[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 [email protected]. 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, [email protected].
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