Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds From the Reynolds Consumer Products LLC-Bellwood Printing Plant, 58855-58858 [2016-20299]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
58855
EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
Action/SIP element
*
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
*
Statewide ........
3. Section 52.1683 is amended by
adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1683
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) The portion of the SIP submitted
on April 4, 2013 addressing Clean Air
Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS is disapproved.
[FR Doc. 2016–20411 Filed 8–25–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0233; FRL–9951–41–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Control of Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds From the
Reynolds Consumer Products LLC—
Bellwood Printing Plant
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the
Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia)
state implementation plan (SIP). The
revision would remove a consent
agreement and order (consent order)
previously included in the Virginia SIP
to address reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
control at the Reynolds Consumer
Product LLC (Reynolds) plant and
include a state operating permit in the
SIP to continue to address RACT
requirements for the Reynolds plant.
EPA is approving these revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on October
25, 2016 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives
such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
New York
submittal date
*
04/04/13
EPA Approval date
*
08/26/16, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2016–0233 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the ‘‘For
Further Information Contact’’ section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 26, 2015, the
Commonwealth of Virginia through the
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision
to its SIP. The SIP revision submittal
seeks to include state operating permit
conditions and terms for the control of
emissions of VOCs from Reynolds’ plant
located in Chesterfield, Virginia, in the
Richmond Area, in order to address
VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA
element: 110(a)(2)(D(i)(II) prong 4.
Previously, VOC RACT requirements for
Reynolds were addressed via inclusion
in the Virginia SIP of a Consent Order
between VADEQ and Reynolds. This
SIP revision submittal seeks to remove
the prior Reynolds’ consent order
included in the SIP and replace it with
nearly identical VOC RACT
requirements now contained for the
Reynolds’ plant in a state operating
permit. The SIP revision submittal also
contains minor administrative and
technical changes related to VOCs
compared to the Reynolds’ consent
order; however, the substantive
provision of VOC RACT remains the
same for the Reynolds’ plant, thus the
minor administrative and technical
changes have no effect on facility
operation, VOC emissions, or air
quality.
The Virginia SIP provides that the
Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Air
Pollution Control Board must, on caseby-case basis, determine RACT for VOCs
from major sources for which EPA has
not issued a control technology
guideline (CTG). EPA defines RACT as
‘‘the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.’’
44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). The
Richmond Area was originally
designated as a ‘‘moderate’’ ozone
nonattainment area under the 1-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS), and thereby had to
meet the non-CTGs RACT requirements
under section 182 of the CAA (56 FR
56694, November 6, 1991). Reynolds’
printing plant was identified as being
subject to non-CTG RACT. The facility
underwent a RACT analysis, and a
federally-enforceable consent order was
issued to the facility on October 30,
1986. The order was then submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision, and approved
into the Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6,
1996 (61 FR 29963).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The SIP revision removes the prior
Reynolds’ consent order included in the
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
58856
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SIP and replaces it with nearly identical
VOC RACT requirements now contained
for the Reynolds’ plant in a state
operating permit. Including the permit
in the SIP will continue to implement
RACT requirements for the plant, a
major source of VOCs, as required by
sections 172 and 182(b) of the CAA. The
permit established control technology
and other requirements for the control
of VOC emissions from the Reynolds’
plant in the Richmond Area. The permit
incorporates only the conditions of the
consent order, along with general permit
conditions relating to testing, right of
entry, and change of ownership. All
operational requirements are limited in
scope to those required by the consent
order approved into the
Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 1996
(61 FR 29963). This includes process
requirements to control VOC emissions,
process emission limits, and on-site
records.
The Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP
revision also corrects two typographical
errors in the formula used to calculate
the estimated percent reduction in VOC
emissions at Reynolds’ plant for X14
(total actual solvent usage for time
period) and X15 (total estimated
solvents the plant is capable of using if
water based materials were not used).
The formula with the typographical
errors was approved into the
Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 1996
(61 FR 29963). The revised formula for
the state operating permit merely
corrects a typographical mistake made
within the consent order but does not
alter how VOCs are or were calculated
nor affect VOC emissions from the
plant. A more detailed description of
the state submittal and EPA’s evaluation
is included in a technical support
document (TSD) prepared in support of
this rulemaking action.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the October 26,
2015 submittal for the purpose of
removing a consent order previously
included in the Virginia SIP to address
RACT requirements for VOC control at
the Reynolds’ plant and including
Reynolds’ state operating permit in the
SIP to continue to address RACT
requirements for Reynolds. EPA also
approves the minor administrative and
technical changes in the formula used to
calculate the estimated percent
reduction in VOC emissions. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior
proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment.
However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’
section of this Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
will serve as the proposal to approve the
SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on
October 25, 2016 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives
adverse comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
IV. General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation
that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental
assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for
voluntary compliance evaluations
performed by a regulated entity. The
legislation further addresses the relative
burden of proof for parties either
asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the
privilege is claimed. Virginia’s
legislation also provides, subject to
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws
when a regulated entity discovers such
violations pursuant to a voluntary
compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information
that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a
voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger
to the public health or environment; or
(4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal
opinion that states that the Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198,
precludes granting a privilege to
documents and information ‘‘required
by law,’’ including documents and
information ‘‘required by federal law to
maintain program delegation,
authorization or approval,’’ since
Virginia must ‘‘enforce federally
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
authorized environmental programs in a
manner that is no less stringent than
their federal counterparts. . . .’’ The
opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding
§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or
criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged
because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by
federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.’’
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec.
10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent
consistent with requirements imposed
by federal law,’’ any person making a
voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an
environmental statute, regulation,
permit, or administrative order is
granted immunity from administrative
or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s
January 12, 1998 opinion states that the
quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any
federally authorized programs, since
‘‘no immunity could be afforded from
administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria
for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the CAA, including,
for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or
prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement
effort. In addition, citizen enforcement
under section 304 of the CAA is
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of a revision removing the
prior Reynolds’ consent order included
in the SIP and replacing it with nearly
identical VOC RACT requirements now
contained for the Reynolds’ plant in a
state operating permit. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update of the SIP compilation.1
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region III Office
(please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more
information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
1 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. section 804,
however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of
particular applicability; rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under
section 801.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58857
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 25, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register, rather than file
an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking action.
This action removing a consent order
previously included in the Virginia SIP
to address RACT requirements for VOCs
control at Reynolds plant and including
Reynolds’ state operating permit in the
SIP to continue to address RACT
requirements for Reynolds; as well as,
making minor administrative and
technical changes in the formula used to
calculate the estimated percent
reduction in VOC emissions, 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, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 12, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV—Virginia
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by revising the entry for
Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.2420
*
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
*
Identification of plan.
*
26AUR1
*
*
58858
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Permit/order or
registration
No.
Source name
State effective
date
*
50260
10/20/2015
*
*
*
Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood ...........................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 09–230; FCC 16–105]
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; application for
review.
AGENCY:
In this Memorandum Opinion
and Order, the Commission denies the
application for review of the Media
Bureau’s dismissal of a petition for
reconsideration of decisions that
allotted VHF television channel 5 to
Seaford, Delaware. The Media Bureau
had dismissed the petition for
reconsideration challenging the Seaford
allotment because it was untimely filed
and the Commission concludes that
there is no basis to waive the statutory
deadline for the filing of petitions for
reconsideration.
DATES: August 26, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremy Miller, Media Bureau, (202) 418–
1507, or by email at Jeremy.Miller@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to sections 331(a) and 307(b) of the
Communications Act, this is a synopsis
of the Commission’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order, MB Docket No. 09–
230, adopted August 3, 2016, and
released August 4, 2016. The full text of
this document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
14:39 Aug 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
*
*
8/26/2016 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and
Order
Television Broadcasting Services;
Seaford, Delaware
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
DC 20554. This document will also be
available via ECFS (https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
*
[FR Doc. 2016–20299 Filed 8–25–16; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
EPA approval date
The Commission has before it for
consideration an Application for Review
filed by PMCM TV, LLC (‘‘PMCM’’),
seeking review of three decisions by the
Video Division of the Media Bureau (the
‘‘Division’’): (1) The Seaford Report and
Order that allotted very high frequency
(‘‘VHF’’) television channel 5 to Seaford,
Delaware; (2) the Seaford MO&O on
Reconsideration rejecting a petition for
reconsideration of the Seaford Report
and Order and (3) the Seaford MO&O on
Further Reconsideration dismissing
PMCM’s petition for reconsideration of
the prior Seaford decisions as untimely.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny
the AFR and affirm the Division’s
dismissal of the PMCM Petition.1
In ordering the Seaford allotment, the
Commission concluded that the
outcome of PMCM’s Reallocation
Request was not relevant. PMCM did
not seek reconsideration of that finding
until nearly three years later when, for
the first time, it opposed the new
Seaford allotment that it had previously
‘‘strongly’’ supported. In hindsight,
PMCM now argues that the Commission
should have postponed allocating a new
channel to Delaware while its efforts to
reallocate channel 2 played out at the
Commission and in court, even though
1 An Application for Review must establish that
the actions of the delegated authority: (i) Conflicted
with statute, regulation, case precedent or
Commission policy; (ii) involved a question of law
or policy not previously resolved by the
Commission; (iii) involved precedent or policy that
should be overturned or revised; (iv) made an
erroneous finding as to an important fact; or (v)
made a prejudicial procedural error.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
40 CFR part 52
citation
*
52.2465(c)(110)
*
the pendency of that litigation did not
prevent PMCM from raising other
concerns premised on a favorable
outcome regarding its Reallocation
Request, and the Seaford allotment is
consistent with that request.2 In short, it
appears that PMCM simply changed its
strategy as developments unfolded.
The staff was correct in determining
that PMCM’s Petition for
Reconsideration of the Seaford Report
and Order was untimely. Section 405 of
the Act provides that ‘‘petitions for
reconsideration must be filed within
thirty days from the date upon which
public notice is given of the action . . .
complained of.’’ Public notice of the
Seaford Report and Order was given on
May 7, 2010. The Petition for
Reconsideration was filed on March 15,
2013, on the basis that allotment of a
new channel to Seaford was improper.
PMCM’s claim that its Petition was
timely because it was filed within 30
days after issuance of the Seaford
MO&O on Further Reconsideration is
entirely without merit. PMCM’s Petition
challenged the allocation adopted in the
Seaford Report and Order, not the
Commission’s rejection of BMC’s
argument that the Commission should
have placed the new allocation at
channel 2 or 3. As to its request for
reconsideration of the Seaford MO&O
on Reconsideration, the Petition
therefore was an impermissible
collateral challenge to the Seaford
Report and Order. The deadline for
filing the Petition therefore was 30 days
after public notice of the Seaford Report
and Order, not 30 days after public
2 PMCM now attempts to excuse its failure to
object to the Seaford allotment earlier on the
grounds that it had no reason to object to the
proposal to place the allotment in Seaford, in
Southern Delaware, which lacked robust broadcast
service, but its interests changed when Western
Pacific applied to change the community of license
to Dover. PMCM even sought to bid in the auction
for channel 5. As to its objection to an allotment
in Dover, WMDE’s application for a change in
community of license is the proper proceeding for
the airing of this grievance, and in fact, PMCM has
sought reconsideration of the Bureau’s decision in
that proceeding.
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58855-58858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20299]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0233; FRL-9951-41-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds From the
Reynolds Consumer Products LLC--Bellwood Printing Plant
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia
(Virginia) state implementation plan (SIP). The revision would remove a
consent agreement and order (consent order) previously included in the
Virginia SIP to address reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) control at the
Reynolds Consumer Product LLC (Reynolds) plant and include a state
operating permit in the SIP to continue to address RACT requirements
for the Reynolds plant. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on October 25, 2016 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 26,
2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0233 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 26, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia through the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision submittal seeks to include state
operating permit conditions and terms for the control of emissions of
VOCs from Reynolds' plant located in Chesterfield, Virginia, in the
Richmond Area, in order to address VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds.
Previously, VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds were addressed via
inclusion in the Virginia SIP of a Consent Order between VADEQ and
Reynolds. This SIP revision submittal seeks to remove the prior
Reynolds' consent order included in the SIP and replace it with nearly
identical VOC RACT requirements now contained for the Reynolds' plant
in a state operating permit. The SIP revision submittal also contains
minor administrative and technical changes related to VOCs compared to
the Reynolds' consent order; however, the substantive provision of VOC
RACT remains the same for the Reynolds' plant, thus the minor
administrative and technical changes have no effect on facility
operation, VOC emissions, or air quality.
The Virginia SIP provides that the Commonwealth of Virginia's State
Air Pollution Control Board must, on case-by-case basis, determine RACT
for VOCs from major sources for which EPA has not issued a control
technology guideline (CTG). EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.'' 44 FR 53761
(September 17, 1979). The Richmond Area was originally designated as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and thereby had to meet the non-
CTGs RACT requirements under section 182 of the CAA (56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991). Reynolds' printing plant was identified as being
subject to non-CTG RACT. The facility underwent a RACT analysis, and a
federally-enforceable consent order was issued to the facility on
October 30, 1986. The order was then submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision, and approved into the Commonwealth's SIP on June 6, 1996 (61
FR 29963).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The SIP revision removes the prior Reynolds' consent order included
in the
[[Page 58856]]
SIP and replaces it with nearly identical VOC RACT requirements now
contained for the Reynolds' plant in a state operating permit.
Including the permit in the SIP will continue to implement RACT
requirements for the plant, a major source of VOCs, as required by
sections 172 and 182(b) of the CAA. The permit established control
technology and other requirements for the control of VOC emissions from
the Reynolds' plant in the Richmond Area. The permit incorporates only
the conditions of the consent order, along with general permit
conditions relating to testing, right of entry, and change of
ownership. All operational requirements are limited in scope to those
required by the consent order approved into the Commonwealth's SIP on
June 6, 1996 (61 FR 29963). This includes process requirements to
control VOC emissions, process emission limits, and on-site records.
The Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP revision also corrects two
typographical errors in the formula used to calculate the estimated
percent reduction in VOC emissions at Reynolds' plant for X14 (total
actual solvent usage for time period) and X15 (total estimated solvents
the plant is capable of using if water based materials were not used).
The formula with the typographical errors was approved into the
Commonwealth's SIP on June 6, 1996 (61 FR 29963). The revised formula
for the state operating permit merely corrects a typographical mistake
made within the consent order but does not alter how VOCs are or were
calculated nor affect VOC emissions from the plant. A more detailed
description of the state submittal and EPA's evaluation is included in
a technical support document (TSD) prepared in support of this
rulemaking action.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the October 26, 2015 submittal for the purpose of
removing a consent order previously included in the Virginia SIP to
address RACT requirements for VOC control at the Reynolds' plant and
including Reynolds' state operating permit in the SIP to continue to
address RACT requirements for Reynolds. EPA also approves the minor
administrative and technical changes in the formula used to calculate
the estimated percent reduction in VOC emissions. EPA is publishing
this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on October 25, 2016 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a revision
removing the prior Reynolds' consent order included in the SIP and
replacing it with nearly identical VOC RACT requirements now contained
for the Reynolds' plant in a state operating permit. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
[[Page 58857]]
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 25, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action.
This action removing a consent order previously included in the
Virginia SIP to address RACT requirements for VOCs control at Reynolds
plant and including Reynolds' state operating permit in the SIP to
continue to address RACT requirements for Reynolds; as well as, making
minor administrative and technical changes in the formula used to
calculate the estimated percent reduction in VOC emissions, 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, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 12, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
2. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry for Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
[[Page 58858]]
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit/order
or State 40 CFR part 52
Source name registration effective date EPA approval date citation
No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood........ 50260 10/20/2015 8/26/2016 [Insert 52.2465(c)(110)
Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-20299 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
