Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Kentucky

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY-96-9801a; FRL-5946-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Commonwealth

of Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a source specific revision to the

Commonwealth of Kentucky's State implementation plan (SIP) for the

Reynolds Metals Company. The revision was submitted to EPA on May 20,

1997, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky Natural

Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC). The Reynolds

Metals Company currently has a source-specific SIP that was approved on

May 16, 1990.

[[Page 1928]]

This revision removes the limit on the operating speed for each of the

nine machines while lowering the actual emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) through the use of water-based inks and coatings.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 16, 1998 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by February 12, 1998. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Joey

LeVasseur at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies

of documents relative 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 24 hours before the

visiting day. Reference file KY-96-9801. The Region 4 office may have

additional background documents not available at the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joey LeVasseur at 404/562-9035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 16, 1990, EPA approved a source-specific SIP revision which

allows nine rotogravure printing/coating machines at the Reynolds

Metals plant (formerly Alcan Foil Products) to achieve compliance with

the applicable VOC reasonably available control technology (RACT)

regulations by using a plan which averages emissions and emission

reduction credits within the facility. This bubble includes a daily and

annual VOC limit and a limit on the number of days of operation. The

limits are a maximum of 2,164 pounds of VOCs per day, 266.2 tons of

VOCs per year and 246 operating days per year. The original SIP also

contained a limit on the line speeds that the machines were allowed to

operate. These limits were based on typical usage of each machine but

had no regulatory significance.

On May 20, 1997, the Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC)

submitted a revision to the Reynolds Metals source-specific SIP to the

EPA. The SIP revision proposes to reduce the daily limit to 1,458

pounds of VOCs, to increase the operating days to 365 per year, and to

keep the annual limit of 266.2 tons per year. This will reduce the

daily limit by 706 pounds of VOCs per day while allowing the company

the flexibility to operate more days per year. The company also

proposes to have the operating speed limits of the machines rescinded

as they will not cause an increase in emissions.

II. Final Action

The EPA is approving and 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, the EPA is proposing to approve the

SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action

will be effective March 16, 1998 unless, by February 12, 1998, 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 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 March 16, 1998.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 Regional

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) and 7410(k)(3).

C. Unfunded Mandates

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 rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

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

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule

[[Page 1929]]

and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.

This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial 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 March 16, 1998. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 29, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IV.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 et seq.

Subpart S--Kentucky

2. Section 52.920, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(86) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.920 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(86) Revision to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan submitted

by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet on May

20, 1997. The revision is for the Reynolds Metals Company.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Air Pollution Control District of

Jefferson County Permit numbers 103-74, 104-74, 105-74, 106-74, 110-74,

and 111-74, effective April 16, 1997.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 98-772 Filed 1-12-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F