[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29963-29965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14967]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[VA010-5545a; FRL-5514-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Approval of Alternative Compliance Plans for the Reynolds
Metals Graphic Arts Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision establishes
and requires four packaging rotogravure printing presses at the
Reynolds Metals--Bellwood plant, located in Richmond, Virginia and six
packaging rotogravure printing presses at the Reynolds Metals--South
plant also located in Richmond, Virginia to meet emission limits by
averaging emissions, on a daily basis, within each of the two plants.
The intended effect of this action is to approve two graphic arts
alternative compliance plans; one for the Reynolds Metals--Bellwood
plant and one for the Reynolds Metals--South plant (also known as the
Foil plant). This action is being taken under Section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective July 29, 1996 unless within July
15, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate
Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air,
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, (215) 566-2104. email
address: spink.marcia@epamail.epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 4, 1986, the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board (now known as the Virginia Department of air
Pollution Control) submitted alternative compliance plans as a revision
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Reynolds Metals--
Bellwood plant and the Reynolds Metals--South plant, both located in
Richmond, Virginia. Both of these facilities are subject to the
federally approved Virginia graphic arts regulation, Section 4.55(m)
[currently cited as Rule 4-36, Sections 120-04-3601 through 120-04-
3615]. The alternative compliance plans allow each of these facilities
to average emissions, on a daily basis, in order to meet the applicable
packaging rotogravure standard in Virginia Rule 4-36.
The applicable Virginia SIP graphic arts regulation requires that
packaging rotogravure sources reduce emissions by 65% by weight of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions on a line-by-line basis. The
Virginia SIP further requires that compliance be based on daily
averages.
Description of the Alternative Compliance Plan for the Bellwood
Plant
The printing presses participating in this alternative compliance
plan are:
(1) Presses No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
(2) Extrudes No. 1, 2, 3, 4
(3) Treating Station for Press #3
(4) Laminator No. 1 (by incineration)
Included in the description of the Bellwood alternative compliance
plan is a reasonably available control technology determination (RACT)
determination for Laminator No. 3. Reynolds states that this operation
is not a packaging rotogravure operation because of certain unique
features. If, in fact, this source is not a packaging rotogravure
operation, it would be considered a non-CTG source (i.e a source for
which EPA has not issued a Control Technique Guideline). The 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments require that major sources in ozone nonattainment
areas be subject to RACT. Richmond, where Reynolds is located, is a
moderate ozone nonattainment area. Virginia's plan limits the total
emissions from this operation to 2 tons per day, in lieu of any other
limit. EPA is proposing to approve the 2 ton per day emission cap as
RACT for Laminator No. 3.
Description of the Alternative Compliance Plan for the South (Foil)
Plant
The printing presses participating in this alternative compliance
plan are:
(1) Cigarette Machines Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4
(2) Coloring Machines No. 7
(3) Glue Mounter Nos. 1, 23
(4) Reseal Machines Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5
(5) Coloring Machines Nos. 1, 2, 6 (unless exhausted to incinerator)
(6) In-line Machine No. 24 (unless exhausted to incinerator)
The alternative compliance plan is configured such that if the
equipment in items (5) and/or (6) above are exhausted to an
incinerator, they will not participate in the plan.
SIP Submittal
The November 4, 1986 SIP submittal package from Virginia consisted
of the following documents:
(1) Cover letter dated 11/4/86 from Richard Cook, VA to James Seif,
EPA Region III.
(2) Consent Order for South-Foil plant, DSE 412A-86 amended 10/86
dated 10/30/86.
(3) Consent Order for Bellwood plant, DSE 413A-86 amended 10/86
dated 10/30/86.
(4) Public hearing certification for 9/30/85 public hearing.
(5) Letter to Ray Cunningham, EPA Region III, from Virginia
submitting the SAPCB meeting agenda.
(6) Letter dated 11/4/86 from John Daniel, VA to David Arnold, EPA
Region III.
The Consent Orders for South and for Bellwood each require that 65%
emission reduction be achieved at the plant over the historical amount
of solvent used to apply the same amount of solids. On December 5,
1986, EPA
[[Page 29964]]
sent a letter to Virginia, requesting additional information concerning
the formulas used to determine compliance and the effect of the revised
alternative compliance plan configurations on the proposed Richmond
SIP. On February 12, 1987, Virginia responded with additional
information which included changes and clarification to the formulas.
Virginia Graphic Arts Regulations
The Virginia graphic arts regulations were cited as being deficient
in the June 14, 1988 follow-up letter to the May 26, 1988 SIP call.
Specifically, the graphic arts regulation requires, for packaging
rotogravure operations, a 65% reduction. The baseline from which this
reduction is to be calculated is not specified. EPA's guidelines for
graphic arts sources require that a waterborne ink (75% water/exempt
solvent by volume) or a high-solids ink (60% solids) be used. If such
inks are not used, the VOC content of those inks must be reduced by 65%
for packaging rotogravure operations. Such a percentage reduction would
be calculated based on the VOC content of the inks used each day. The
reductions obtained by following EPA's guidelines would be larger than
those calculated from a historical average, as Virginia is proposing
for Reynolds. Therefore, the graphic arts regulation, 4.55(m), was not
considered RACT. The deficiencies with the graphic arts regulation were
identified in the June 14, 1988 follow-up letter to the May 26, 1988
SIP call. On May 10, 1991, Virginia submitted a request to revise the
graphic arts regulation, among other regulations, in response to the
comments made in the June 14, 1988 EPA letter. The revised State
regulations were effective July 10, 1991. EPA approved the amended
version of Rule 4-36 as a revision to the Virginia SIP on March 31,
1994 (59 FR 15117) and incorporated it by reference into the SIP at
52.2420(c)(99)(i)(B)(3). Further details regarding the specifics of the
alternative compliance plans for the two Reynolds Metals plants and
issues relating to approval of these plans can be found in the
accompanying technical support document.
Final Action
EPA is approving the alternative compliance plans for the Reynolds
Metals-Bellwood and Reynolds Metals-South plants, which were submitted
on November 4, 1986 as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
EPA is approving this SIP revision without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective July 29, 1996 unless, by July 15, 1996, adverse or critical
comments are received.
If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective on July 29, 1996.
The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-
approved State implementation plan for conformance with the provisions
of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The Agency has
determined that this action conforms with those requirements
irrespective of the fact that the submittal preceded the date of
enactment.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of EPA's
action to approve alternative compliance plans for the Reynolds
Metals--Bellwood and the Reynolds
[[Page 29965]]
Metals--South plants. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 17, 1996.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart VV--Virginia
2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(110) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(110) Alternative Compliance Plans submitted on November 4, 1986 by
the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of November 4, 1986 from the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board transmitting alternative compliance plans for
the Reynolds Metals--Bellwood and South Plants, Richmond, Virginia.
(B) The below-described Consent Agreements and Orders between the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Reynolds Metals Company, effective
October 31, 1986:
(1) DSE-413A-86--Consent Agreement and Order Addressing Reynolds
Metals Company's Bellwood Printing Plant (Registration No. 50260).
(2) DSE-412A-86--Consent Agreement and Order Addressing Reynolds
Metals Company's Richmond Foil Plant (Registration No. 50534).
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of November 4, 1986 State submittal.
(B) Letter of February 12, 1987 from the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board.
[FR Doc. 96-14967 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
