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

EPA’s Evaluation of

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 

Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 

8-Hour Ozone Standard – Adopted October 26, 2006

“2006 RACT SIP TSD”

Prepared by: Jennifer Blonn, James Shears, and Stanley Tong

November 2015
-2-

RULE IDENTIFICATION -

Agency: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

(SMAQMD)

SIP Approved Version: There is no previous version of this document in the SIP

Subject of this TSD: SMAQMD Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to 

the 8-Hour Ozone Standard (“2006 RACT SIP”)

Adopted – October 26, 2006

Submitted – July 11, 2007

SMAQMD Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for 

the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan – September 6, 2006 

Staff Report (“2006 RACT SIP Staff Report”)

BACKGROUND -

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight can 

lead to the formation of ground-level ozone or “smog” which can result in significant impacts to 

human health and the environment. Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas that 

are classified as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment to implement reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for specific types of sources. The Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) falls under this requirement as it is 

classified as a severe1 ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour national ambient air 

quality standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone (40 CFR 81.305).

Under CAA § 182(b)(2) and (f), SMAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT level controls for 

sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major 

stationary source of VOC or NOx. The following provides a brief discussion of RACT and how 

it differs from other types of control standards such as those for new sources. EPA defines 

RACT as the “lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and 

 1 On May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24409), EPA granted the State of California’s request to reclassify the 

Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment area from “serious” to “severe-15”. EPA evaluated 

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP submittal as a serious ozone nonattainment area since the District adopted 

its 2006 certification based on that classification.

On January 21, 2009, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District submitted an updated 

RACT SIP certifying its rules meet newly issued CTGs and that major sources of VOC and NOx that 

emit or have a potential to emit at least 25 tpy were subject to RACT level controls for a severe ozone 

nonattainment area. Our evaluation of the 2009 updated RACT SIP submittal is contained in a separate 

TSD.
-3-

economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). A RACT analysis should, therefore, 

take into account the technological and economic feasibility of controls, and may differ from 

source to source and location to location.

RACT applies to existing sources in nonattainment areas and differs from the more stringent 

lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) controls required for new and modified major sources 

in nonattainment areas. LAER is defined in CAA Section 171(3) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii) 

as “the most stringent emissions limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of 

any State for such class or category of source... or ... the most stringent emissions limit which 

is achieved in practice by such class or category of stationary sources.”

Unlike LAER, RACT allows for consideration of the economic impact of the controls. 

Therefore, if a certain type of emission control or emission limitation is determined to be too 

costly in light of the amount of emission reduction it achieves, that control might not be 

considered RACT. Also, as economic factors may vary within a State and between different 

States, a control technology or emission limitation approved as RACT in one location does not 

necessarily define RACT for another location. 

RACT also differs from Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT), which is the level of 

control required for sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) set by EPA. CAA Section 112(d)(3) 

requires that control requirements for a NESHAP shall not be less stringent than the emissions 

control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source for new sources, and 

the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent for existing 

sources (commonly known as the “MACT floor”). Accordingly, a NESHAP is generally 

expected to be as stringent as RACT. However, there are a few instances where this may not 

be true. These cases include situations where the NESHAP was promulgated a number of 

years ago and has not been updated, where the NESHAP has a higher applicability threshold 

(e.g., applies only to major sources of HAPs) or where it applies only to a limited number of 

compounds (e.g., only HAPs and not all VOCs). 

Section IV.G of EPA’s final rule to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612, 

November 29, 2005) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that where a RACT SIP is 

required, State SIPs implementing the 8-hour standard must assure that RACT is met, either 

through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8-hour 

implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination. 70 FR 71612 at 71655.

The preamble to the final rule further explains that “many areas subject to the major source 

RACT requirement under the 8-hour ozone standard have previously addressed the RACT 

requirement with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard.... We believe that, in many cases, a 

new RACT determination under the 8-hour standard would result in the same or similar control 

technology as the initial RACT determination under the 1-hour standard because the 

fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still applicable.” 70 

FR 71612 at 71654.

It adds that “States and other interested parties should consider available information that may 

supplement the CTG and ACT documents. In cases where additional information is presented, 
-4-

for example, as part of notice-and-comment rulemaking on a RACT SIP submittal, States (and 

EPA) would necessarily consider the additional data in reviewing what control obligation is 

consistent with RACT... The State should submit a certification as part of its SIP revision, with 

appropriate supporting information, such as consideration of new data, that these sources are 

already subject to SIP-approved requirements that still meet the RACT obligation.” 70 FR at 

71612 at 71655.

To help California and its local air districts with their RACT SIP certifications, on March 9, 

2006, EPA Region IX sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air 

districts discussing EPA Region IX’s understanding of what might constitute a minimally 

acceptable RACT SIP submittal. In that letter we reminded States that we believed they must 

consider new information that has become available and certify that a 1-hour RACT 

determination, even where controls were required, still represent an appropriate RACT level of 

control for the 8-hour ozone program. The letter offered the following suggestions to be 

included in a RACT SIP analysis and indicated that the more rigorous the analysis and 

aggressive the requirements, the more likely that EPA would be able to approve them:

• Describe efforts to identify all source categories within the District requiring RACT, 

including CTG sources (i.e., covered by an EPA Control Techniques Guidelines 

document) and major non-CTG sources.

• Submit negative declarations where there are no facilities (major or minor) within the 

District covered by a CTG.

• For all categories subject to RACT, list the state/local regulation that implements RACT. 

• Describe the basis for concluding that the regulations fulfill RACT. Documents useful in 

establishing RACT include CTGs, Alternative Control Technique guidance (ACTs), 

MACT standards, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), California Suggested 

Control Measures (SCM) and RACT/Best Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT) determinations, regulations adopted in other Districts, and guidance and rules 

developed by other states and local agencies.

• Where a District relies on the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association’s 

(CAPCOA’s) September 2003, Potential All Feasible Measures (AFM) Report to help 

demonstrate RACT, the RACT SIP should certify that the local regulations are 

equivalent to AFM, justify the assumption that the AFM fulfilled RACT in 2003, and 

include a certification/demonstration that no additional controls have become more 

reasonably available since then.

Where public commenters submit specific information to a State about controls that are 

reasonably available in light of technological and economic feasibility, the State should 

consider such information in developing its RACT SIP. EPA generally considers controls that 

have been achieved in practice by a significant number of sources to be technologically and 

economically feasible.
-5-

SUBMITTAL SUMMARY –

The District adopted the 2006 RACT SIP on October 26, 2006 and CARB submitted it to EPA 

on July 11, 2007. At that time, the SMAQMD was classified as a serious ozone nonattainment

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On February 14, 2008, CARB requested that EPA 

reclassify the Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment area from “serious” to “severe15”. On May 5, 2010 EPA approved California’s request. See 75 FR 24409.

SMAQMD’s submittal included the following documents:

a. “Staff Report - Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 8-Hour 

Ozone State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),” September 26, 2006.

b. Resolution AQM 2006-073, “Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision Reasonably 

Available Control Technology as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” adopted on 

October 26, 2006.

c. “Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” October 26, 2006.

EPA EVALUATION –

EPA evaluated the following elements of SMAQMD’s RACT SIP Analysis as listed in our 

March 9, 2006 letter to CARB.

• Efforts to identify all source categories within the District requiring RACT

• Negative declarations where there are no facilities subject to a CTG

• List of the State/local regulations that implement RACT

• The bases for concluding that all referenced regulations fulfill RACT

The following documents were also used to support our review:

• “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard –

Phase 2” (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).

• “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).

• Enforceability - Section 110(a) of the CAA requires enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures. Several EPA guidance documents are used to evaluate rule 

enforceability, including “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (The Blue Book), and “Guidance Document for 

Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 

(the Little Bluebook).

• “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 55620, 

November 25, 1992) (“the NOx Supplement”).

• Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), 

“RACT Qs & As – Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and 

Answers”.

• RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB 

(Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX’s understanding of what constitutes a minimally 

acceptable RACT SIP.
-6-

• Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt 

Karperos) listing EPA’s current CTGs, ACTs, and other documents which may help to 

establish RACT.

• EPA’s CTGs and ACTs:

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html

• CARB’s emissions inventory database 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

• SMAQMD, CARB, and EPA Region IX databases of SMAQMD rules

SMAQMD: http://www.airquality.org/rules/index.shtml

CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/rldb/rldb.htm

EPA: http://www2.epa.gov/approved-sips/approved-sips-region-9

The following summarizes SMAQMD actions to address RACT requirements and EPA’s 

evaluation of those actions.

1. Efforts to identify all source categories within the District subject to RACT.

RACT is required for source categories covered by an EPA Control Techniques Guidelines 

document (“CTG sources”) and all sources that are not covered by a CTG document but are 

“major sources” (i.e., for SMAQMD, “non-CTG sources” that emit or have the potential to 

emit at least 50 tons per year of VOCs or NOx.)2

Sacramento action:

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report included a table (Table 1) listing all CTG source 

categories and matching those CTG categories with corresponding District rules which 

implement RACT. SMAQMD also searched its database of permitted sources and the 

telephone yellow pages for any potential sources belonging to those CTG categories for 

which the District did not have rules. The District concluded that there were no CTG source 

categories in which the District had sources but no applicable rule.

Given its designation as a serious ozone nonattainment area, SMAQMD was also required 

to analyze RACT for all major non-CTG sources that emit or have the potential to emit at 

least 50 tons per year of VOCs or NOx (CAA 182(c)). Table 2 of SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT 

SIP Staff Report listed the District’s major sources. The 2006 RACT SIP further stated that 

some of the identified major source facilities also had sources that did not fall into any of the 

CTG categories. Table 3 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report lists non-CTG major sources 

(e.g., landfill gas) that were analyzed for RACT, the corresponding district rules, and the SIP 

status of those rules. 

 

2 Because the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area was classified as “serious” nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time that California submitted the 2006 RACT SIP to EPA, we are 

evaluating this submission in accordance with the 50 tpy major source threshold that applies in serious 

nonattainment areas. However, as noted above, SMAQMD has submitted an updated RACT SIP that 

applies the 25 tpy major source threshold for a severe ozone nonattainment area. Our evaluation of the 

updated RACT SIP submittal is contained in a separate TSD.
-7-

EPA evaluation:

EPA reviewed CARB’s emissions inventory database for potential CTG and/or major nonCTG sources not included in the SMAQMD analysis. Based on this review, no obvious CTG 

source category or major sources in the District were identified as requiring RACT but 

missing from the analysis. The District’s efforts to identify all source categories requiring 

RACT appear to be thorough.

2. Submit negative declarations where there are no facilities subject to a CTG

Sacramento action:

In lieu of adopting RACT rules, Districts can adopt negative declarations for CTG source 

categories if there are no sources in the District covered by the CTG.

3

SMAQMD concludes that there are no sources subject to 14 CTG documents after

reviewing its records for permitted sources, its enforcement program for unpermitted 

sources, and the telephone yellow pages.

Negative Declarations

CTG Source Category CTG Document Title

Automobile Coating EPA-450/2-77-008 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, 

Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks

Dry Cleaning

(Petroleum Solvent)

EPA-450/3-82-009 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners

Graphic Arts

(Rotogravure)

EPA-450/2-78-033 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts –Rotogravure 

and Flexography

Large Appliance

Coating

EPA-450/2-77-034 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of Large 

Appliances

Magnetic Wire Coating EPA-450/2-77-033 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation 

of Magnetic Wire

Metal Coil Coating EPA-450/2-77-008 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, 

Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks 

Natural Gas/Gasoline

Processing

EPA-450/2-83-007 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment 

Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants 

Paper and Fabric

Coating

EPA-450/2-77-008 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, 

Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks

Resin Manufacturing

(High-Density

Polyethylene,

Polypropylene, and

Polystyrene)

EPA-450/3-83-008 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and 

Polystyrene Resins

Refineries EPA-450/2-77-025 - Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,

 

3 See, e.g., RACT Qs & As – Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and 

Answers, May 18, 2006 Note from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional 

Air Division Directors, page 7. 
-8-

CTG Source Category CTG Document Title

Wastewater Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds

EPA-450/2-78-036 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from 

Petroleum Refinery Equipment

Rubber Tire

Manufacturing

EPA-450/2-78-030 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from

Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires

Ship Coating 61 FR 44050 - Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating)

Wood Coating (Flat

Wood Paneling)

EPA-450/2-78-032 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of 

Flat Wood Paneling

EPA evaluation:

EPA reviewed SMAQMD’s emissions inventory and did not identify sources that were 

covered under the above CTGs. Accordingly, we agree that it was appropriate for SMAQMD

to include negative declarations for these CTGs as part of its RACT SIP. 

3. List the State/local regulations that implement RACT and 

4. Describe the basis for concluding that all regulations fulfill RACT

Sacramento action:

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report separated its RACT analysis into four sections 

which provided a RACT demonstration for: 

Appendix A – RACT Analysis of CTG Source Categories

Appendix B – RACT Analysis of non-CTG Source Categories Applicable to 

Major Sources 

Appendix C – RACT Analysis of Major Sources

Appendix D – Permit to Operate 17359 for the Kiefer Landfill Flare 

a. Appendix A - RACT Analysis of CTG Source Categories.

Appendix A of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report contains an analysis for each CTG 

source category for which there is a District rule. For each source category, SMAQMD 

provides: (1) a summary of the recommendations or requirements specified in the CTG

and other RACT guidance documents and/or relevant regulations; (2) a summary of the 

relevant District SIP-approved rules; and (3) a comparison of the requirements specified 

in District rules to those specified in RACT guidance documents and/or relevant 

regulations. Based on this comparison, SMAQMD concludes that its rules meet or 

exceed RACT. 

EPA largely agrees with SMAQMD’s analysis and finding that its rules satisfy RACT with 

the exception of Rule 455, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing. This rule lacks test methods 

and recordkeeping requirements which are needed for the rule to be enforceable and 

therefore precludes full approval of the 2006 RACT SIP. 

(1) Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
-9-

Page 33 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report compares Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals 

Manufacturing, against the Pharmaceuticals CTG (EPA-450/2-78-029, December 

1978), the NESHAP for Pharmaceuticals Production (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart GGG)

and concludes Rule 455 satisfies the RACT requirements for this source category.

EPA Evaluation

Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing, (11/29/83 and 9/5/96)4 lacks test 

methods, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements which are necessary to 

ensure the enforceability of the rule. These are deficiencies listed in EPA’s “Blue 

Book” (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 

May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 1990) and should be corrected. Alternatively, if 

Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, is used to demonstrate 

compliance with the Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing CTG, Rule 464 would also 

need to be amended to incorporate elements missing from the rule (e.g., surface 

condenser requirements) to satisfy RACT.

(2) Solvent Cleaning (Degreasers)

Page 36 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that Rule 454, Degreasing 

Operations, specifies design and work practice standards for non-vapor degreasers, 

vapor degreasers, remote reservoir degreasers, and conveyorized degreasers. The 

2006 RACT SIP Staff Report further explains that Rule 454 requires equipment 

design and work practice standards that are equivalent to, or more stringent than,

the CTG or ACT for halogenated solvent controls. Although Rule 454 exempts 

sources using VOCs covered under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T – National Emission 

Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (“Halogenated Solvents NESHAP”),

the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report points out that sources within the District that are 

subject to the NESHAP are required to comply with the NESHAP, and that since the 

District has been delegated5 authority to enforce the NESHAP, Rule 454, in 

combination with the District’s NESHAP authority, satisfies RACT.

EPA evaluation

On September 25, 2008, SMAQMD adopted several revisions to Rule 454 including 

lowering the degreasing solvent limit from 50 grams per liter to 25 grams per liter 

and removing the provision that facilities covered under the NESHAP would be 

exempt from the rule. EPA agrees amended Rule 454 satisfies RACT and approved

the revised rule on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18068).

(3) Organic Chemical Manufacturing: Process Vents from Reactor Processes,

Distillation Operations, and Other Separation and Production Equipment

Page 40 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that the District only has one 

source covered under the Organic Chemical Manufacturing category. It points out 

that the source is also covered under the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

 

4 Rule 455 (amended 11/29/83) is currently in the SIP. EPA has not acted on the 9/5/96 amendments to 

Rule 455. As discussed above, both versions lack enforceable requirements.

5 40 CFR 63.99(a)(5)(i)(A), http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9nsps.nsf/ViewStandards?ReadForm&Part=63
-10-

Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF), which is more stringent 

than the relevant rule (Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations) in 

some respects. Similar to Rule 454, the District concludes that Rule 464 in 

combination with the District’s authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP,

satisfies RACT.

EPA evaluation

For the Organic Chemical Manufacturing Category, Sacramento’s 2006 RACT SIP

Staff Report lists the following applicable EPA RACT guidance documents:

1. Control of VOC - Air Oxidation Processes – EPA 450/3-84-015 (CTG)

2. Control of VOC - Reactor Processes and Distillation Ops in Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry - EPA 450/4-91-031 (CTG)

3. Control of VOC Emissions from Batch Processes EPA 453/R-93-017 (ACT)

Discussions with the District revealed that previously three facilities were covered 

under Rule 464, but only one currently remains in the District (Procter and Gamble). 

Since there are no air oxidation processes at this facility, the Air Oxidation CTG 

does not apply. 

The Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations CTG indicates that the 

presumptive norm to determine when RACT must be applied to a vent stream is 

when the “total resource effectiveness” (TRE) for that vent stream is <1.

6 The TRE is 

a measure of the cost per unit of VOC emissions reductions and is normalized so 

that the decision point has a defined value of 1.0. SMAQMD’s September 23, 1998 

staff report for Rule 464 indicates the TRE at all potentially affected vent streams is 

> 1, so the Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations CTG does not apply.

The last document, Control of VOC Emissions from Batch Processes is an ACT. 

The draft ACT (p 6-27 and Table 6-4)7 provides a recommendation that RACT is 90

percent control, the same control level that is required by Rule 464. Table 6-4 is 

referenced in the text of the final ACT, but does not actually appear in the final ACT, 

possibly due to a publication error8. Therefore, based on Rule 464’s 90 percent

control level and the other analysis summarized above, EPA agrees that Rule 464 

as adopted on July 23, 1998 satisfies RACT for this category.

Rule 464 was amended on September 25, 2008 to further reduce the VOC content 

limit from 50 grams per liter down to 25 grams per liter for solvents used to perform 

maintenance cleaning. This amendment was approved into the SIP on October 3, 

 

6 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations 

Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA 450/4-91-031 (August 

1993), page 6-4. 

7http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.EXE?ZyActionL=Register&User=anonymous&Password=anonymous&

Client=EPA&Init=1 enter search term: 453R93017

8http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctg_act/199402_voc_epa453_r-93-

017_batch_processes.pdf
-11-

2011 (76 FR 61057). This current version of Rule 464 continues to satisfy RACT for 

this category. 

(4) Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing

Page 43 of SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that there is only one 

source (Procter and Gamble) in the District for which RACT must be demonstrated 

for this category and that this source is also covered under the Miscellaneous 

Organic NESHAP. The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report further states that the 

applicable rule (Rule 443, Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer 

Manufacturing) is more stringent than the CTG (Control of VOC - Leaks from 

Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment. EPA-450/3-83-

006 (CTG), March 1984), but less stringent than the NSPS and the NESHAP with 

regard to monitoring frequency (monthly vs quarterly) and the threshold for defining 

a leak (500 – 1000 parts per million (ppm) vs 10,000 ppm). However, the 2006 

RACT SIP Staff Report points out that Rule 443 is more stringent than the NSPS 

and NESHAP in that it requires annual monitoring of flanges and requires leaking 

equipment to be repaired more quickly (within 2 working days). Therefore, the RACT 

SIP concludes that Rule 443, in combination with the District’s NESHAP authority,

satisfies RACT. 

EPA evaluation

We agree that Rule 443 is more stringent than the CTG (Control of VOC - Leaks 

from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment. EPA450/3-83-006, March 1984), but we do not agree that it is less stringent than the 

NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart VV) and the NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart 

FFFF) with respect to VOC emissions from the Procter and Gamble facility, the only

source in the district covered by the CTG. In particular, SMAQMD has found that the 

Procter and Gamble facility is exempt from the requirements of the NSPS (40 CFR 

Part 60 Subpart VV).

9 Accordingly, the NSPS is not more stringent than Rule 443 

with respect to this facility. Moreover, the NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF), 

while more stringent than Rule 443 in certain respects, is less stringent in other 

respects. Accordingly, we do not believe the NESHAP is necessarily more stringent 

than Rule 443 with respect to VOCs emissions from the Procter and Gamble facility.

Therefore, we propose to find that Rule 443 satisfies RACT for this category. 

EPA recommendation

We note that Ventura County APCD’s Rule 74.7, Fugitive Emissions of Reactive 

Organic Compounds at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants, (amended 

10/10/95) defines a minor gas leak as 1,000 ppm and requires repair within 14 days 

and since 1997, Bay Area AQMD Rule 8-18, Equipment Leaks, has required leaks 

greater than 100 ppm at petroleum refineries and chemical plants (e.g., large 

facilities) to be minimized within 24 hours and repaired within 7 days.

 

9 See Statement of Basis, Title V Federal Operating Permit Administrative Amendment, SMAQMD 

Permit No: TV2008-02-03A (December 28, 2012), pages 22-23.
-12-

While EPA agrees that Rule 443 satisfies RACT, to further strengthen Rule 443, 

SMAQMD should consider leak thresholds adopted by: Bay Area Regulation 8-18

Equipment Leaks and South Coast Rule 1173, Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and 

Chemical Plants. 

For information, some States and California air districts, particularly, the South 

Coast AQMD, are investigating the use of remote optical sensing instrumentation 

similar to a specialized camcorder to detect VOC emissions. It is noted however, 

that although remote sensing technology can be helpful as a screening tool to 

identify leaks, it can be expensive. Further, the portable remote optical sensing VOC 

instrumentation EPA Region 9 has seen only provides a qualitative indication of a 

leak and does not report VOC concentrations. A remote sensing camera may be a 

useful tool to identify leaks in certain situations. See 40 CFR 60.18(g), (h) and 73 FR

78199 (December 22, 2008).

b. Appendix B - RACT Analysis of non-CTG Source Categories Applicable to Major 

Sources

Appendix B of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report contains an analysis for each nonCTG source category found at one or more major sources within the District. Each 

source category analysis contains: (1) a summary of recommendations or 

requirements specified in ACT(s), federal and state RACT guidance documents,

and/or relevant regulations; (2) a summary of relevant District rules; and (3) a 

comparison of requirements specified in District rules to those specified in RACT 

guidance documents and/or relevant regulations. Based on this comparison, 

SMAQMD concludes that, for the most part, its major non-CTG sources are covered 

by District rules which meet or exceed RACT. 

Appendix B provides a RACT analysis for the following non-CTG categories. 

Non-CTG Category Amended SIP 

Approved

EPA Comments

Rule 442 Architectural Coatings 9/5/96

5/24/01

9/24/15*

11/09/98 Area source- not 

subject to RACT

Rule 411 Boilers 8/23/07 5/6/09 Satisfies RACT

Rule 413 Stationary Gas Turbines 3/24/05 1/10/08 Satisfies RACT

Rule 412 IC Engines 6/1/95 4/30/96 Satisfies RACT

Rule 485 Municipal Landfill Gas 7/23/98 - - - Rule 485 is not in 

the SIP. It exempts 

landfills subject to 

WWW

Rule 464 Organic Chemical Manufacturing -

Process Tanks, Liquid Transfer, and Storage

Tanks (≤40,000 gallons)

9/25/08 10/3/11 Satisfies RACT
-13-

Non-CTG Category Amended SIP 

Approved

EPA Comments

Rule 464 Organic Chemical Manufacturing –

Wastewater

Rule 466 Solvent Cleaning (other than

Degreasers)

10/28/10 9/29/11 Satisfies RACT

* Rule 442 was amended in 2001 and 2015. The current version meets CARB’s latest 

suggested control measure for architectural coatings.

Rule 442, Architectural Coatings, is an area source and is not subject to RACT. Rule 

411, Boilers, and Rule 413, Stationary Gas Turbines, were amended shortly after 

SMAQMD adopted its 2006 RACT SIP and were approved into the SIP as satisfying 

RACT. Rule 412, IC Engines, while adopted and approved into the SIP a number of 

years ago, subjects IC Engines to Best Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT) limits, which we believe satisfies RACT.10

The District also found that some of its rules were less stringent than some NSPS and 

NESHAPs. However, since SMAQMD was delegated authority to implement and 

enforce NSPS and NESHAP requirements by EPA, the District asserted that the 

combination of its rules and its delegated authority to implement the NSPS and 

NESHAP meet RACT for the following non-CTG major source categories: (1) 

Municipal Landfill Gas, (2) Organic Chemical Manufacturing – Process Tanks, Liquid 

Transfer, and Storage Tanks (≤40,000 gallons), and (3) Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing – Wastewater.

(1) Municipal Landfill Gas

Page 59 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that there is only one major 

source, the Kiefer Landfill, for which RACT is required for the Municipal Landfill Gas 

category. The source is subject to the NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 

CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW ((March 1996) and the NESHAP for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA (January 2003), which SMAQMD 

staff concludes meet or exceed RACT by containing the most stringent requirements 

that are applicable to municipal landfill gas.

EPA Evaluation

As stated in SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report, there is no CTG or ACT for 

landfills. SMAQMD’s Rule 485, Municipal Landfill Gas, exempts landfills covered 

under the NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW. Although SMAQMD has been 

delegated authority to enforce the NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW), as well as 

the relevant NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA), these requirements have not 

been incorporated into the SIP and therefore may not be relied upon to fulfill RACT.11

 

10 See Rule 412 discussion in section 3 of the companion RACT SIP Update TSD evaluating 

SMAQMD’s Updated RACT SIP dated September 22, 2008.

11 See RACT Qs & As – Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers, 

May 18, 2006 Note from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division 

Directors, page 2. 
-14-

Accordingly, there are no provisions in the SIP implementing RACT for VOC for the 

Kiefer landfill. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove SMAQMD’s determination 

that its SIP implements RACT for VOC for the Kiefer landfill. In order to correct this 

deficiency, we recommend that SMAQMD submit the permit provisions that 

implement the NSPS requirements for VOC for the Kiefer Landfill as a source-specific 

SIP revision. 

(2) Organic Chemical Manufacturing – Process Tanks, Liquid Transfer, and Storage 

Tanks (<40,000 gallons)

Pages 60 - 62 of SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report states there are no CTGs 

or ACTs for process tanks, liquid transfer operations or storage tanks < 40,000 

gallons. It further states that the following requirements cover process tanks and 

liquid transfers (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF – Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

NESHAP), and storage tanks (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb – Standards of 

Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels) greater than approximately 

20,000 gallons. The analysis indicates there is only one major source (Procter and 

Gamble) in the District for which RACT is required for the Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing category and that the facility is subject to Rule 464 and the 

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF). The 

2006 RACT SIP Staff Report gives a brief description of the requirements in the 

NESHAP, NSPS, and Rule 464. It concludes that in some respects, the NESHAP

and NSPS contain more stringent requirements (such as 95% control efficiency vs 

90% control efficiency) than Rule 464. SMAQMD concludes that Rule 464 in 

combination with the District’s NESHAP authority satisfies RACT.

EPA Evaluation

As stated in SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report, there is no CTG or ACT for 

the category of process tanks, liquid transfers, and storage tanks (<40,000 gallons). 

One ACT, Control of VOC Emissions from Batch Processes (EPA 453/R-93-017), 

contains a discussion on liquid transfers, storage tanks and wastewater, but is only 

applicable to process vents (page 7-5). Since there is no applicable CTG or ACT, a 

RACT evaluation is only required if SMAQMD has a major stationary source that 

emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or NOx in this 

category.

12 A RACT evaluation is not required for non-major sources. As noted in 

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report, the District only has one major stationary 

source (Procter and Gamble) in the Organic Chemical Manufacturing category. In 

addition to being subject to the requirements in Rule 464, this facility is also subject 

to requirements in the NESHAP subpart FFFF, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

NESHAP, and to requirements in the NSPS subpart Kb, Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels. While SMAQMD notes that, in certain respects, the NESHAP and NSPS 

contain more stringent requirements than Rule 464, in other respects, the NESHAP 

and NSPS are less stringent. For example, the NESHAP includes an exemption from 

various emission limits, including the limits for storage tanks during periods of 

 

12 As noted above, our evaluation of the SMAQMD’s updated RACT SIP, which applies the 25 tpy major 

source threshold for a severe ozone nonattainment area, is contained in a separate TSD.
-15-

startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).13 The NSPS General Provisions include a 

similar exemption that applies to the limits in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb.14

Therefore, we do not believe that the NESHAP and NSPS provisions are necessary 

to fulfill RACT for this source category.

EPA is proposing to find that RACT is met through the District’s implementation of 

SIP-approved Rule 464 (“Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations”), as 

amended September 25, 2008.

(3) Organic Chemical Manufacturing – Wastewater

As stated in SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report, EPA’s draft Industrial 

Wastewater CTG EPA-453/D-93-056 was never issued as a CTG, but was updated 

and included as an attachment to the 1994 Industrial Wastewater ACT.

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report points out that Rule 464’s criteria 

(concentration and flow rate) for determining which wastewater streams are subject 

to control requirements are more stringent than the draft CTG and the NESHAP. 

Specifically, Rule 464 regulates any wastewater stream with a total VOC 

concentration of at least 5 parts per million by weight (ppmw) and a flow rate of at 

least 0.02 liters per minute (lpm), or a total VOC concentration of at least 10,000 

ppmw at any flow rate. The District points out that subpart FFFF requirements 

reference 40 CFR part 63 subparts F and G and apply to wastewater streams with 

HAP concentrations of at least 1,000 ppmw and a flow rate of at least 10 lpm or

streams with 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate. It also points out that the emission 

suppression requirements for wastewater collection system components are more 

stringent than the ACT and are essentially the same as the NESHAP. Full 

compliance with subpart FFFF is required by May 2008. 

As noted by SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report, Rule 464 requires devices 

used to control vented emissions to achieve 90 percent destruction efficiency,

compared to the NESHAP’s 95 percent. The NESHAP also requires removal of 

VOCs from wastewater streams while Rule 464 does not contain such a requirement. 

Page 64 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that there is only one major 

source (Procter and Gamble) in the District for which RACT is required for the 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing – Wastewater category. SMAQMD staff concludes

that the combination of the requirements in Rule 464 and its delegated authority for 

the NESHAP subpart FFFF meet or exceed RACT.

 

13 See 40 CFR 63.2450(a) (“You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice 

standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM) . . .”). 

14 See 40 CFR 60.8(c) (“Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test nor shall emissions in excess 

of the level of the applicable emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction be 

considered a violation of the applicable emission limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable 

standard.”).
-16-

EPA Evaluation

We agree with SMAQMD that Rule 464 is more stringent than the NESHAP (40 CFR 

Part 63 Subpart FFFF) in some respects and less stringent in other respects. We 

also note that the NESHAP includes an exemption from various emission limits, 

including the limits for wastewater streams during SSM periods,

15 whereas Rule 464 

does not include such an exemption. Therefore, we do not believe that the NESHAP 

provisions are necessary to fulfill RACT for this source category. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find that RACT is met through the District’s 

implementation of SIP-approved Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Operations, as amended September 25, 2008. 

c. Appendix C – RACT Analysis of Major Sources

Appendix C of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report identifies ten major sources within the 

District. General facility information is provided along with potential to emit data, 

details on components that emit VOC and NOx, and air pollution controls and 

emission limits. Rules applicable to each facility are listed, and the RACT analysis for 

each of these rules is provided in Appendices A and B of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff 

Report.

One of the major sources listed in Appendix C is the Kiefer Landfill, which has a 

potential to emit of 472 tpy (VOC) and 108 tpy (NOx). The 2006 RACT SIP Staff 

Report indicates the Kiefer Landfill has a system that captures the landfill gas and 

sends it to be combusted in a flare or to be used as fuel in one of five internal 

combustion engines to produce electricity. The facility also has three non-road diesel 

engines to drive: a trommel screen, a green waste grinder, and to provide auxiliary 

power to a street sweeper to operate a vacuum system and sweeping brushes.

Page 88 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report states that there are no federal 

standards or SMAQMD rules that are applicable to the NOx emissions from the Kiefer 

Landfill flare, which is a major source of VOC and NOx within the District. The 2006 

RACT SIP Staff Report identified this as a RACT deficiency. The District remedied 

this by submitting for inclusion in the SIP portions of the permit (Appendix D), 

including requirements for a NOx limit on the flare of 0.06 lb/mmBtu and associated 

testing and recordkeeping requirements. The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report also states 

that this NOx emission limit is equivalent to the most stringent limits in effect in other 

California districts.

1. Permit to Operate 17359 for the Kiefer Landfill Flare.

Appendix D of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report: (1) describes the permit, (2) lists 

conditions that will be added and amended to the permit at its next update, and (3) 

contains the portions of the permit that are being submitted for inclusion into the 

 

15 See 40 CFR 63.2450(a) (“You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice 

standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM) . . .”). 
-17-

SIP (only the portions needed to satisfy RACT are included). District commitments 

to modify the permit include: stipulating that the RACT provisions approved by EPA 

remain a part of the SIP until they are replaced by a SIP action, regardless of the 

permit expiring or being reissued; establishing that the emission limit satisfies the 

RACT requirement; requiring that copies of source tests remain at the facility for 5 

years; and specifying the source test methods acceptable for determining 

compliance with the NOx limit.

EPA Evaluation

For NOx controls, EPA is satisfied with the inclusion of portions of the Permit to 

Operate 17359 for the Kiefer Landfill Flare in the SIP submittal. The portions 

submitted into the SIP make the NOx 0.06 lbs/mmBtu limit on the flare and the 

associated recordkeeping and source test methods federally enforceable 

regardless of whether the permit expires or is reissued. 

On April 12, 2011, (76 FR 20242), EPA approved the relevant portions of the Kiefer 

Landfill Flare permit into the SIP.

5. Public Comments

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report analysis was made available for public comment. 

No public comments were received by the SMAQMD during the public workshop or during 

its 45-day comment period.

6. EPA Comments and SMAQMD responses on the Draft 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report

On October 23, 2006, EPA provided the following general comments to a September 2006 

version of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report. Responses to EPA’s comments were provided 

in a letter dated October 26, 2006 from SMAQMD (Aleta Kennard) to EPA Region IX 

(Andrew Steckel).

a. EPA commented that the CTG, “Control of VOC Leaks from Petroleum Refinery 

Equipment” EPA-450/2-78-036 appeared to have been left out of the District’s analysis.

Resolved. SMAQMD added this CTG to its Negative Declarations. The addition did 

not change the District’s conclusion that there were no refineries in the District and it 

did not anticipate any in the future.

b. EPA commented that particularly where the last RACT determination for specific 

source categories occurred many years ago, the Staff Report should demonstrate that

no additional controls are required to satisfy RACT. Specifically, analysis of Rule 446, 

Storage of Petroleum Products, could be expanded to discuss how the rule is 

considered to meet RACT.

Resolved. SMAQMD’s October 26, 2006 letter to EPA explained that in addition to 

the RACT requirement, the District has been required to achieve emission reductions 

beyond RACT in federal and state air quality plans designed to meet ozone air 

quality standards. The letter stated that in its ongoing search for emission reduction 
-18-

strategies, the District has not identified additional emission reductions with cost 

effectiveness values that could be considered RACT. Where significant cost effective 

reductions could be achieved, the letter states that the District has adopted 

standards that exceed RACT.

In addressing EPA’s concerns regarding Rule 446, the letter explained that there is 

only one major source that would be impacted by lowering the exemption threshold 

for Rule 446 to 10,000 gallons, and this source is already subject to more stringent 

controls than those contained in Rule 446 under the Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Operations, and the Miscellaneous Organics NESHAP. Further, the 

District states that it believes there would be zero emission reductions from lowering 

the gas-tight threshold in Rule 446. SMAQMD’s current requirement and threshold 

are the same as San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 4623, Storage of Organic 

Liquids, and Ventura County APCD Rule 70, Storage and Transfer of Gasoline. No 

further action is needed on this item.

c. EPA listed ten rules which had newer versions than those approved into the SIP or 

which had never been submitted for SIP approval and requested that the District submit 

any rules which were needed for RACT.

Resolved. Eight of the required rules have been submitted. The remaining two rules, 

Rule 442, Architectural Coatings, and Rule 485, Municipal Landfill Gas, are not 

required for RACT and are discussed below. SMAQMD also determined that there 

are no major Polyester Resin sources in the District and since there is no CTG for 

this category, Rule 465 is not required to meet RACT.

Rule Adopted/

Amended

Submitted SIP Approval / Notes

413 Stationary Gas Turbine 3/24/05 9/6/07 1/10/08 (73 FR 1819)

442 Architectural Coatings 9/24/15 - - Not subject to RACT

450 Graphic Arts Operations 10/23/08 4/29/09 4/9/2010 (75 FR 

18068)

451 Miscellaneous Metal Parts 10/28/10 4/5/2011 11/21/2011(76 FR 

71886) – revised to meet 

2007/2008 CTGs

454 Degreasing Operations 9/25/08 9/15/09 4/9/2010 (75 FR 

18068)

456 Aerospace Coating 10/23/08 9/15/09 7/14/2010 (75 FR 

40726) – Below CTG 

applicability threshold

463 Wood Products Coatings 9/25/08 9/15/09 4/9/2010 (75 FR 

18068)

465 Polyester Resin Operation 9/25/08 9/15/09 7/26/11 (76 FR 44493)

not required for RACT

466 Solvent Cleaning 10/28/10 4/5/11 9/29/2011 (76 FR 
-19-

Rule Adopted/

Amended

Submitted SIP Approval / Notes

60376)

485 Municipal Landfill Gas 7/23/98 - - Rule exempts landfills 

subject to part 60 

subpart WWW

Rule 456, Aerospace Coatings. Subsequent to its 2006 RACT analysis, the District 

submitted a negative declaration for the Aerospace Coatings category based on an 

evaluation that their only source is below the CTG’s potential to emit applicability 

threshold. EPA approved the negative declaration for Aerospace Coatings on April 

18, 2012 (75 FR 23130). No further action is required for this category. 

Rule 485, Municipal Landfill Gas, exempts sources covered by NSPS subpart WWW 

and is not currently in the SIP. 

d. EPA previously commented that page 101 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report lists

specific conditions to be added and amended to the Kiefer Landfill Flare permit. These 

conditions should be included in the final package submitted to EPA for inclusion into 

the SIP.

Resolved. The District updated the Kiefer Landfill permit submitted for SIP approval

as suggested. EPA reviewed the updated permit and found it to be sufficient and 

approved the relevant portions of the permit into the SIP on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 

20242).

7. Summary

With the exception of Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing, and VOC 

requirements for the Kiefer landfill, SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report largely 

supports the District’s assertion that its regulations meet or exceed RACT.

Rule 455 does not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) because it lacks 

test methods, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements which are necessary to 

ensure that the rule is enforceable. These are deficiencies listed in EPA’s “Blue 

Book” (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 

May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 1990) and need to be corrected. Therefore, under 

CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove 

SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP. We propose to approve SMAQMD’s certification that its 

rules satisfy RACT, with the exception of Rule 455 and VOC requirements for the 

Kiefer landfill. We propose to disapprove SMAQMD’s certification that Rule 455 

satisfies RACT because Rule 455 does not satisfy the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2). We also propose to disapprove SMAQMD’s determination that its SIP 

implements RACT for VOCs for the Kiefer landfill because there are no provisions in 

the SIP that limit VOC emissions from this source.
-20-

Final disapproval will result in offset and highway sanctions unless EPA approves a 

SIP revision correcting Rule 455 or an alternative rule to satisfy the Pharmaceuticals 

Manufacturing CTG and provisions fulfilling RACT for VOC at the Kiefer landfill within 

18 months of the effective date of the disapproval. See CAA section 179(b) and 40 

CFR 52.31. We will not finalize this partial disapproval, however, if we fully approve a 

rule satisfying the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing CTG and provisions fulfilling RACT 

for VOC at the Kiefer landfill before finalizing action on SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT SIP. 

EPA is committed to working with CARB and the District to resolve these RACT 

deficiencies, and we encourage the State and District to submit a SIP revision 

correcting the identified deficiencies as expeditiously as practicable. A revised 2006 

RACT SIP demonstration will not be necessary if the submitted rule amendments 

and permit provisions correct the identified deficiencies.

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after finding that a State has failed to 

make a required submission or disapproving a SIP submission in whole or in part, 

unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year 

period. 

8. Suggestions for Improvement

a. Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing, In addition to addressing test methods, 

recordkeeping and monitoring, please review South Coast AQMD Rule 1103, 

Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Manufacturing Operations, and the following 

suggestions for potential rule improvements: 

1) Section 200: Please define production equipment exhaust system, leak, and any 

other newly added terms.

2) Sections 301.1, 301.4, 310.4 allows the use of “equivalent controls”. The rule should 

specify how the District will determine equivalency or require District and EPA 

approval of the equivalent controls. (e.g., see SCAQMD Rule 1103(c)(1)(b)).

3) Section 310.5: Please specify a time limit for completing the repair after detection. 

For example, see SCAQMD Rule 1103 (d)(5): “...within 24 hours after the detection 

of the leak.”

b. If additional emission reductions are needed beyond RACT, the District may want to 

investigate:

1) Rule 443, Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing

Consider adopting more stringent component leak thresholds similar to Bay Area 8-

18 or South Coast 1173.

2) Composting emissions – See San Joaquin Rule 4566 or South Coast Rules 1133, 

1133.2 – 1133.3 and San Joaquin’s solar powered aeration project: 
-21-

http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/documents/C-15636-ACP/C15636_ACP_FinalReport.pdf

3) Confined animal facilities – See San Joaquin Rules 4565 and 4570.

4) Warm mix asphalt as an option to hot mix asphalt – See San Joaquin discussion on 

pages C-218 – 226 http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/PM25-

2015/C.pdf

5) Bay Area Rule 8-33 limits gasoline bulk terminal emissions to 0.04 lb per 1000 

gallons loaded while SM Rule 447 allows 0.08 lb / 1000 gallons loaded.

c. Submit the latest version of Rule 442, Architectural Coatings, for SIP approval.16

REFERENCES -

1. SMAQMD Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard – Adopted –

October 26, 2006; Submitted – July 11, 2007.

2. SMAQMD Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 8-Hour Ozone 

State Implementation Plan – September 6, 2006 Staff Report.

3. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to 

CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX’s understanding of what constituted a 

minimally acceptable RACT SIP.

4. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB 

(Kurt Karperos) listing EPA’s current CTGs, ACTs, and other documents which may 

help to establish RACT.

5. RACT Qs & As – Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and 

Answers, May 18, 2006 Note from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors. 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ractqanda.pdf

6. Comment letter dated October 23, 2006 on the 8-hour Ozone Reasonably Available 

Control Technology – State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis, draft Staff 

Report dated September 26, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to SMAQMD 

(Kevin Williams).

7. SMAQMD Rule 464 Staff Report dated July 23, 1998 documenting the total resource 

effectiveness >1; cover page and page 22.

 

16 In October 2015, SMAQMD submitted Rule 442 (amended 9/24/2015) to CARB to submit to EPA.
-22-

8. Transmittal of Alternative Control Technology Documents – Industrial Wastewater 

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctg_act/199404_voc_%28nrid

%29_industrial_wastewater(act).pdf

9. “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard –

Phase 2” (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).

10. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., 

Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988.

11. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., 

Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001.

12. “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).

13. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 55620, 

November 25, 1992) (“the NOx Supplement”).

14. EPA’s CTGs and ACTs 

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html

15. CARB’s emissions inventory database 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

16. SMAQMD, CARB, and EPA Region IX databases of SMAQMD rules

SMAQMD: http://www.airquality.org/rules/index.shtml

CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/rldb/rldb.htm

EPA: http://www2.epa.gov/approved-sips/approved-sips-region-9

17. Procter and Gamble Title V Federal Operating Permit Administrative Amendment, SMAQMD 

Permit No: TV2008-02-03A (December 28, 2012), pages 22-23.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/air/epss.nsf/735056a63c1390e08825657e0075d180/e1ce42

32e98b979688257afb0075bf31/$FILE/TV2008-02-03A%20SOB%20-

%20Administrative%20Amendment.pdf