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
29964 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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

§ 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

40 CFR Part 52

[IN61–1–7230a; FRL–5509–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On September 19, 1995, and

November 8, 1995, the State of Indiana

submitted a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision request to the EPA

establishing regulations for automobile

refinishing operations in Clark, Floyd,

Lake, and Porter Counties, as part of the

State’s 15 percent (%) Rate of Progress

(ROP) plan control strategies for Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions.

VOC is an air pollutant which combines

with oxides of nitrogen in the

atmosphere to form ground-level ozone,

commonly known as smog. Ozone

pollution is of particular concern

because of its harmful effects upon lung

tissue and breathing passages. ROP

plans are intended to bring areas which

have been exceeding the public healthbased Federal ozone air quality standard

closer to attaining the ozone standard.

This rule establishes VOC content limits

for suppliers and users of coating and

surface preparation products applied in

motor vehicle/mobile equipment

refinishing operations, as well as

requires subject refinishing facilities to

meet certain work practice standards to

further reduce VOC. Indiana expects

that the control measures specified in

this automobile refinishing SIP will

reduce VOC emissions by 4,679 pounds

per day (lbs/day) in Lake and Porter

Counties and 1,172 lbs/day in Clark and

Floyd Counties. This rule is being

approved because it meets all the

applicable Federal requirements.

DATES: The ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective on August 12, 1996, unless

EPA receives adverse or critical

comments by July 15, 1996. If the

effective date is delayed, timely

notification will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision

request are available for inspection at

the following address: Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, Air Programs

Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone Mark

J. Palermo at (312) 886–6082 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886–6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Submittal Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act) requires all moderate and

above ozone nonattainment areas to

achieve a 15% reduction of 1990

emissions of VOC by November 15,

1996. In Indiana, Lake and Porter

Counties are classified as ‘‘severe’’

nonattainment for ozone, while Clark

and Floyd Counties are classified as

‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment. As such,

these counties are subject to the 15%

ROP requirement.

The Act specifies under section

182(b)(1)(C) that the 15% emission

reduction claimed under the ROP plan

must be achieved through the

implementation of control measures

through revisions to the SIP, the

promulgation of federal rules, or the

issuance of permits under Title V of the

Act, by November 15, 1996. Control

measures implemented before

November 15, 1990, are precluded from

counting toward the 15% reduction. In

addition, section 172(c)(9) requires

moderate areas to adopt contingency

measures by November 15, 1993. The

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (April 28,

1992, 57 FR at 18070), states that the

contingency measures generally must

provide reductions of 3% from the 1990

base-year inventory, which can be met

through additional SIP revisions.

Indiana has adopted and submitted

automobile refinishing rules for the

control of VOC as a revision to the SIP

for the purpose of meeting the 15% ROP

plan control measure requirement for

Clark and Floyd Counties, as well as

meeting the contingency measure

requirement for Lake and Porter

Counties. Determination of what

emission credit the State can take for

these rules for purposes of the 15% ROP

plan and contingency measures will be

addressed in a subsequent rulemaking

action addressing the 15% ROP plan

and measures as a whole.

On June 7, 1995, the Indiana Air

Pollution Control Board (IAPCB)

adopted the automobile refinishing rule.

Public hearings on the rule were held on

January 11, 1995, April 5, 1995, and

June 7, 1995, in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The rule was signed by the Secretary of

State on October 3, 1995, and became

effective on November 2, 1995; it was

published in the Indiana State Register

on November 1, 1995. The Indiana