Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12123

1 On February 12, 1993, Massachusetts revised

310 CMR 7.18(17) to apply to 50 ton per year

facilities pursuant to Section 182 of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. This revised rule has not

yet been approved into the Massachusetts SIP.

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective May 5, 1995,

unless, by April 5, 1995, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the 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this action will be withdrawn before the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. The 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 May 5, 1995.

Regulatory Process

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-forprofit enterprises and government

entities with jurisdiction over

population of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA 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, I certify 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of part 52, chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(198)(i)(C) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District

(1) Rule 4407, adopted on May 19,

1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5342 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–30–1–6846a; A–1–FRL–5158–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; VOC RACT for Brittany

Dyeing and Printing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. This revision consists of

a reasonably available control

technology (RACT) Plan Approval for

controlling volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from Brittany Dyeing

and Printing Corporation of New

Bedford, Massachusetts. The intended

effect of this action is to approve a

source-specific RACT determination

made by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts in accordance with

commitments of its approved 1982

ozone attainment plan. This action is

being taken in accordance with the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 5,

1995, unless notice is received by April

5, 1995 that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Air, Pesticides and Toxics

Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 10th

floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., (LE–131), Washington,

DC 20460; and Division of Air Quality

Control, Department of Environmental

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,

Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne E. Arnold, (617) 565–3166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

31, 1994, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts submitted a formal

revision to its State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of

a reasonably available control

technology (RACT) Plan Approval for

controlling volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from Brittany Dyeing

and Printing Corporation of New

Bedford, Massachusetts.

Background Information

On November 9, 1983 (48 FR 51480),

EPA approved Massachusetts

Regulation 310 CMR 7.18(17)

‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology,’’ as part of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1982

ozone attainment plan. This regulation

requires the Massachusetts Department

of Environmental Protection to

determine and impose RACT on all

facilities with the potential to emit one

hundred tons per year or more of VOC

that are not already subject to

Massachusetts’ regulations developed

pursuant to the EPA Control Techniques

Guideline (CTG) documents.1

Summary of SIP Revision

On March 31, 1994, Massachusetts

submitted a RACT Plan Approval for

Brittany Dyeing and Printing. EPA has

reviewed this Plan Approval against the
12124 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

applicable statutory requirements and

for consistency with EPA guidance.

Massachusetts’ Plan Approval and

EPA’s evaluation are detailed in a

memorandum dated December 21, 1994,

entitled ‘‘Technical Support

Document—Massachusetts—Brittany

Dyeing and Printing Corporation.’’

Copies of that document are available,

upon request, from the EPA Regional

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this document. A summary of EPA’s

analysis is provided below.

Brittany has four 310 CMR 7.18(17)

RACT applicable VOC emitting

processes at its textile processing

facility: Fabric printing, fabric finishing,

fabric dyeing, and process cleaning.

Brittany’s total 1990 VOC emissions

were 172.1 tons.

Brittany has significantly reduced its

VOC emissions by reformulating its

printing pastes and finish formulations.

Fabric printing and fabric finishing are

the main source of VOC emissions at

Brittany. Together these processes

account for 93.6 percent of the facility’s

total 1990 VOC emissions. Although

there is no CTG document for the fabric

printing and finishing operations at

Brittany, a CTG does exist for graphic

arts printing (Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources—Volume VIII: Graphic Arts—

Rotogravure and Flexography; EPA–

450/2–78–033) which covers a printing

process that is similar to the fabric

printing and finishing operations at

Brittany. This CTG recommends a 65

percent overall reduction in VOC

emissions from packaging rotogravure

and a 75 percent overall reduction for

publication rotogravure when using

add-on controls. Furthermore, EPA has

determined that a 0.5 pounds of VOC

per pound of solids emission limit

constitutes RACT for flexographic and

packaging rotogravure printing.

The DEP has determined that an

emission limit of 0.5 pounds of VOC per

pound of solids represents RACT for

both the fabric printing and the fabric

finishing processes at Brittany. These

emissions limits, which are consistent

with those imposed on facilities covered

by the Graphic Arts printing CTG, are

reasonable limits. The 0.5 pounds of

VOC per pound of solids limits are also

consistent with a previously approved

RACT Plan for Duro Textile Printers of

Fall River, Massachusetts (54 FR 46896).

DEP has also determined that an

emissions limit of 0.5 pounds of VOC

per pound of solids represents RACT for

the fabric dyeing process at Brittany.

One exception to this limit is allowed

for Polyester Carrier. Once again, the 0.5

pounds of VOC per pound of solids

limit appears reasonable. The exception

for Polyester Carrier is also considered

acceptable in light of the following: (1)

Fabric dyeing is responsible for only 0.7

percent of the facility’s total 1990

emissions; and (2) DEP is also imposing

a 0.4 tons of VOC per year cap on

emissions from this product.

Finally, cleaning activities account for

5 percent of Brittany’s total 1990 VOC

emissions. EPA has recently published

guidance on emissions from process

cleaning (Alternate Control Techniques

Document—Industrial Cleaning

Solvents; EPA–453/R–94–015). This

document indicates that the

establishment of a solvents accounting

or tracking system whereby actual

solvent usage is tracked (rather than

tracking only the total quantity

purchased) leads to a reduction in

emissions from cleaning activities. DEP

is requiring that Brittany keep a separate

daily VOC emissions log for cleaning

activities and is also imposing annual

caps on VOC emissions from specific

cleaning products.

Brittany’s compliance with the RACT

requirements outlined above will be

determined by the VOC content of its

print pastes, finish formulations and

dyes, and by the amount of solvent used

per day. Brittany is required to keep

daily records documenting the use of all

VOC containing material.

EPA’s review of Massachusetts’ SIP

revision indicates that the requirements

contained in Massachusetts Plan

Approval No. 4P92012 represent RACT

for Brittany. EPA is, therefore,

approving the March 31, 1994

Massachusetts SIP revision.

EPA is publishing this action 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 May 5, 1995

unless, by April 5, 1995, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by simultaneously

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. The 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 May 5, 1995.

Final Action

EPA is approving Massachusetts’ Plan

Approval for Brittany Dyeing Printing

Corporation which was submitted as a

SIP revision on March 31, 1994. This

Plan Approval imposes RACT on

Brittany in order to reduce VOC

emissions from this facility.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. A future document will

inform the general public of these

tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) waived

Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions from

the requirement of section 3 of

Executive Order 12291 for a period of

two years. The EPA has submitted a

request for a permanent waiver for Table

2 and Table 3 SIP revisions. The OMB

has agreed to continue the waiver until

such time as it rules on U.S. EPA’s

request. This request continues in effect

under Executive Order 12866 which

superseded Executive Order 12291 on

September 30, 1993.

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 CAA 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, I

certify 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 regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12125

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 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 May 5, 1995.

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

such rule or action. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations 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 W—Massachusetts

2. Section 52.1120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(104) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(104) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection on March 31,

1994.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

dated March 31, 1994 submitting a

revision to the Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan.

(B) Final Plan Approval No. 4P92012,

dated and effective March 16, 1994

imposing reasonably available control

technology on Brittany Dyeing and

Finishing of New Bedford,

Massachusetts.

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Nonregulatory portions of the

submittal.

3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is

amended by adding new entries to

existing state citation 310 CMR 7.18(17)

to read as follows:

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts

state regulations.

* * * * *

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject

Date submitted by

State

Date approved by

EPA

Federal Register citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections

* * * * * * *

310 CMR 7.18(17) ........ Reasonably Available Control

Technology.

3/31/94 March 6, 1995 ........ [Insert FR citation

from published

date].

104 RACT for Brittany

Dyeing and Finishing of New

Bedford, MA.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5350 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–47–1–6705a; FRL–5161–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;

Revision to the State Implementation

Plan Addressing Sulfur Dioxide in

Harris County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves a

revision to the Texas State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to include

Agreed Orders limiting sulfur dioxide

(SO2) allowable emissions at certain

nonpermitted facilities in Harris

County, Texas. By approving these

Agreed Orders into the Texas SIP, along

with approving a modeling

demonstration showing attainment for

the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) in Harris County,

and acknowledging that Harris County

has more than two years of quality

assured SO2 monitoring data showing

no violations of the SO2 NAAQS, the

EPA will not, at this time, designate

Harris County, Texas nonattainment for

the SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

May 5, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 5, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register (FR).

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Planning

Section, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least twenty-four

hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch

(6T–A), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12124 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark Sather, Planning Section (6T-AP),

Air Programs Branch (6T–A), USEPA

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214)

665–7258.