[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61369-61371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24917]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3d0d7c6c0c8c6cf8dc2cdc7d1c6d4e3c6d3c28dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e1e6f7f1f9f7febcf3fcf6e0f7e5d2f7e2f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 e-mail 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd8a9c939ad3909c98bd988d9cd39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bfceae5eca5e6eaeecbeefbeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 61370]]

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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?

    NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in CAA 
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Permit No. 17359 limits emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF> from the landfill gas flare at the Kiefer Landfill, 
which is a major source of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
    \2\ Although 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> limitation satisfying RACT for the air 
pollution control landfill gas flare at the Kiefer Landfill. The 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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:

[[Page 61371]]

    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>