Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29961

the Federal Register on November 29

and December 1, 1995 (60 FR 61424

[Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act],

61776 [Student Right-to-Know Act]).

Compliance with information collection

requirements in certain sections of these

regulations was delayed until those

requirements were approved by OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995. OMB approved the information

collection requirements in the

regulations on March 14, 1996 for the

graduation rate portion of the Student

Right-to-Know Act and Campus

Security Act, and March 29, 1996 for the

Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. The

information collection requirements in

these regulations will therefore become

effective with all of the other provisions

of the regulations on July 1, 1996.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

It is the practice of the Secretary to

offer interested parties the opportunity

to comment on proposed regulations.

However, the publication of OMB

control numbers is purely technical and

does not establish substantive policy.

Therefore, the Secretary has determined

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that public

comment on the regulations is

unnecessary and contrary to the public

interest.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 668

Administrative practice and

procedure, Colleges and universities,

Consumer protection, Education,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Student aid, Vocational

education.

Dated: June 6, 1996.

David A. Longanecker,

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary

Education.

The Secretary amends Part 668 of

Title 34 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 668—STUDENT ASSISTANCE

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 668

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1085, 1088, 1091,

1092, 1094, 1099c, and 1141 unless

otherwise noted.

§§ 668.41, 668.48 [Amended]

2. Sections 668.41 and 668.48 are

amended by republishing the OMB

control number following the section to

read as follows: ‘‘(Approved by the

Office of Management and Budget under

control number 1840–0711)’’

§§ 668.41, 668.46, 668.49 [Amended]

3. Sections 668.41, 668.46, and 668.49

are amended by adding the OMB control

number following each section to read

as follows: ‘‘(Approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under control

number 1840–0719)’’

[FR Doc. 96–14819 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN59–1–7217a; FRL–5510–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 29, 1995, the State

of Indiana submitted a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for rule changes specific to Allison

Engine Company (Allison) plants 5 and

8 located in Marion County, Indiana.

The submittal provides for an annual

particulate matter ‘‘bubble’’ limit (a

single limit which applies to the

combined emissions from more than

one source) for several boilers, and the

shutdown of two other boilers. Short

term particulate matter emission limits

for all remaining stacks remain

unchanged. This submittal represents a

reduction in allowable particulate

emissions of 67.7 tons per year, and the

State has submitted a modeling analysis

which shows that the revised rules will

not have an adverse effect on air quality.

DATES: The ‘‘direct final’’ is effective on

August 12, 1996, unless EPA receives

adverse or critical comments by July 15,

1996. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision

request are available for inspection at

the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that

you telephone David Pohlman at (312)

886–3299 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pohlman at (312) 886–3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Indiana’s submittal of August 29,

1995, contains revisions to Title 326

Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC)

6–1–12. The purpose of these changes is

to provide a combined annual emission

limit for several boilers at Allison, and

to set an emission limit of zero tons per

year for 2 boilers which have shut

down.

The proposed rules were published in

the Indiana Register on March 1, 1995.

Public hearings were held on the rules

on January 11, 1995, and April 5, 1995,

in Indianapolis, Indiana. The rules were

adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution

Control Board on April 5, 1995; were

published in the Indiana Register on

November 1, 1995, and, became

effective on November 3, 1995.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The rule revisions in the August 29,

1995, submittal provide for new

particulate matter (measured as total

suspended particulate) limits for three

stacks at Allison’s plants 5 and 8.

Previously, the stack serving boilers 1–

4 (plant 5) had a limit of 173.0 tons per

year (tpy), the stack serving boiler 2

(plant 8) had a limit of 3.2 tpy, the stack

serving boilers 3–6 (plant 8) had a limit

of 9.3 tpy, and the stack serving boilers

7–11 (plant 8) had a limit of 12.2 tpy.

These stacks also had limits of 0.337,

0.15, 0.15, and 0.15 pounds per million

British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU),

respectively. The revision provides

limits of 0 tons per year for boilers 2 and

11, which have shut down. The hourly

mass limits remain unchanged at 0.337

lbs/MMBTU for boilers 1–4 of plant 5,

0.15 lbs/MMBTU for boilers 3–6 of plant

8, and 0.15 lbs/MMBTU for boilers 7–

10 of plant 8. The rule provides for a

combined limit of 130.0 tons per year

for the boilers mentioned above, as well

as new limits on the types and amounts

of fuel which may be burned at the

boilers, and a recordkeeping

requirement to document compliance.

One problem which occurs several

times in the rule is that, in the emissions

limitations table, a list of several sources

is followed by a single limit. For

example, boilers 1–4 have a limit of .337

lbs/MMBTU. It is not clear from this

whether the limit is meant to apply to

individual boilers, or a single stack

serving several boilers in common. The

State has informed EPA that its

intention in such cases is that the limit

applies to each boiler. Also, the State

has agreed to correct this problem,

which occurs in a number of Indiana

PM rules. The EPA believes that, since

there is no more lenient interpretation
29962 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

than the one intended by the State, the

EPA believes this interpretation will not

impede the enforceability of the Allison

rules.

This SIP revision will result in an

overall reduction in allowed particulate

matter emissions of 67.7 tpy. The State

has submitted a modeling analysis

which shows the maximum particulate

impact off plant property to be 1.53

micrograms per cubic meter. The

allowable impact for this type of bubble

(see 51 FR 43814) is 5 micrograms per

cubic meter. Therefore, the EPA

concludes that the new regulations will

protect air quality in Marion County,

Indiana.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

Indiana’s submittal includes revisions

to 326 IAC 6–1–12. The EPA has

completed an analysis of this SIP

revision request based on a review of

the materials presented by Indiana and

has determined that it is approvable

because it will result in a decrease in

allowable particulate matter emissions

and will protect the air quality in the

Marion County area.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because EPA

views this action as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, EPA is publishing

a separate document in this Federal

Register publication, which constitutes

a ‘‘proposed approval’’ of the requested

SIP revision and clarifies that the

rulemaking will not be deemed final if

timely adverse or critical comments are

filed. The ‘‘direct final’’ approval shall

be effective on August 12, 1996, unless

EPA receives adverse or critical

comments by July 15, 1996. If EPA

receives comments adverse to or critical

of the approval discussed above, EPA

will withdraw this approval before its

effective date by publishing a

subsequent Federal Register document

which withdraws this final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in subsequent rulemaking.

Please be aware that EPA will institute

another comment period on this action

only if warranted by significant

revisions to the rulemaking based on

any comments received in response to

today’s action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, EPA hereby advises the public

that this action will be effective on

August 12, 1996.

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 9, 1995,

memorandum from Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the EPA prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the EPA must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The EPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments or the private

sector of less then $100 million in any

one year, the EPA has not prepared a

budgetary impact statement or

specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. Because

small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule, the EPA is not required to develop

a plan with regard to small

governments. This rule only approves

the incorporation of existing State rules

into the SIP. It imposes no additional

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, 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

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427

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

7410(a)(2).

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

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, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: May 15, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(108) to read as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29963

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(108) On August 29, 1995, Indiana

submitted a site specific SIP revision

request for Allison Engine Company in

Marion County, Indiana. The revision

provides limits of 0 tons per year for

boilers 2 and 11, which have shut down.

The hourly mass limits remain

unchanged at 0.337 pounds per million

British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBTU) for

boilers 1–4 of plant 5, 0.15 lbs/MMBTU

for boilers 3–6 of plant 8, and 0.15 lbs/

MMBTU for boilers 7–10 of plant 8. The

rule provides for a combined limit of

130.0 tons per year for the boilers

mentioned above, as well as new limits

on the types and amounts of fuel which

may be burned at the boilers, and a

recordkeeping requirement to document

compliance.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana

Administrative Code Title 326: Air

Pollution Control Board, Article 6:

Particulate Rules, Rule 1:

Nonattainment Area Limitations,

Section 12: Marion County. Added at 19

In. Reg. 186. Effective November 3,

1995.

[FR Doc. 96–14961 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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 lineby-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