
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33032-33035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15052]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0196; FRL-9965-06-Region 9]


Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento 
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 
Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) from landfill gas flaring at the Kiefer 
Landfill in Sacramento, California. We are proposing to approve 
portions of two SMAQMD operating permits that limit VOC emissions from 
this facility under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking 
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0196 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew 
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For 
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or 
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. The EPA will generally not

[[Page 33033]]

consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI, or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What documents did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these documents?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
    B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What documents did the State submit?

    On January 24, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
submitted portions of SMAQMD Permits to Operate for the Kiefer 
Landfill. Specifically, CARB submitted permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 
16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and 
Attachment A from SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361. SMAQMD adopted these 
portions of Permits 24360 and 24361 for inclusion in the California SIP 
on July 28, 2016. Please see the docket for a copy of the complete 
submitted documents.
    On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittals for 
SMAQMD met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, 
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these documents?

    There are no previous versions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 or 24361 
regulating VOC emissions from the Kiefer Landfill in the SIP. However, 
the SMAQMD adopted and submitted Permit No. 17359 for oxides of 
nitrogen (NOx) emissions from the Kiefer Landfill gas flare on October 
26, 2006, and we approved it into the SIP on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 
20242).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?

    VOCs help 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 VOC emissions. 
Additionally, section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires states to submit 
SIP provisions requiring the implementation of Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) for any major stationary source \1\ of VOC 
located in an area classified as moderate nonattainment or above. The 
Sacramento Metro Area is classified as a severe-15 nonattainment area 
for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS),\2\ and the Kiefer Landfill, which is operated by the 
County of Sacramento's Department of Waste Management and Recycling, is 
a major stationary source of VOC. The SMAQMD is therefore required to 
implement RACT at the facility under section 182(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In severe ozone nonattainment areas, ``major stationary 
source'' includes any stationary source that emits or has a 
potential to emit at least 25 tons per year of VOCs. See CAA section 
182(d).
    \2\ 40 CFR 81.305; 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010), 77 FR 30088 (May 
21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 12, 2016, the EPA partially approved and partially 
disapproved the SMAQMD's SIP revision to address RACT requirements for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based in part on our conclusion that the 
submittal did not satisfy the CAA section 182 requirements for the 
Kiefer Landfill. See 81 FR 53280. Our final action stated that 
sanctions would be imposed under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 
unless the EPA approved SIP revisions correcting these deficiencies 
within 18 months of the effective date of our final rulemaking action.
    The SMAQMD adopted the submitted portions of Permits 24360 and 
24361 to address the VOC RACT deficiencies identified by the EPA for 
the Kiefer Landfill. The submitted portions relate to the control of 
VOC emissions from gas flares at the Kiefer Landfill (Permit 24360 
applies to flare No. 1; and Permit 24361 applies to flare No. 2). They 
contain emission limits, equipment operational requirements, reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, monitoring and testing requirements, 
and a stipulation that for federal enforcement purposes, the RACT 
provisions in the permits remain in effect as part of the SIP until 
replaced pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 and approved by the EPA.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?

    SIP provisions must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), 
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA 
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements 
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions 
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, the SIP must require RACT for each category of sources 
covered by a control techniques guidelines (CTG) document as well as 
each major source of VOCs or NOX in ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The 
Kiefer Landfill is a major source of VOCs in an ozone nonattainment 
area, so the SIP must implement RACT for this facility.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements 
for the applicable criteria pollutants 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. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990 (``The 
Bluebook'').
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (``The Little 
Bluebook'').
    4. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard--Phase 2,'' 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
    5. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division 
Directors, ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT); Questions and Answers'' (May 18, 2006).

B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?

    We are proposing to approve the submitted portions of SMAQMD 
Permits 24360 and 24361 into the SMAQMD portion of the California SIP 
because they satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for approval. 
Specifically, for SMAQMD Permit 24360, we propose to approve permit 
conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 
(or portions thereof), and Attachment A, which together establish an 
enforceable VOC limitation satisfying

[[Page 33034]]

RACT for landfill gas flare No. 1 at the Kiefer Landfill. Similarly, 
for SMAQMD Permit 24361, we are proposing to approve into the SMAQMD 
portion of the California SIP, permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and 
Attachment A, which together establish an enforceable VOC limitation 
satisfying RACT for landfill gas flare No. 2 at the Kiefer Landfill.
    The VOC limitations contained in these permits are consistent with 
the limitations contained in other California air district rules for 
similar facilities. For example, permit condition 8 for landfill flares 
No. 1 and No. 2 specifies a VOC destruction efficiency of 98% or 20 
parts per million by volume, dry, at 3% Oxygen, measured as hexane. 
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1150.1, ``Control of 
Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (April 1, 
2011), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 8-34, ``Solid 
Waste Disposal Sites'' (June 15, 2005), apply this same limit. Other 
California air district rules such as Yolo Solano Air Quality 
Management District Rule 2-38, ``Standards for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills'' (March 12, 1997) and San Diego Air Pollution Control 
District Rule 59.1, ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (June 17, 1998) 
reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, ``Standards of Performance for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' for applicable requirements, which 
includes these same limits. The operational standards for the landfill 
flares are thus also consistent with the landfill flare standards in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW, and are also consistent with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAA, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.'' Because the applicable 
SIP currently does not contain VOC limitations for the Kiefer Landfill 
gas flares, the approval of these permit conditions strengthens the 
SIP. 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.
    As stated earlier, on August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53280), the EPA 
partially approved and partially disapproved the SMAQMD's RACT SIP 
revisions submitted by California on July 11, 2007 and January 21, 
2009, based in part on our conclusion that the state had not fully 
satisfied CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the pharmaceuticals 
manufacturing CTG category and for the Kiefer Landfill. We are 
separately but contemporaneously proposing approval of a SIP revision 
intended to address the deficiencies identified in our 2016 partial 
disapproval of the SMAQMD's RACT SIP regarding the pharmaceuticals 
manufacturing CTG category.\3\ Final approval of the submitted portions 
of SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361, and SMAQMD Rule 464, Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing Operations, would satisfy California's 
obligation to implement RACT under CAA section 182 for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS and thereby terminate both the offset sanctions clock and 
the Federal Implementation Plan clock associated with our August 12, 
2016 final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We are submitting these two proposed actions together for 
publication, and expect the Federal Register notices to publish 
around the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted 
documents.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to 
fully approve the specific permit conditions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 
and 24361 as submitted by CARB on January 24, 2017, because we believe 
they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from 
the public on this proposal until August 18, 2017. If we take final 
action to approve the submitted documents, our final action will 
incorporate these documents into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA 
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference the SMAQMD permits described in Section I.A of 
this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

IV. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     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 the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting

[[Page 33035]]

and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 29, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-15052 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


