17746 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

Administrative Record.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Richard J. Seibel,

Acting Assistant Director, Easter Support

Center.

[FR Doc. 95–8637 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA36–1–6922; FRL–5185–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Virginia: Non-CTG

Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Philip Morris, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional

approval of a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia. This

revision establishes and requires the use

of reasonably available control

technology (RACT) to control volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions

from the Philip Morris, Inc, (Philip

Morris), Manufacturing Center, in

Richmond, Virginia, which is part of the

Richmond ozone nonattainment area.

The SIP revision requires Philip Morris

to meet RACT by installing thermal

incinerators on process units that use

ethanol-based flavorings. An exemption

from this requirement is provided if the

company eliminates use of ethanolbased flavorings and there is no net

increase in VOC emissions. The

intended effect of this action is to

propose approval of the SIP revision on

the condition that deficiencies in the

exemption requirements are corrected

and submitted within one year of this

approval. If the State fails to do so, this

approval will convert to a disapproval.

This action is being taken under section

110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 8, 1995.

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; Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main

Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Henry, (215) 597–0545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 28, 1994, the Commonwealth

of Virginia submitted a revision to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The

SIP revision consists of a Consent Order

and Agreement (the Order) between the

Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) of the Commonwealth of Virginia

and Philip Morris, Inc.. The Order was

signed by Philip Morris’ Senior Vice

President of Manufacturing on June 14,

1994 and the Director of DEQ on June

27, 1994. The Order became effective on

June 27, 1994.

In the Federal Register on November

24, 1987, EPA’s Proposed Post-1987

Policy for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

stated that air quality monitors revealed

continued exceedances of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone and carbon

monoxide in Virginia and that a SIP call

would be issued. (See 52 FR 45044). On

May 26, 1988, the Regional

Administrator of EPA Region III notified

the Governor of Virginia that the

Commonwealth’s SIP was substantially

inadequate to achieve the ozone and

carbon monoxide NAAQS for certain

areas in Virginia, including Henrico

County in the Richmond-Petersburg

metropolitan statistical area, and

therefore required a SIP revision. As

prescribed by the SIP call, Virginia is

required to develop reasonably available

control technology (RACT) regulations

in all its nonattainment areas for all

VOC sources with the potential to emit

100 tons per year (TPY) or more for

which EPA has not issued a Control

Techniques Guidelines (CTG)

document. Such sources are known as

non-CTG sources. One of the non-CTG

sources identified as requiring RACT is

Philip Morris, Inc.’s Manufacturing

Center in Richmond, Virginia. The City

of Richmond is located in the Richmond

area, which is currently designated

nonattainment for ozone. Therefore,

Virginia is submitting this Order as a

SIP revision to fulfill part of its SIP call

obligation.

In addition, this SIP revision serves to

fulfill one of the RACT fix-up

requirements of the Virginia SIP

required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public

Law 101–549. Areas classified as

marginal nonattainment areas for ozone

pursuant to section 181(a) of the Clean

Air Act, as amended, are required to

meet the RACT fix-up requirements.

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), a state is

required to submit, within six months of

such classification, a SIP revision to

correct requirements in (or add

requirements to) the plan concerning

RACT, as interpreted in guidance issued

by the Administrator under section 108

of the Act before November 15, 1990.

Summary of SIP Revision

The Philip Morris Manufacturing

Center processes, flavors and blends

various types of tobacco for the

production of cigarettes. The operations

include moisture addition, preflavoring,

blending, cutting, flavoring and

cigarette-making. VOC emissions result

primarily from the application and

evaporation of flavorings, particularly

ethanol-based flavorings. Total

uncontrolled stack and fugitive VOC

emissions are estimated to be 1259 tons

per year, based on 1990 throughput

data.

To accommodate the number and

diversity of stack emissions at the

Manufacturing Center, RACT was

determined by grouping exhaust streams

in various combinations and evaluating

the feasibility and cost of installing

control technology on the combined

exhaust streams. Virginia has

determined that the only grouping

amenable to control technology is the

combination of exhausts from the unit

processes associated with ethanol-based

flavorings. These combined waste

streams comprise 48% of the

uncontrolled stack emissions from the

Manufacturing Center and are made up

of emissions from burley casing

cylinders #1 and #2, aftercut flavor

cylinders #1 through #8, and aftercut

dryers #1 through #4.

The Order establishes RACT for these

units as the installation and operation of

two (2) 10,000 standard cubic feet per

minute (scfm) thermal oxidation units

having a VOC destruction efficiency of

at least 95% on a mass basis. The

thermal oxidation units are required to

be operated at the three-hour average

minimum temperature that

demonstrates 95% destruction

efficiency as determined by

performance testing. Thermal oxidation

units must be interlocked with process

equipment and exhaust fans such that

tobacco cannot be processed and VOC

laden exhaust air cannot flow to the

incineration units until the minimum

temperature is achieved. In addition, the

Order requires that a negative pressure

be maintained in the exhaust system as

demonstrated by continuous pressure

monitors and reported as three-hour
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17747

rolling averages. Based on 1990

throughput data, stack emissions from

the process lines using ethanol-based

flavorings and aftercut dryers will be

reduced from 606 tons/year to 30 tons

per year.

The Order allows an exemption from

meeting these control requirements if

Philip Morris replaces the existing

ethanol-based flavorings with nonethanol-based flavorings, provided that

the change does not result in a net

increase in VOC emissions.

Virginia has determined that RACT

for all other tobacco processing

operations shall be the use of low-VOC,

non-ethanol based flavorings.

For more information on Virginia’s

RACT determination and the specific

provisions of the Order, please refer to

the Technical Support Document (TSD)

prepared for this notice. A copy of the

TSD is available, upon request, from the

EPA Regional Office listed in the

Addresses section of this notice.

EPA’s review of this material

indicates that the requirements to

install, operate and maintain thermal

oxidation units on the burley case

flavoring cylinders, the aftercut

flavoring cylinders and the aftercut

dryers, and the use of low VOC

flavorings on other tobacco processes

established by the Consent Order and

Agreement between the Virginia DEQ

and Philip Morris, Inc. constitutes

RACT for the facility’s VOC emitting

processes. EPA has also determined that

the exemption from meeting the

requirements of add-on controls through

the use of non-ethanol based flavorings

does not impose enforceable conditions

that would ensure that there shall be no

net increase in emissions above the

level established by RACT.

EPA is proposing to conditionally

approve the non-CTG RACT SIP

revision for the Philip Morris

Manufacturing Center pending

corrections to the exemption provided

in the Order that allows the use of

reformulated flavorings in lieu of

operating emission control technology.

RACT has been defined for burley

casing cylinders #1 and #2, aftercut

flavor cylinders #1 through #8, and

aftercut dryers #1 through #4 as 95%

destruction efficiency of VOCs on a

mass basis over a three hour averaging

period. Alternatively, the exemption

from operating add-on controls through

the use of reformulated flavorings

requires that there shall be no net

increase in VOC emissions. The Order is

deficient in that it does not require the

facility to monitor or report emissions

from the affected units when nonethanol-based flavorings are used and

the facility is exempt from operating the

thermal incinerators. The Order also

fails to require a baseline to be

established for the purpose of measuring

net increases or decreases in emissions.

Consequently, the requirement that

there be no net increase in emissions

from the substitution of reformulated

flavorings for add-on control is

unenforceable and does not impose the

same level of control that would be

imposed by the Order as RACT without

the exemption.

In order to correct this deficiency,

Virginia must amend and resubmit the

Order within one year of this

conditional approval in one of the

following ways: (1) eliminate the

exemption to use non-ethanol-based

flavorings in lieu of add-on controls; (2)

restrict the applicability of the

exemption to the use of non-VOC based

flavorings; or (3) impose monitoring and

reporting requirements sufficient to

determine net increases or decreases in

emissions on a mass basis relative to the

emissions that would have occurred

using add-on controls on an average not

to exceed thirty days. If Virginia fails to

revise and resubmit the Order within

one year, the conditional approval will

convert to a disapproval.

Proposed Action

Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the

CAA, EPA is proposing to conditionally

approve the Virginia SIP revision for the

Philip Morris Manufacturing Center,

which was submitted on September 28,

1994. Virginia must amend the Consent

Order and Agreement with Philip

Morris, Inc, according to one of the

three options described in this notice

and resubmit the Order to EPA. If

Virginia fails to do so within one year

of the final conditional approval, the

approval will convert to a disapproval.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this notice or on

other relevant matters. These comments

will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

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.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals 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 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).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the commitment, it will

not affect any existing state

requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the state

submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor

does it substitute a new federal

requirement.

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 an October 4,

1993 memorandum from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The OMB has

exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 review.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the SIP revision

will be based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K)

and part D of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR part 51.
17748 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1 The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and

the preamble to the final rule promulgated

September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further

background and information on the OCS

regulations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 22, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 95–8607 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 55

[FRL–5185–8]

Outer Continental Shelf Air

Regulations Consistency Update for

California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

consistency update.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements

applying to OCS sources located within

25 miles of states’ seaward boundaries

must be updated periodically to remain

consistent with the requirements of the

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the

Clean Air Act (‘‘the Act’’), the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. The portion

of the OCS air regulations being updated

pertain to the operating permit

requirements for OCS sources for which

the Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District (Ventura County APCD)

is the designated COA. The OCS

requirements for the above District,

contained in the Technical Support

Document, are proposed to be

incorporated by reference into the Code

of Federal Regulations and are listed in

the appendix to the OCS air regulations.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

update must be received on or before

May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

(in duplicate if possible) to: EPA Air

Docket (A–5), Attn: Docket No. A–93–16

Section VIII, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Toxics Division,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Docket: Supporting information used

in developing the proposed notice and

copies of the documents EPA is

proposing to incorporate by reference

are contained in Docket No. A–93–16

(Section VIII). This docket is available

for public inspection and copying

Monday–Friday during regular business

hours at the following locations:

EPA Air Docket (A–5), Attn: Docket No.

A–93–16 Section VIII, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Toxics

Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St.,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

EPA Air Docket (LE–6102), Attn: Air

Docket No. A–93–16 Section VIII,

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW, Room M–1500,

Washington, DC 20460.

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Air and Toxics

Division (A–5–3), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 4, 1992, EPA

promulgated 40 CFR part 55,1 which

established requirements to control air

pollution from OCS sources in order to

attain and maintain federal and state

ambient air quality standards and to

comply with the provisions of Part C of

title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all

OCS sources offshore of the States

except those located in the Gulf of

Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.

Section 328 of the Act requires that for

such sources located within 25 miles of

a state’s seaward boundary, the

requirements shall be the same as would

be applicable if the sources were located

in the COA. Because the OCS

requirements are based on onshore

requirements, and onshore requirements

may change, section 328(a)(1) requires

that EPA update the OCS requirements

as necessary to maintain consistency

with onshore requirements.

Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule,

consistency reviews will occur (1) at

least annually; (2) upon receipt of a

Notice of Intent (NOI) under § 55.4; and

(3) when a state or local agency submits

a rule to EPA to be considered for

incorporation by reference in part 55.

This NPR is being promulgated in

response to the submittal of part 70

permit rules by a local air pollution

control agency.

Section 328(a) of the Act requires that

EPA establish requirements to control

air pollution from OCS sources located

within 25 miles of states’ seaward

boundaries that are the same as onshore

requirements. To comply with this

statutory mandate, EPA must

incorporate applicable onshore rules

into part 55 as they exist onshore. This

limits EPA’s flexibility in deciding

which requirements will be

incorporated into part 55 and prevents

EPA from making substantive changes

to the requirements it incorporates. As

a result, EPA may be incorporating rules

into part 55 that do not conform to all

of EPA’s state implementation plan

(SIP) guidance or certain requirements

of the Act. Consistency updates may

result in the inclusion of state or local

rules or regulations into part 55, even

though the same rules may ultimately be

disapproved for inclusion as Part of the

SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not

imply that a rule meets the requirements

of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it

imply that the rule will be approved by

EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

On November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60104),

EPA proposed interim approval of the

Ventura County APCD Operating

Permits Program (part 70 permits). EPA

is now proposing to update 40 CFR part

55 by incorporating the requirements of

this program, in response to Ventura

County APCD’s request and to maintain

consistency with onshore requirements.

These proposed requirements will apply

to the extent that they are rationally

related to the attainment or maintenance

of Federal or State ambient air quality

standards or Part C of title I of the Act,

that they are not designed expressly to

prevent exploration and development of

the OCS, that they are applicable to OCS

sources, and that they do not solely

regulate pollutants or precursors to

pollutants for which there is no Federal

or State ambient air quality standard.

These proposed Ventura County APCD

part 70 permit requirements applicable

to OCS sources will not be finalized in

part 55 until EPA takes final action

granting full or interim approval to the

Ventura County APCD Operating

Permits Program.

The following Ventura County APCD

part 70 permit requirement were

submitted for inclusion in part 55:

Rule 33 Part 70 Permits—General

(Adopted 10/12/93)

Rule 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions

(Adopted 10/12/93)

Rule 33.2 Part 70 Permits—

Application Contents (Adopted 10/

12/93)

Rule 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit

Content (Adopted 10/12/93)

Rule 33.4 Part 70 Permits—

Operational Flexibility (Adopted

10/12/93)

Rule 33.5 Part 70 Permits—

Timeframes for Applications,

Review and Issuance (Adopted 10/

12/93)