Jump to main content.

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Termination of Alternative Emission Reduction Plan for the Reynolds Metals Company, Bellwood Reclamation Plant 



[Federal Register: March 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 47)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 11840-11842]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11mr98-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 082-5032; FRL-5975-5]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Termination of Alternative Emission Reduction Plan for the 
Reynolds Metals Company, Bellwood Reclamation Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Virginia. This revision establishes and 
requires the affected facilities at the Bellwood Reclamation Plant to 
comply with the particulate emission limits of the Virginia process 
weight rule or new source review permit, as the case may be. The 
intended effect of this action is to approve a termination of a 1983

[[Page 11841]]

alternative emission reduction plan in accordance with a Consent 
Agreement signed on November 7, 1997. This action is being taken under 
section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 11, 1998, unless by April 10, 
1998, 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 Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Technical 
Assessment Section, Mailcode 3AP22, 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 
Protection 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, D.C. 20460; Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 
23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denis M. Lohman, (215) 566-2192, or by 
E-mail at lohman.denny@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 12, 1997, the State of Virginia 
submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 
SIP revision consists of the termination of a 1983 consent agreement 
and order that established an alternative emission reduction plan for 
the Bellwood Reclamation Plant owned by the Reynolds Metals Company.
    On February 7, 1983, the State Air Pollution Control Board approved 
a consent agreement and order to establish an alternative emission 
reduction plan (also referred to as a ``bubble'') for the Bellwood 
Reclamation Plant. On March 31, 1983, the Commonwealth of Virginia 
submitted the alternative emission reduction plan for the Bellwood 
Reclamation Plant as a source-specific revision to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). The alternative emission reduction plan was 
approved by EPA on March 26, 1984 (49 FR 11176).
    The previously approved bubble applies to two major processes at 
the Bellwood Reclamation Plant; the Herreshoff process and the melting 
furnaces #2, #4, and #5. The bubble allows the Herreshoff process to 
emit particulates in excess of the quantity allowed by the Virginia 
process weight rate rule in exchange for compensating emission 
reductions from specified other operations within the plant.
    Since 1984, the Bellwood Reclamation Plant has undergone a number 
of changes that impact the bubble. Reynolds have decommissioned a 
number of the units subject to the bubble, including the Herreshoff 
process and furnace #4, and have obtained a state new source review 
permit for furnace #5. At this time furnace #2 is the only operating 
unit subject to the bubble. As a result, the bubble is no longer needed 
to demonstrate compliance with Virginia's process weight rate rule and 
needs to be rescinded.

Summary of the SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of a Consent Agreement terminating the 
1983 Consent Agreement and Order that established the Bellwood bubble. 
The Consent Agreement was signed on October 24, 1997, by Cathy C. 
Taylor, Director, Corporate Environmental Quality Department of 
Reynolds Metals Company. The Consent Agreement became effective on 
November 7, 1997, when it was signed by Thomas L. Hopkins, Director, 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
    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 May 11, 1998, unless, by April 10, 1998, 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 May 11, 1998.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision request submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Virginia to terminate and rescind the Consent Agreement 
and Order which established an alternative emission reduction plan for 
the Bellwood Reclamation Plant owned by the Reynolds Metals Company.
    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.

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 does 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).

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 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-

[[Page 11842]]

 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 proposed/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 preexisting 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. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action to terminate and rescind the 1983 
alternative emission reduction plan for the Bellwood Reclamation Plant 
must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate 
circuit by May 11, 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).)

E. 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. 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).
    EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's 
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular 
applicability. The rule applies only to the Bellwood Reclamation Plant 
of Reynolds Metals Company.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference.

    Dated: February 26, 1998.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Deputy 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 et seq.

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(122) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (122 ) Revisions to the Virginia Regulations to terminate and 
rescind the 1983 alternative emission reduction plan for the Bellwood 
Reclamation Plant submitted on November 12, 1997 by the Department of 
Environmental Quality:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of November 12, 1997 from the Department of 
Environmental Quality transmitting a Consent Agreement to terminate the 
1983 alternative emission reduction plan for the Bellwood Reclamation 
Plant.
    (B) Consent Agreement to terminate and rescind the 1983 alternative 
emission reduction plan for the Bellwood Reclamation Plant, signed and 
effective on November 7, 1997.

[FR Doc. 98-6279 Filed 3-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.