# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Kentucky

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-772

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** January 13, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 1927

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-772. Public record. Not legal advice.