[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 (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: [email protected].
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, [email protected].
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
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:
[[Page 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