use of this lower emission factor. 

Response #2: Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements must be 

sufficient to ensure rule enforceability. 

Rule 4402 requirements are sufficient 

for this purpose except for the 

deficiencies described in paragraph 

A.2.d above. Nothing in San Luis 

Obispo Rule 419 or elsewhere in the 

comment provides evidence of 

additional requirements necessary for 

this purpose. Additional emissions 

inventory information, such as for the 

clean produced water ponds, might 

clarify the importance of additional 

controls from affected sources for 

overall SIP planning purposes. 

However, such information is not 

needed to evaluate the submitted rules 

with respect to rule enforceability, SIP 

relaxation and RACT, the primary 

criteria at issue in this action. 

Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that 

the District’s inventory excludes sumps 

containing ‘‘clean produced water’’ and 

that the District allows a much higher 

VOC content in its clean water than 

other districts allow, therefore the 

district could be failing to capture a 

large source of emissions in its 

inventory. 

Response #3: Additional emissions 

inventory information, such as for the 

clean produced water ponds, might 

clarify whether additional controls are 

needed for overall SIP planning 

purposes. However, such information is 

not needed to evaluate the submitted 

rules with respect to rule requirements, 

enforceability, SIP relaxation and RACT, 

the primary criteria at issue in this 

action. We believe that the issue of the 

higher VOC content allowed in Rule 

4402 for ‘‘clean produced water’’ is 

adequately addressed by the deficiency 

described in paragraph I.A.1.d above. 

Comment 4: Earthjustice supported 

EPA’s request that SJVUAPCD should 

ensure that the tanks that replace the 

primary sumps have adequate VOC 

controls and requested that EPA keep 

this recommendation in mind as it 

evaluates its options on the District’s 

RACT SIP. 

Response #4: No response required. 

Comment #5: Earthjustice asserted 

that the rules identified by EPA for 

comparison to the SJVUAPCD rules are 

quite old themselves and their 

requirements may no longer represent 

the lowest emissions these sources are 

capable of achieving with reasonable 

control technology. As a result, 

Earthjustice asserted that an analysis of 

the cost effectiveness of eliminating 

more open sumps should be prepared in 

order to demonstrate compliance with 

RACT. 

Response #5: The rules used for 

comparison are older rules, however we 

are not aware of newer RACT controls 

likely to significantly reduce emissions 

from these sources, and no other new 

technologies were identified in the 

comment. In addition, paragraph I.A.1.d 

above directs SJVUAPCD to examine 

potential additional RACT controls for 

open sumps. 

Comment #6: SJVUACPD agreed that 

Rule 4402 imposes some requirements 

that are similar to those found in other 

Districts, and that Rule 4625 imposes 

requirements similar to the relevant 

CTG, NSPS and MACT. SJVUAPCD 

further noted that rule language and test 

method requirements could be updated 

because these rules were last amended 

in 1992. 

Response #6: No response required. 

Comment #7: SJVUAPCD commented 

that their rule requirements do not need 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
39780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Sumps Data from the VCAPCD Permit Database, 

received by EPA from Stan Cowen via e-mail dated 

May 10, 2011, Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

2Based on preliminary data collected for the 

‘‘CARB 2007 Oil and Gas Industry Survey Results’’, 

Draft Report, March 2011. 

3 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009), 

Rule 4402, page 4–79. 4See Section I.A.1.d above or 76 FR 298 Section 

II.C.1.d for description of this deficiency. 5SJVUAPCD: 2007 Area Source Emissions 

Inventory Methodology, 310–Oil Production 

Fugitive Losses-Sumps and Pits, dated February 6, 

2009, Table 7—Uncontrolled emission factors for 

oil sumps. 

6 5000 sf × 0.0412 lb/sfday × 365 day/yr × 2000 

lb/ton × 90% = 33.8 ton/yr @$129,644 = $3836/ton 

to be changed simply because rules in 

other parts of California appear more 

stringent. The District asserted that 

analogous requirements in other 

agencies are not comparable to 

SJVUAPCD rules because the affected 

sources are different. SJVUAPCD 

provided the example of crude oil 

sumps, and stated that other California 

agencies have far fewer, if any, sumps 

subject to the rules used for comparison 

with SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. 

Response #7: SJVUAPCD must 

demonstrate that these rules fulfill CAA 

RACT requirements. This demonstration 

should include comparison and 

consideration of rules and guidance 

adopted elsewhere for analogous 

sources. Our proposed action identified 

examples where SJVUAPCD did not 

explain why more stringent 

requirements adopted in South Coast, 

Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis 

Obispo were not also reasonably 

available in San Joaquin. While 

differences among affected sources may 

justify different rule requirements, the 

comment did not provide support for 

any specific differences among rule 

provisions. The comment stated that 

other districts have far fewer, if any, 

sumps subject to the rules used for 

comparison with SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. 

However, the comment did not provide 

evidence for this statement and we do 

not believe it is correct. For example, 

data provided by VCAPCD from their 

permits database shows about 50 sumps 

in their relatively small district.1

Similarly, in informal discussions with 

CARB staff, they confirmed that South 

Coast and Santa Barbara also have 

significant numbers of sumps.2

Comment 8: SJVUAPCD commented 

that the 2009 RACT SIP demonstration 

showed that the cost effectiveness of 

additional emission controls far exceeds 

RACT. The district acknowledged that 

EPA believes this analysis is based on 

old cost estimates, but notes that even 

if true costs are half as large, the 

resulting cost effectiveness would still 

be $32,000 per ton of VOC emissions 

reduced, which exceeds RACT. 

Response #8: The 2009 RACT SIP 

demonstration for Rule 4402 provided a 

cost analysis for a 5000 square foot (sf) 

second stage sump cover based on a 

1986 cost estimate from a Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

staff report.3 Our proposed action 

questioned SJVUAPCD’s reliance on this 

cost estimate because it is over 20 years 

old, because it is the only cost estimate 

provided by SJVUAPCD, and because 

other agencies have adopted more 

stringent regulations.4 Upon further 

review of this cost effectiveness analysis 

in response to the comment, we also 

note that it significantly underestimated 

potential emission reductions, thus 

overestimating cost effectiveness. 

Specifically, the analysis assumed 2 

tons/year VOC emissions reduced from 

controlling a 5000 sf second stage heavy 

crude oil sump. However, SJVUAPCD 

currently estimates uncontrolled 

emissions from such sumps at 0.0412 

lbs VOC/sf-day.5 Assuming 90% 

emission reductions from a ridged 

floating cover (as required by Rule 4402 

if not exempted in section 4.1.3), we 

recalculate the emission reduction at 34 

tons/year at less than $4000/ton.6 This 

is well within the range of control cost 

effectiveness that SJVUAPCD and other 

agencies routinely require in prohibitory 

rules. 

Comment #9: SJVUAPCD commented 

that, in light of their large workload, 

they are hesitant to divert resources to 

conduct work that is not demonstrated 

to have significant potential for 

additional, cost-effective emissions 

reductions. 

Response #9: We appreciate this 

comment and acknowledge that the 

District has limited resources and a 

substantial workload. We are trying to 

be sensitive to this issue in our various 

interactions with the District, including 

our actions on SIP rules such as these. 

We hope that the analysis and rule 

revisions called for by this action will 

not be unduly burdensome, though we 

believe they are needed to comply with 

the CAA. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of the 

submitted rule. This action incorporates 

the submitted rule into the California 

SIP, including those provisions 

identified as deficient. As authorized 

under section 110(k)(3), EPA is 

simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of the rule. As a result, 

sanctions will be imposed unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the effective date of this 

action. These sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless 

we approve subsequent SIP revisions 

that correct the rule deficiencies within 

24 months. Note that the submitted rule 

has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, 

and EPA’s final limited disapproval 

does not prevent the local agency from 

enforcing it. The limited disapproval 

also does not prevent any portion of the 

rule from being incorporated by 

reference into the federally enforceable 

SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA 

memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 39781 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 rule and other 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
39782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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). This rule 

will be effective on August 8, 2011. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 September 6, 

2011. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule 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. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 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)(351)(i)(C)(5) and 

(6) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(351) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(5) Rule 4402, ‘‘Crude Oil Production 

Sumps’’, adopted on April 11, 1991 and 

amended December 17, 1992. 

(6) Rule 4625, ‘‘Wastewater 

Separators’’, adopted on April 11, 1991 

and amended December 17, 1992. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–16882 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8187] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59. Accordingly, the communities will 

be suspended on the effective date in 

the third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. However, some of these 

communities may adopt and submit the 

required documentation of legally 

enforceable floodplain management 

measures after this rule is published but 

prior to the actual suspension date. 

These communities will not be 

suspended and will continue their 

eligibility for the sale of insurance. A 

notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 

date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may legally be provided for 

construction or acquisition of buildings 

in identified SFHAs for communities 

not participating in the NFIP and 

identified for more than a year, on 

FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of 

the community as having flood-prone 

areas (section 202(a) of the Flood 

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 

U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

are impracticable and unnecessary 

because communities listed in this final 

rule have been adequately notified. 

Each community receives 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letters 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

stating that the community will be 

suspended unless the required 

floodplain management measures are 

met prior to the effective suspension 

date. Since these notifications were 

made, this final rule may take effect 

within less than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 

Environmental Considerations. No 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

 Region IX Air Division 

Technical Support Document 

for 

 EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

for the 

California State Implementation Plan 

as submitted by the California Air Resources Board 

EPA’s Analysis of 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 

Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps 

October 2010 

Prepared by Joanne Wells 

Approved by Andrew Steckel 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
2

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

Submitted Rule

 Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps originally adopted on April 11, 1991 as Rule 

465.2, amended on December 17, 1992, and submitted on August 24, 2007. The 

submittal was determined complete on September 17, 2007. There are no other 

submittals of this rule on which EPA has not acted. 

Applicable SIP Rule 

 The SIP-approved rule is SJVUAPCD Rule 465.2, Crude Oil Production Sumps adopted 

on April 11, 1991, amended on September 19, 1991 and approved into SIP on December 

13, 1994 (59 FR 64132). 

Background 

On January 2, 2008 (73 FR 48), EPA published a direct final approval of revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concerned local rules that address 

reduction of animal matter, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from crude oil 

operations and petroleum refinery equipment, asphalt paving and maintenance, and petroleum 

solvent dry cleaning. The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA 

anticipated no adverse comment. The direct final rule stated that if adverse comments were 

received by February 1, 2008, EPA would publish a timely removal in the Federal Register. 

EPA received a timely adverse comment. Consequently, we removed the direct final approval of 

SJVUAPCD Rules 4104, 4402, 4404, 4453, 4454, 4625, 4641, and 4672. (See 73 FR 13440) 

In today’s action we are addressing SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. We do not intend to take final action 

based on our January 2008 proposal regarding this rule. As a result, we are not providing a 

thorough summary or reply to comments submitted in response to our January 2008 proposal 

regarding the SJVUAPCD Rule. Generally, the comments included concerns regarding the 

estimated emissions from crude oil sumps, the large number of exemptions in the rule and 

whether this rule complied with the requirements for reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) described in CAA Section 182(b)(2) and elsewhere. 

Purposes of Rule and Rule Amendments

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOCs, oxides of 

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the 

environment. This rule was developed as part of the local agency’s program to control VOC 

emissions. Specifically, Rule 4402 is designed to limit VOC emissions from crude oil 

production sumps. 

Rule amendments include: 

 The rule has been renumbered and the format updated. 

 Rule purpose is added. 

 Definition of VOC is deleted. 

 The exemptions for sumps at petroleum refineries (I.A) and the exemption for pits and 

ponds (I.B) have been moved from Section I (Applicability) to Section 4.0 (Exemptions) 

as sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7. 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
3

Rule Evaluation Criteria 

EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 4402. 

1. Enforceability – CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA 

for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable. 

2. Anti-Backsliding - CAA §110(l) restricts certain SIP revisions that would relax 

existing SIP-approved requirements. 

3. Rule Stringency – CAA §172(b) and 182(a)(2)(A) require ozone nonattainment 

areas to implement RACT for ozone precursors. The SJVUAPCD regulates an 

extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hr ozone nonattainment 

area (see 40 CFR part 81) and must fulfill the requirements of RACT.

 

RACT Discussion 

A. SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT Demonstration 

On April 16, 2009, SJVUAPCD adopted its “RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP,” which 

provides the District’s demonstration that RACT is implemented for all appropriate sources. This 

includes several pages discussing Rule 4402. (See Cover and applicable pages attached.) In 

summary, SJVUAPCD states that: 

 The 2007 emissions inventory estimated VOC emissions from crude oil sumps in the 

district at approximately 2.6 tons/day. This updated emissions estimate is based on 

survey data collected from oil producers for 2007. See attachment 3, 2007 Area Source 

Emissions Inventory Methodology, 310- Oil Production Fugitive Losses. 

 This emissions estimate of 2.6 tons/day is in contrast to SJVUAPCD’s previous 

emissions estimate of 3 to 60 tons/day based on 1990’s data from the Department of Oil, 

Gas, and Geothermal Energy database. This data was largely found to be inaccurate and 

did not account for many closed and inactive sumps. See SJVUAPCD’s RACT 

Demonstration for Ozone SIP for further explanation. 

 There are no national guidance (CTG or ACT) or regulation (NSPS, NESHAP, or 

MACT) to help define RACT for this category. 

 Rule 4402 imposes similar requirements to those in Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District (VCAPCD) Rule 71.4. Although VCAPCD’s rule does not allow 1st

stage sumps and SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 does allow 1st stage sumps, SJVUAPCD does 

not believe that Rule 4402 is less stringent. In addition, the 2007 emissions inventory 

survey data shows that there are no active 1st stage sumps operating in SJVUAPCD (see 

attachment 3). 

 Santa Barbara County (SBCAPCD) is the only other California district that exempts 

small producers of light or heavy crude (less than 150 barrels/day) from regulation. 

SJVUAPCD exempts small producer 2nd and 3rd stage sumps less than 1000 square feet 

surface area used for only heavy crude oil (small producer is less than 6000 barrels/day at 

all locations in county). SJVUAPCD also exempts very small producers (150 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
4

barrels/day) with 2nd and 3rd stage sumps less than 5000 square feet surface area used 

only for heavy crude oil. SJVUAPCD states that their exemptions for small producers are 

similar to the SBCAPCD exemption. 

 Based on low true vapor pressure (TVP) and low emissions from heavy crude, the VOC 

emissions from 2nd and 3rd stage sumps from small and very small producers are 

relatively low and to require them to install and operate a fixed or floating cover would 

not be economically feasible. SJVUAPCD estimated the cost effectiveness of a rigid 

floating cover for a 5000 sq. ft. second stage sump containing heavy crude oil to be 

$64,800 per ton of VOC reduced. (See RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP, Page 4-79) 

 Exemptions for minimal VOC emissions (0.007 lbs/sq.ft./day) and clean produced water 

(35 milligrams/liter) are still appropriate because the emissions are very low and 

installing controls would be economically infeasible. SJVUAPCD states that the cost of 

controlling VOC emissions from these low emission sumps and ponds would be 

significantly higher than the cost of controlling emissions from the heavy crude oils 

sumps ($64,800 per ton of VOC reduced for 2nd stage, as noted above). 

B. Requirements found in other California District Rules 

The following is a list of more stringent requirements found in analogous rules from neighboring 

agencies: 

 South Coast (SCAQMD) Rule 1176 and San Luis Obispo (SLOCAPCD) Rule 419 

require floating covers to have seals and the gap cannot exceed 1/8” for a cumulative 

length of 97% of the perimeter. Rule 4402 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require 

seals. 

 SCAQMD Rule 1176 and SBCAPCD Rule 344 require that fixed covers be equipped 

with an air pollution control (APC) device with a control efficiency of 95% of VOCs. 

Rule 4402 only requires a pressure/vacuum valve set to within ten percent of 

maximum safe working pressure of cover. 

 SCAQMD Rule 1176 requires monthly to annual inspections for leaks and testing 

operation of APC equipment. Rule 4402 does not require inspections. 

 SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 has a large number of exemptions either not found or broader 

and less restrictive than exemptions found in other district rules. These exemptions 

allow uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps and 

ponds. See detailed review of exemptions below. 

 Rule 4402 does not define “intermittent” as used in Section 3.7 definition of Pit or 

place any limit on the amount of time oily water can be kept in an emergency pit 

before it is cleaned up. SLOCAPCD Rule 419 requires clean-up to begin within 24 

hours and limits clean-up to 15 days and SBCAPCD Rule 344 limits use of pits to 

less than 30 days per year. Lack of a time limit would allow uncontrolled emissions 

for an unlimited amount of time. 

C. Discussion of Rule 4402 Exemptions 

Rule 4402 includes a number of exemptions where requirements of the rule do not apply. The 

following is a brief review and discussion of all the exemptions listed in the rule. 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
5

1. Small producers and very small producers (4.1.1 & 4.1.3): 

 Exempts small producer (6000 barrels/day average over 2 years from all operations 

within the county) 2nd and 3rd stage sumps that are less than 1000 sq. ft surface area 

and are only used for heavy crude oil. 

 Also exempts very small producer (300 barrels/day average over 2 years from all 

operations in the county and only 50 barrels/day per lease) 2nd and 3rd stage sumps 

that are less than 5000 sq. ft. surface and that are solely used for heavy crude oil. 

 The only other California district rule found that exempts small producer 2nd & 3rd

stage sumps is SBCAPCD Rule 344 which exempts small producers (less than 150 

barrels/day average over 1 year) with no restriction on surface area of sump or type of 

crude oil. 

 SBCAPCD Rule 344 also exempts any 2nd or 3rd stage sump less than 1000 sq. ft 

surface area. 

 SLOCAPCD Rule 419 exempts pits, ponds, and sumps less than 100 sq. ft. surface 

area. 

 In the RACT Demonstration, SJVUAPCD estimates the cost effectiveness for 

controlling the emissions from a 5000 sq. ft 2nd stage sump containing heavy crude oil 

to be about $64,800 per ton of VOC reduced and that the cost per ton would be even 

higher for 3rd Stage sumps. The district then concludes that due to economic 

infeasibility, they believe that these exemptions for small and very small producers 

are still appropriate. (See page 4-79 of SJVUAPCD RACT Demonstration for Ozone 

SIP) 

2. 2nd and 3rd stage sumps used solely for clean produced water containing less than 35 mg/l 

VOCs (4.1.2). 

 SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and SLOCAPCD rules exempt sumps used for wastewater that 

do not exceed 5 mg/l of VOCs. 

 SJVUAPCD’s RACT analysis states that the emissions from clean produced water 

are significantly less than heavy crude and the cost for controlling emissions from 

these low emission sumps would be significantly higher per ton of VOC reduced than 

for heavy crude oil sumps. Due to this higher cost, it would be economically 

infeasible to control these emissions and therefore this exemption is appropriate. 

3. Any sump with estimated emissions of 0.007 lbs/sf-day or less as established by ARB 

flux-box method (4.1.4). 

 Emissions of 0.007 lbs/sf-day is slightly lower than the uncontrolled emissions factor 

for light crude from 3rd stage sumps (0.008 lbs/sf-day), and slightly higher than the 

emission factor for 3rd stage sumps for heavy crude oil (0.005 lbs/sf-day). 

 Therefore, it is likely that 3rd stage light crude oil sumps would not be exempt, but 3rd

stage heavy crude oil sumps could be exempt. We do not know if this exemption is 

used by any crude oil producers at this time. 

 SJVUAPCD states in their RACT analysis that controlling emissions from these low 

emission sumps would be economically infeasible as stated above for sumps 

containing only clean produced water. 

 No other California district rule was found to have a similar exemption. 

4. Any sump used less than 7 days in one month and not more than 21 days per year (4.1.5). 

 No other districts were found to have a similar exemption. 

5. Sumps at petroleum refineries (4.1.6) 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
6

 Sumps located at petroleum refineries are exempt. 

 Rule 4402 is intended to control emissions from crude oil production sumps and is 

not meant to address sumps at petroleum refineries. 

6. Pits or Ponds (4.1.7) 

 Pits by definition in Rule 4402 are used only intermittently or for emergency 

collection of crude oil and water and not for oil water separation. 

 SBCAPCD exempts pits used for emergencies that are used less than 30 days per year 

and VCAPCD also exempts emergency pits. 

 SLOCAPCD exempts emergency pits if cleanup is implemented within 24 hours and 

is completed within 15 days. 

 Ponds by definition in Rule 4402 are used only to store clean produced water (less 

than 35 mg/l VOCs) and not used for separation of oil and water. 

 SCAQMD and other air districts set the limit for clean water at 5 mg/l of VOCs. 

 We understand that many ponds in the San Joaquin Valley have been closed under 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order, but other ponds continue to 

operate in the district. (See Attachment 5) 

 These ponds can cover many acres and handle a large volume of oily wastewater (as 

much as a million gallons per day). For example, see RWQCB Order No. R5-2002-

0223, Waste Discharge Requirements for Valley Waste Disposal Company, Broad 

Creak No. 2 Facility (Attachment 4). Emissions from these ponds are not included in 

SJVUAPCD’s current VOC emissions estimate (2.6 ton/day) for crude oil sumps 

because they are exempt. It is not known if the VOC emissions from the ponds are 

significant or not. The ponds that initially receive wastewater from oil production 

would have the highest VOC concentrations and are of particular concern. 

Rule Evaluation 

A. Enforceability and Anti-Backsliding 

The amendments to this rule are largely administrative, do not substantively change or relax 

requirements, but make the rule slightly clearer and more consistent with other SJVUAPCD 

rules. The rule is generally enforceable, although several test methods are outdated and/or 

inappropriate. 

B. RACT 

We concur with SJVUAPCD’s analysis that Rule 4402 imposes some requirements that are 

similar to the requirements found in other California district rules for controlling VOC emissions 

from crude oil sumps. However, SJVUAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4402 

implements RACT in light of the more stringent requirements found in these rules from other 

California air districts, some of which are in attainment or are designated as moderate 

nonattainment for ozone. 

C. Rule Deficiencies 

The following deficiencies preclude full approval of Rule 4402 into the SIP. 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
7

1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these requirements to help implement RACT or demonstrate 

why such improvements are not appropriate in light of analogous requirements in 

neighboring districts. 

a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require seals for rigid floating covers. In 

contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid 

floating covers to have seals, the gap cannot exceed 1/8” for a cumulative length of 95% of 

the perimeter, and no single gap may exceed 1⁄2 inch. 

b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers to be equipped with a pressure/vacuum valve set to within 

ten percent of maximum safe working pressure. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) 

and (6)(A) and SBCAPCD Rule 344 D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be equipped with a 

95% efficient Air Pollution Control (APC) device. 

c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic inspection of covers and APC equipment to ensure 

proper operation. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(f)(C) requires periodic leak inspection 

and APC testing. 

d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are more broad than those found in other district rules. 

SJVUAPCD should analyze whether these exemptions continue to be appropriate. This 

analysis should consider more current cost data than used in the 2009 RACT Analysis, and 

should consider alternative disposal methods (e.g., underground injection, tanks, or 

additional pretreatment) in addition to sump and pond covers. The following exemptions are 

of particular concern: 

 Uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps. Section 4.1.1 

exempts operations less than 6000 barrels per day with sumps less than 1000 sf and 

section 4.1.3 exempts operations less than 300 barrels per day with sumps less than 5000 

sf from substantive requirements. No other neighboring districts allow exemptions for 

small producers except for SBCAPCD Rule 344, which is more restrictive. 

 Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of “clean produced water” with less than 35 mg/l VOC from 

Rule 4402 requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 

C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4 exempt wastewater sumps only where the 

VOC/ROC content does not exceed 5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern are VOC 

emissions from the ponds that initially receive the oily wastewater from oil production 

facilities. Alternatives including additional pretreatment to lower the VOC content and 

other disposal methods such as underground injection should be evaluated.

e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time that oil or oily water can be kept in an emergency pit. In 

contrast, SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C. 2 requires clean-up to begin within 24 hours and finish 

within 15 days. 

f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 and VCAPCD Rule 71.4 

do not allow the operation of 1st stage sumps. 

g. Provisions should be added in Rule 4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids) that 

ensure that tanks used to replace the 1st stage crude oil sumps have adequate VOC controls. 

We understand that many 1st stage sumps have already been replaced with tanks; the district 

should ensure that emission controls for all these tanks are adequate. 

2. The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity and enforceability consistent with 

CAA section 110(a). 

a. Please remove the language at the end of Section 5.3 that states “If replacement tank 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 15 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
8

exclusively serves identical function of sump replaced, permitting of such tank shall not 

be considered an emission change for the purposes of Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Source Review Rule)”. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be evaluated in the 

context of SJVUAPCD’s NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and incorporated within the 

NSR program only if appropriate. Such exemptions should not be in source specific 

prohibitory rules like Rule 4402. 

b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to remove and/or replace inappropriate or outdated test 

methods such as 6.2.1 ARB Method 432, which is designed for paints and coatings and 

not oily wastewater. We also recommend adding EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for 

determining leaks. 

c. Update the definition of clean product water (Section 3.1) replacing outdated EPA Test 

Methods 4.13.2, 418.2 and 8240 that used CFC-113 as the extraction solvent. The new 

test methods using non-CFC extraction solvents are EPA Method 1664A and EPA 

Method 8260. See guidance documents referenced below. 

d. Please revise section 6.1 (Recordkeeping) to: 

 Add requirement for facilities to keep records of all inspections for leaks and testing 

of APC devices (for example, see SCAQMD Rule 1176 (g) (1)). 

 Add requirement to document use of emergency pits, including when use started, 

clean-up started and clean-up finished. 

 Require documentation justifying any exemptions claimed under section 4, including 

4.1.7, which exempts pits and ponds. 

 Add requirements to verify the sump surface area and the annual production rates for 

both the small producers and very small producers in section 6.1.1. 

 Add requirement to keep all records for at least two, and preferably five years. 

EPA Action 

The revisions to submitted Rule 4402 are largely administrative changes that marginally improve 

the SIP, but the deficiencies discussed above preclude full approval. As a result, EPA staff 

recommends a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of the August 24, 2007 

submittal of SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA as amended in 1990. 

If finalized as proposed, the rule deficiencies identified above would trigger CAA Section 

110(m) sanction and Section 110(c) federal implementation plan (FIP) obligations because the 

San Joaquin Valley is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and is required to implement 

RACT. 

 

EPA Recommendations

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended as 

improvements when this rule is amended. 

1. We suggest deleting section 7.0 Compliance Schedule since it is no longer applicable. 

2. We suggest increasing the requirements for testing wastewater at each inlet to the clean 

produced water ponds from annually to least quarterly to ensure ongoing compliance with 

wastewater VOC limits. 

3. Rule 4402 does not include controls for crude oil well cellars. We suggest that 

SJVUAPCD evaluate whether to include requirements for controlling emissions from 

crude oil well cellars in Rule 4402 or as a separate rule. 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 16 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
9

Guidance and Policy Documents 

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules and RACT requirements 

consistently include the following: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern 

RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987). 

2. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, U.S. 

EPA, 40 CFR part 51. 

3. Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA (May 

25, 1988). [The Bluebook] 

5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA 

Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook] 

6. RACT Qs & As-Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and 

Answers, EPA, William T. Harnett, May 18, 2006.

7. Clean Water Act Analytical Methods, Method 1664A, Oil and Grease 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/oil/oilfaq.html

8. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) Method 

8260, U.S. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm

Attachments 

1. Submitted SJVUAPCD rules plus applicable SIP SJVUAPCD rules. 

2. 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009). [Cover plus sections relevant to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4402]. 

3. 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology: 310-Oil Production Fugitive 

Losses, SJVUAPCD Rev. Date: 23 Jan 09.

4. Order No. R5-2002-0223, Waste Discharge Requirements for Valley Wastse Disposal 

Company,, Broad Creek No. 2 Facility, Midway-Sunset & Buena Vista Oil Fields, Kern 

County, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 

5. Record of telephone conversation, between Joanne Wells, EPA, and Doug Wachtell, 

RWQCB, 5/26/10. 

Appendix B: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AIR DISTRICT December 15, 2011 B - 17 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix B: EPA Documents December 15, 2011 

B - 18 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4625 

This page intentionally blank.