             Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 Review of the
              Arsenic National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                                Office of Water
                               November 9, 2011

Results of Section 610 Review of the Arsenic Drinking Water Regulation

Background

On January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6976) EPA promulgated a new National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for arsenic as authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).  In this action, EPA changed the arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) from 50 μg/L to 10 μg/L, set the arsenic maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) at zero, and required arsenic monitoring for new systems.  The Arsenic Rule was to become effective 60 days after publication, on March 23, 2001.  However, the effective date was delayed while the Agency sought independent reviews of the scientific and cost issues associated with the rule.  After reassessment of the Arsenic Rule, it became effective on February 22, 2002.

Before the Arsenic Rule was promulgated EPA developed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  EPA also took several steps to lessen the impacts on small entities. These steps included: (1) Providing small systems additional time to comply through a provision for exemptions that would provide systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons up to an additional nine years to comply, and (2) developing a small entity compliance guide to help small systems comply with this rule.

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to review regulations that have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within 10 years of their adoption as final rules. This review was announced in the Regulatory Agenda which was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2010 (75 FR 79856).  As part of this review, EPA considered, and solicited comments on, the following factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules; and (5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

EPA received eight comment letters in response to the December 20, 2010 Federal Register notice. All the letters are available for public inspection in the rulemaking docket (docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0728 at www.regulations.gov). Pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has reviewed this rule to determine if it should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities. The results of EPA's Section 610 review of the Arsenic Rule are presented in this report.

Discussion of Factors required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Continued need for the rule.

Most commenters explicitly stated the continued need for the Arsenic Rule because arsenic continues to be a public health concern for public water systems across the country with high arsenic levels.  None of the commenters suggested the rule should be rescinded.

Two commenters suggested that the continued need for the rule should be evaluated through EPA's six year review process.  EPA is required to review its existing NPDWRs at least every six years and to revise as appropriate.  The six year review is a thorough review of current health effects assessments, changes in technology, and other factors that could support a regulatory revision that will maintain or improve public health protection.  EPA will continue to review the Arsenic Rule every six years, as required by the SDWA, and revise the rule if appropriate.  The next six year drinking water rule review is due in 2016.

Two commenters challenged the revision of the arsenic MCL from 50 μg/L to 10 μg/L but did not contend that there was no continued need for the rule.  Those commenters expressed the opinion that the MCL revision was made with little scientific evidence of health risk and benefits.  In deriving the 2001 MCL, EPA followed the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences Report, Arsenic in Drinking Water (National Research Council, NRC, 1999).  NRC (1999) reviewed all the available human data on cancer and non-cancer effects from exposure to arsenic in drinking water along with experimental evidence on metabolism and mode of action.  In addition, EPA  requested reviews by 1) the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the Agency's interpretation and application of arsenic research, 2) the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) on the assumptions and methodologies underlying the Agency's estimate of arsenic compliance costs, and 3) its Science Advisory Board (SAB) on the benefits associated with the Rule. The EPA Administrator announced on October 31, 2001, that the 10 ppb standard for arsenic would remain stating that, "the 10 ppb protects public health based on the best available science and ensures that the cost of the standard is achievable."

2. Nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule.

There were five main issues for which the commenters requested that the rule be amended to ease burden on small systems.  These issues were the cost associated with treatment, the disposal of treatment waste streams, the calculation for compliance with the MCL, the difficulties associated with using alternative treatment technologies, and the difficulty in communicating the health risks of arsenic exposure to the public.  We address each of these concerns and the actions that EPA has taken to resolve these concerns below:

   *    Cost Associated with Treatment

Nearly all commenters cited the cost of adding arsenic treatment as a significant burden for water systems.

EPA is aware that it is more difficult for small systems to spread the cost of adding treatment among their smaller customer base than it is for larger systems.   Systems needing to install treatment may apply for financial assistance through EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).  Between 1997 and 2010, states have used DWSRF funds to provide $7.6 billion in low-interest loans to small public water systems and have entered into over 5,900 assistance agreements to fund projects to small systems to improve infrastructure.  The program also maintains its commitment to providing funding to systems with the greatest demonstrated need. Thirty-eight percent of all DWSRF assistance funded in 2009 went to systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. EPA has been working with the states to better target DWSRF set-asides to small systems likely to be challenged by particular rules.
In addition EPA's  Drinking Water program has partnered with U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (USDA-RUS) to offer a wide array of assistance options to address the SDWA compliance needs of small systems.  More information about this partnership can be found at:   http://water.epa.gov/type/drink/pws/smallsystems/partners.cfm.
To help systems determine the best solution for complying with the Arsenic Rule the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has invested more than $20 million in arsenic removal demonstration projects and installed 49 treatment systems in 26 states.  ORD's research is focused on the development and evaluation of innovative methods and cost-effective technologies for arsenic treatment.  Systems are not required to use any specific technology. Systems can use technologies not listed as best available technologies (BATs) if they are effective at removing arsenic from drinking water.

EPA has also posted a significant amount of arsenic compliance assistance materials on the EPA website http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html.  EPA's arsenic technology experts have provided many training sessions, hosted conferences, and provided direct assistance to systems.  EPA also works with states and Federally-funded technical assistance providers to get information out to states and small water systems.
   *    Disposal of Waste Stream

Three commenters communicated the frustrations of impacted public water systems where on-site disposal of backwash water from arsenic treatment is prohibited.

EPA is aware of the difficulties of disposing of treatment waste streams and that hazardous waste regulations vary from state to state.  To address liquid waste streams, EPA has demonstrated through arsenic demonstration projects that treatment processes can be designed and operated to eliminate the need to dispose of wastewater flows. Backwash waters can be reincorporated into the beginning of the treatment process, rather than disposing of it.  Solid wastes, from an iron filtration process or spent media from an adsorptive process, have been shown to pass EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which typically would allow them to be disposed into a non-hazardous sanitary landfill. Water systems should review state hazardous waste regulations for liquids and solids so waste considerations can be addressed during the initial design or modification of a treatment facility.
   *    Compliance Determination for the MCL

EPA received several comments on how compliance is determined for the Arsenic MCL.  Those commenters were concerned that because compliance determination is based on a running annual average of quarterly samples, public water systems with newly installed treatment may still be in violation of the MCL even if their most recent result is below the MCL.

EPA drinking water rules, not only the Arsenic Rule, have been written to ensure contaminant levels are reliably and consistently below the regulated level before returning a system to compliance with a rule.  The state cannot make a determination that the system is reliably and consistently below the MCL until a minimum of two consecutive ground water, or four consecutive surface water samples, have been collected (§141.23(c)(8)).  Thus, systems installing treatment (or making other adjustments to comply over the long term) are out of compliance; but the concern raised by commenters is a onetime occurrence. A system can include a statement in the public notice and Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) indicating the system has addressed the issue (via treatment, blending, etc.) and is currently sampling to ensure the process is working correctly and does not exceed the MCL.

   *    Difficulty Using Alternative Treatment Technologies

EPA received two comments on the difficulty of using point-of-use (POU) devices as an alternative treatment technology due to the resource intensive oversight required for these types of devices.

Before the Arsenic Rule was promulgated EPA identified affordable small system compliance technologies.  Among these small system compliance technologies is a point-of-use (POU) device option operated and maintained by the public water system, allowed by the 1996 SDWA Amendments in SDWA Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii).  At least one western state developed its own guidance for how a POU program would be administered by water systems in the state.
EPA recognizes that complying with the requirements for point-of-use treatment technologies can be challenging.  EPA developed guidance to promote Point-of-Use devices (Point-of-Use or Point-of Entry Treatment Options for Small Drinking Water Systems EPA 815-R-06-010).  EPA has also developed a tool to assess the capital and operational & maintenance cost for POUs (Cost Evaluation of Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units for Small Systems: Cost Estimating Tool and User Guide. EPA 815-B-07-001).
   *    Risk Communication

EPA received a comment that the consumer confidence report (CCR) public health information required when arsenic levels are below the MCL of 10 ppb but above 5 ppb is confusing and difficult for the general public to understand.

While EPA provides arsenic education language in the Revised State Implementation Guidance for Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule (EPA 816-R-09-010), EPA allows water systems the flexibility to tailor their information to specific local situations.  Systems that want to use language significantly different than that provided by EPA must develop comparable language in consultation with the state.

3. Complexity of the rule.

Overall, commenters did not find the Arsenic Rule overly complex.  Comments regarding the complexity of the rule were focused on the determination of compliance with the rule.  After considering the comments EPA believes that there are adequate guidance documents available on the EPA website to help systems and states understand the correct implementation of the rule. In addition to providing guidance documents, EPA also conducts periodic training courses to help the regulated community understand the requirements of the Arsenic Rule. More information on past training courses can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html.

4. Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules.

Some commenters expressed concerns about the burden that results from complying with the rule as it relates to the appropriate disposal of wastes generated after the treatment of water sources with elevated levels of arsenic. The main concern is that some systems might have to comply with other environmental statues as a result of the generation of wastes from the treatment of water to remove arsenic. EPA has developed guidance documents to help the regulated community comply with the rule while reducing the amount of waste generated.  Given the targeted nature of the rule towards drinking water, and the guidance provided for complying with other rules, EPA does not believe that the Arsenic Rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other rules.

Two commenters noted that since Arsenic is an organic chemical, the rule can be interpreted as overlapping with the Phase II/V Rules.  The Phase II/V Rules were promulgated by the EPA in 1991 and 1992 and did not include arsenic, while the original Arsenic Rule was promulgated by EPA in 1975.  EPA does not believe that the Arsenic Rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with the Phase II/V Rules.

5. The degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

Commenters noted that there are new treatment technologies for arsenic and that EPA's arsenic removal demonstration studies provided valuable information regarding technologies that are effective in removing arsenic.  However, the economic condition of many small communities has worsened in recent years.  Most commenters expressed concern over the increasing difficulty for many systems to devote sufficient resources to ensure compliance.  The concern over the cost of adding arsenic treatment was addressed under section (2): Nature of complaints of comments received concerning the rule.

Many commenters also expressed concern that EPA will further lower the MCL for arsenic.  This concern may stem from the draft IRIS Toxicological Review for Inorganic Arsenic which provides new estimated cancer risks from arsenic exposure that are five to ten fold greater than EPA's estimates when the MCL was promulgated in 2001.

The new risk assessment is still ongoing.  The draft IRIS inorganic arsenic risk assessment was released to the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and simultaneously to the public for review and comment in February 2010.  EPA received the final SAB report on March 1, 2011.  The SAB approved of EPA's scientific basis to estimate cancer risk and made a number of recommendations to improve clarity and transparency of the 2010 draft assessment.  EPA will consider SAB's recommendations to refine the IRIS inorganic arsenic risk assessment before the final assessment will be posted to the IRIS database.  Up-to-date information regarding the arsenic risk assessment can be found at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=219111

While the final revised arsenic risk assessment will provide critical information for EPA's review of the existing MCL, it is only one of the key elements considered by the Agency in determining if it is appropriate to revise the standard. In reviewing NPDWRs, EPA evaluates five key elements as appropriate: analytical and treatment feasibility, implementation related issues, occurrence and exposure, economic impact and health effects.

EPA will continue to periodically review the effectiveness of the Arsenic Rule through the framework provided by the SDWA.  SDWA requires that EPA review all of its drinking water regulations every six years and revise them if appropriate. The purpose of the review is to identify current health effects assessments, changes in technology, and other factors that could support a regulatory revision that will maintain or strengthen public health protection.

EPA completed its first Six Year Review in 2003 and its second Six Year Review in 2010.  The conclusion of the second Six Year Review was that the Agency did not believe a revision to the NPDWR for arsenic was appropriate because the reassessment of the health risks resulting from exposure to arsenic is ongoing.  Once the final inorganic arsenic risk assessment is issued, EPA will have to decide if the Agency will undertake a review to the arsenic standard at that time or if the Agency wants to defer to the next drinking water rule review due in 2016.

Conclusion

After reviewing all the comments regarding this Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 review, the Agency has concluded that revisions or amendments to minimize economic impacts on small entities from the Arsenic Rule are not warranted at this time.  EPA has taken a number of actions related to the Arsenic Rule and its implementation including:
   * Providing small systems additional time to comply through a provision for exemptions.
   * Requesting reviews by NAS, NDWAC and SAB in 2001.
   * Conducting 49 arsenic treatment demonstration projects in 26 states.
   * Providing $7.6 billion in DWSRF low-interest loans between 1997 and 2010 small public water system assistance.
   * Working with USDA-RUS to assist small systems in achieving compliance with the Arsenic Rule.
   * Providing training, guidance and other materials to support implementation of the Arsenic Rule.

EPA will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the Arsenic Rule and the potential to decrease the rule's implementation burden within the Six Year Review framework provided by the SDWA and through other Agency initiatives.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32946-32947]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14222]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0344; FRL-9928-30]

Eastern Research Group, Inc.; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Eastern Research Group, Inc.,
in accordance with the CBI regulations. Eastern Research Group, Inc.,
has been awarded a multiple contract to perform work for OPP, and
access to this information will enable Eastern Research Group, Inc., to
fulfill the obligations of this contract.

DATES: Eastern Research Group, Inc., will be given access to this
information on or before June 15, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Steadman, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number

EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0344 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West
William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP-W-15-006, Eastern Research Group, Inc., will
provide analytical, technical, and administrative support services for
the Office of Civil Enforcement (OCE) other EPA offices, regions,
states, U.S. Territories, U.S. international border areas, and other
agencies and organizations. The contractor will submit all work
products for review and approval to the appropriate personnel at EPA
prior to its preparation and issuance in draft or final, in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the contract and directions in the
work assignment and technical directives. EPA will review all products
prepared by the contractor and make all final determinations. The
contractor will not make any decision for the Agency nor develop EPA
policy. In no event will the contractor provide legal services or offer
any legal interpretations under this contract without the prior written
approval of EPA, Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the OCE.
    This contract involves no subcontractors. OPP has determined that
it involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in
that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to
be made under the contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6,
and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), this
contract with Eastern Research Group, Inc., prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified; prohibits disclosure of the
information to a third party without prior written approval from the
Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor
sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release
and to handle information in accordance with the FIFRA Information
Security Manual. In addition, Eastern Research Group, Inc., is required
to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be
secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No
information will be provided to Eastern Research Group, Inc., until the
requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of
information provided to Eastern Research Group, Inc., will be
maintained by EPA Project Officers. All information supplied to Eastern
Research Group, Inc., by EPA for use in connection with the contract
will be returned to EPA when Eastern Research Group, Inc., has
completed its work.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: May 28, 2015.
Mark A. Hartman,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-14222 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33032-33035]
[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_ADDRESS>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

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_ADDRESS>
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

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

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


TABLE 2 ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD ( NSPS) SUBPART L  SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Hours/ Year ( E= C* D)

( E) Costs/ Year ( F)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 1 0 0 $ 0.00 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 24 1 24 0 0 $ 0.00 Repeat of Performance Tests 24 0.2 4.8 0 0 $ 0.00 Reference Method 5 or 9 4 1.2 4.8 0 0 $ 0.00 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 $ 0.00 NotifIcation of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 0 0 $ 0.00 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a

b. Plan Activities  Included in 3b

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3b

d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A e. Time to Enter Information Records of startups, shutdowns,

malfunctions, etc. 1.5 1 1.5 23 34.5 $ 1,895.43 f. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A g. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 34.5 $ 1,895.43 Assumptions Number of affected facilities ( per year) 23 Time required to read instructions ( hours) 1 Time required to complete performance test ( hours) 24 Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Time required to complete Method 5 or 9 ( hours) 4 Number of new facilities ( per year) 0 Time required to record startups, shutdowns , malfunctions etc. ( hours) 1.5 Number of startups, shutdowns, malfuctions,

etc. ( per year) 1 Time Required for notification preparation ( hours) 2 Technicial labor rate ( Bureau of Labor Statistics) is $ 26.16 + 110% $ 54.94