Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61369 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

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, 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24924 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0743; FRL–9209–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District’s portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from the landfill gas 

flare at the Kiefer Landfill in 

Sacramento, California. We are 

proposing to approve portions of a 

Permit to Operate that limit NOX

emissions from this facility under the 

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA 

or the Act). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATE: Any comments must arrive by 

November 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0743, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: 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 http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://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 e-mail 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

document? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the submitted 

document? 

B. Does the submitted document meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
61370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1The Sacramento Metropolitan area was initially 

classified as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 

2004). On May 5, 2010, EPA granted California’s 

request for voluntary reclassification of this area 

from ‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘severe-15,’’ and this 

reclassification became effective June 4, 2010. 

2Although the District adopted these permit 

conditions to satisfy the major source RACT 

requirement in ‘‘serious’’ ozone nonattainment areas 

(based on a 50 ton per year (tpy) threshold), the 

RACT requirement for this source remains 

unaffected by the reclassification of the area to 

‘‘severe-15.’’ This is because a major source in a 

serious ozone nonattainment area (based on a 50 

tpy threshold) is, by definition, also a major source 

in a severe-15 ozone nonattainment area (based on 

a 25 tpy threshold). CAA 182(c), (d). Thus, under 

both classifications, the Kiefer Landfill is subject to 

the RACT requirement in CAA 182(b)(2) and 182(f). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What did the State submit? 

On October 26, 2006, the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD) adopted the ‘‘Ozone 

State Implementation Plan Revision, 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 

8-Hour Ozone Standard.’’ The California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

this SIP revision to EPA on July 11, 

2007. This SIP submittal included 

portions of the Permit to Operate for the 

Kiefer Landfill, which is a major source 

of NOX emissions operated by the 

County of Sacramento Department of 

Waste Management and Recycling. The 

submitted portions of the Permit to 

Operate for the Kiefer Landfill (Permit 

No. 17359), which was issued by the 

SMAQMD, relate to the control of NOX

emissions from the air pollution control 

landfill gas flare. The SMAQMD 

originally issued Permit No. 17359 on 

August 7, 2006, and later revised it on 

November 13, 2006. We are proposing to 

act on the submitted portions of Permit 

No. 17359, as revised on November 13, 

2006. 

On January 11, 2008, the SIP revision 

for SMAQMD was deemed by operation 

of law to meet the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

There are no previous versions of 

SMAQMD Permit No. 17359 that have 

been submitted or approved into the 

California SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

document? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. 

Additionally, the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Area is designated and 

classified as a severe-15 nonattainment 

area for the 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). 40 CFR 81.305; 75 FR 24409 

(May 5, 2010).1 Accordingly, the 

SMAQMD is required to submit a 

revision to the SIP that meets the 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirements for 

major sources of NOX emissions in CAA 

sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Permit No. 

17359 limits emissions of NOX from the 

landfill gas flare at the Kiefer Landfill, 

which is a major source of NOX

emissions.2

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the submitted 

document? 

Generally, SIP obligations must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require RACT for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each NOX or volatile organic 

compound (VOC) major source in 

nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above (see sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SMAQMD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

classified as severe-15 for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305) and the 

Kiefer Landfill is a major source of NOX. 

Therefore, the Kiefer Landfill must 

implement RACT. 

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. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

3. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

B. Does the document meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We are proposing to approve the 

submitted conditions of SMAQMD 

Permit No. 17359 into the SMAQMD 

portion of the California SIP because 

they satisfy the applicable CAA 

requirements for approval. Specifically, 

we propose to approve permit 

conditions 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, 20, 27, 28, 

and 29, or portions thereof, which 

together establish an enforceable NOX

limitation satisfying RACT for the air 

pollution control landfill gas flare at the 

Kiefer Landfill. The NOX limitation 

contained in the permit is consistent 

with the limitations contained in 

California district rules and emission 

factor data related to landfill flares. 

Because the applicable SIP currently 

does not contain NOX limitations for the 

Kiefer Landfill gas flare, the approval of 

these permit conditions strengthens the 

SIP. Emissions of volatile organic 

compounds from the Kiefer landfill are 

not addressed by today’s action. In sum, 

the submitted permit conditions satisfy 

the applicable requirements and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

RACT, and SIP relaxations and may, 

therefore, be approved into the 

California SIP. Please see the docket for 

a copy of the complete submitted 

document. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the specific 

conditions of SMAQMD Permit No. 

17359, as submitted by CARB on July 

11, 2007, fulfill all relevant 

requirements, we are proposing to fully 

approve them as described in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 

receive convincing new information 

during the comment period, we intend 

to publish a final approval action that 

will incorporate these permit conditions 

into the federally-enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61371 

• 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, 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: September 21, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24917 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1142] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this notice is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before January 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1142, to Roy E. 

Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis 

Division, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3461, or (e-mail) 

roy.e.wright@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy 

E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk 

Analysis Division, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3461, or (e-mail) 

roy.e.wright@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1