81 FR 58855 - 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 Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 166 (August 26, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 166 (August 26, 2016)
| Page Range | 58855-58858 | |
| FR Document | 2016-20299 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 58855-58858] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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 http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]. 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
![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 New York
Action/SIP element EPA Approval date Explanation
nonattainment submittal date
area
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Require- Statewide ........ 04/04/13 08/26/16, [Insert This action addresses the following CAA
ments for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Federal Register element: 110(a)(2)(D(i)(II) prong 4.
citation].
■ 3. Section 52.1683 is amended by Federal Register and inform the public Previously, VOC RACT requirements for
adding paragraph (o) to read as follows: that the rule will not take effect. Reynolds were addressed via inclusion
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, in the Virginia SIP of a Consent Order
§ 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– between VADEQ and Reynolds. This
* * * * * OAR–2016–0233 at http:// SIP revision submittal seeks to remove
(o) The portion of the SIP submitted www.regulations.gov, or via email to the prior Reynolds’ consent order
on April 4, 2013 addressing Clean Air fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For included in the SIP and replace it with
Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 comments submitted at Regulations.gov, nearly identical VOC RACT
ozone NAAQS is disapproved. follow the online instructions for requirements now contained for the
[FR Doc. 2016–20411 Filed 8–25–16; 8:45 am] submitting comments. Once submitted, Reynolds’ plant in a state operating
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P comments cannot be edited or removed permit. The SIP revision submittal also
from Regulations.gov. For either manner contains minor administrative and
of submission, the EPA may publish any technical changes related to VOCs
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comment received to its public docket. compared to the Reynolds’ consent
AGENCY Do not submit electronically any order; however, the substantive
information you consider to be provision of VOC RACT remains the
40 CFR Part 52 same for the Reynolds’ plant, thus the
confidential business information (CBI)
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0233; FRL–9951–41– or other information whose disclosure is minor administrative and technical
Region 3] restricted by statute. Multimedia changes have no effect on facility
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be operation, VOC emissions, or air
Approval and Promulgation of Air accompanied by a written comment. quality.
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; The written comment is considered the The Virginia SIP provides that the
Control of Emissions of Volatile official comment and should include Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Air
Organic Compounds From the discussion of all points you wish to Pollution Control Board must, on case-
Reynolds Consumer Products LLC— make. The EPA will generally not by-case basis, determine RACT for VOCs
Bellwood Printing Plant consider comments or comment from major sources for which EPA has
AGENCY: Environmental Protection contents located outside of the primary not issued a control technology
Agency (EPA). submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or guideline (CTG). EPA defines RACT as
ACTION: Direct final rule. other file sharing system). For ‘‘the lowest emission limitation that a
additional submission methods, please particular source is capable of meeting
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection contact the person identified in the ‘‘For by the application of control technology
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final Further Information Contact’’ section. that is reasonably available considering
action to approve a revision to the For the full EPA public comment policy, technological and economic feasibility.’’
Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) information about CBI or multimedia 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). The
state implementation plan (SIP). The submissions, and general guidance on Richmond Area was originally
revision would remove a consent making effective comments, please visit designated as a ‘‘moderate’’ ozone
agreement and order (consent order) http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ nonattainment area under the 1-hour
previously included in the Virginia SIP commenting-epa-dockets. ozone national ambient air quality
to address reasonably available control FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: standard (NAAQS), and thereby had to
technology (RACT) requirements for Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by meet the non-CTGs RACT requirements
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. under section 182 of the CAA (56 FR
control at the Reynolds Consumer SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 56694, November 6, 1991). Reynolds’
Product LLC (Reynolds) plant and printing plant was identified as being
include a state operating permit in the I. Background subject to non-CTG RACT. The facility
SIP to continue to address RACT On October 26, 2015, the underwent a RACT analysis, and a
requirements for the Reynolds plant. Commonwealth of Virginia through the federally-enforceable consent order was
EPA is approving these revisions in Virginia Department of Environmental issued to the facility on October 30,
accordance with the requirements of the Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision 1986. The order was then submitted to
Clean Air Act (CAA). to its SIP. The SIP revision submittal EPA as a SIP revision, and approved
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES: This rule is effective on October seeks to include state operating permit into the Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6,
25, 2016 without further notice, unless conditions and terms for the control of 1996 (61 FR 29963).
EPA receives adverse written comment emissions of VOCs from Reynolds’ plant
II. Summary of SIP Revision
by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives located in Chesterfield, Virginia, in the
such comments, it will publish a timely Richmond Area, in order to address The SIP revision removes the prior
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds. Reynolds’ consent order included in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:39 Aug 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_59021/page/1.svg)
![58856 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SIP and replaces it with nearly identical will serve as the proposal to approve the authorized environmental programs in a
VOC RACT requirements now contained SIP revision if adverse comments are manner that is no less stringent than
for the Reynolds’ plant in a state filed. This rule will be effective on their federal counterparts. . . .’’ The
operating permit. Including the permit October 25, 2016 without further notice opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding
in the SIP will continue to implement unless EPA receives adverse comment § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or
RACT requirements for the plant, a by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives other information needed for civil or
major source of VOCs, as required by adverse comment, EPA will publish a criminal enforcement under one of these
sections 172 and 182(b) of the CAA. The timely withdrawal in the Federal programs could not be privileged
permit established control technology Register informing the public that the because such documents and
and other requirements for the control rule will not take effect. EPA will information are essential to pursuing
of VOC emissions from the Reynolds’ address all public comments in a enforcement in a manner required by
plant in the Richmond Area. The permit subsequent final rule based on the federal law to maintain program
incorporates only the conditions of the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a delegation, authorization or approval.’’
consent order, along with general permit second comment period on this action. Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec.
conditions relating to testing, right of Any parties interested in commenting 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent
entry, and change of ownership. All must do so at this time. consistent with requirements imposed
operational requirements are limited in by federal law,’’ any person making a
IV. General Information Pertaining to
scope to those required by the consent voluntary disclosure of information to a
SIP Submittals From the
order approved into the state agency regarding a violation of an
Commonwealth of Virginia
Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 1996 environmental statute, regulation,
(61 FR 29963). This includes process In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation permit, or administrative order is
requirements to control VOC emissions, that provides, subject to certain granted immunity from administrative
process emission limits, and on-site conditions, for an environmental or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s
records. assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for January 12, 1998 opinion states that the
The Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP voluntary compliance evaluations quoted language renders this statute
revision also corrects two typographical performed by a regulated entity. The inapplicable to enforcement of any
errors in the formula used to calculate legislation further addresses the relative federally authorized programs, since
the estimated percent reduction in VOC burden of proof for parties either ‘‘no immunity could be afforded from
emissions at Reynolds’ plant for X14 asserting the privilege or seeking administrative, civil, or criminal
(total actual solvent usage for time disclosure of documents for which the penalties because granting such
period) and X15 (total estimated privilege is claimed. Virginia’s immunity would not be consistent with
solvents the plant is capable of using if legislation also provides, subject to federal law, which is one of the criteria
water based materials were not used). certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for immunity.’’
The formula with the typographical for violations of environmental laws Therefore, EPA has determined that
errors was approved into the when a regulated entity discovers such Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 1996 violations pursuant to a voluntary statutes will not preclude the
(61 FR 29963). The revised formula for compliance evaluation and voluntarily Commonwealth from enforcing its
the state operating permit merely discloses such violations to the program consistent with the federal
corrects a typographical mistake made Commonwealth and takes prompt and requirements. In any event, because
within the consent order but does not appropriate measures to remedy the EPA has also determined that a state
alter how VOCs are or were calculated violations. Virginia’s Voluntary audit privilege and immunity law can
nor affect VOC emissions from the Environmental Assessment Privilege affect only state enforcement and cannot
plant. A more detailed description of Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides have any impact on federal enforcement
the state submittal and EPA’s evaluation a privilege that protects from disclosure authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
is included in a technical support documents and information about the its authority under the CAA, including,
document (TSD) prepared in support of content of those documents that are the for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
this rulemaking action. product of a voluntary environmental or 213, to enforce the requirements or
assessment. The Privilege Law does not prohibitions of the state plan,
III. Final Action extend to documents or information independently of any state enforcement
EPA is approving the October 26, that: (1) Are generated or developed effort. In addition, citizen enforcement
2015 submittal for the purpose of before the commencement of a under section 304 of the CAA is
removing a consent order previously voluntary environmental assessment; (2) likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
included in the Virginia SIP to address are prepared independently of the audit privilege or immunity law.
RACT requirements for VOC control at assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
the Reynolds’ plant and including clear, imminent and substantial danger V. Incorporation by Reference
Reynolds’ state operating permit in the to the public health or environment; or In this rule, EPA is finalizing
SIP to continue to address RACT (4) are required by law. regulatory text that includes
requirements for Reynolds. EPA also On January 12, 1998, the incorporation by reference. In
approves the minor administrative and Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
technical changes in the formula used to Attorney General provided a legal 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
calculate the estimated percent opinion that states that the Privilege by reference of a revision removing the
reduction in VOC emissions. EPA is Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, prior Reynolds’ consent order included
publishing this rule without prior precludes granting a privilege to in the SIP and replacing it with nearly
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
proposal because EPA views this as a documents and information ‘‘required identical VOC RACT requirements now
noncontroversial amendment and by law,’’ including documents and contained for the Reynolds’ plant in a
anticipates no adverse comment. information ‘‘required by federal law to state operating permit. Therefore, these
However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ maintain program delegation, materials have been approved by EPA
section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorization or approval,’’ since for inclusion in the SIP, have been
publishing a separate document that Virginia must ‘‘enforce federally incorporated by reference by EPA into
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:39 Aug 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_59021/page/2.svg)
![58858 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Permit/order or State effective 40 CFR part 52
Source name registration EPA approval date
date citation
No.
* * * * * * *
Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood ........................................... 50260 10/20/2015 8/26/2016 [Insert Federal 52.2465(c)(110)
Register citation].
* * * * * * *
* * * * * DC 20554. This document will also be the pendency of that litigation did not
[FR Doc. 2016–20299 Filed 8–25–16; 8:45 am] available via ECFS (http:// prevent PMCM from raising other
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request concerns premised on a favorable
materials in accessible formats for outcome regarding its Reallocation
people with disabilities (braille, large Request, and the Seaford allotment is
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS print, electronic files, audio format), consistent with that request.2 In short, it
COMMISSION send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call appears that PMCM simply changed its
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs strategy as developments unfolded.
47 CFR Part 73 Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– The staff was correct in determining
[MB Docket No. 09–230; FCC 16–105] 418–0432 (tty). that PMCM’s Petition for
Reconsideration of the Seaford Report
Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and
Television Broadcasting Services; and Order was untimely. Section 405 of
Order
Seaford, Delaware the Act provides that ‘‘petitions for
The Commission has before it for reconsideration must be filed within
AGENCY: Federal Communications consideration an Application for Review thirty days from the date upon which
Commission. filed by PMCM TV, LLC (‘‘PMCM’’), public notice is given of the action . . .
ACTION: Final rule; application for seeking review of three decisions by the complained of.’’ Public notice of the
review. Video Division of the Media Bureau (the Seaford Report and Order was given on
‘‘Division’’): (1) The Seaford Report and May 7, 2010. The Petition for
SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion Order that allotted very high frequency Reconsideration was filed on March 15,
and Order, the Commission denies the (‘‘VHF’’) television channel 5 to Seaford, 2013, on the basis that allotment of a
application for review of the Media Delaware; (2) the Seaford MO&O on new channel to Seaford was improper.
Bureau’s dismissal of a petition for Reconsideration rejecting a petition for PMCM’s claim that its Petition was
reconsideration of decisions that reconsideration of the Seaford Report timely because it was filed within 30
allotted VHF television channel 5 to and Order and (3) the Seaford MO&O on days after issuance of the Seaford
Seaford, Delaware. The Media Bureau Further Reconsideration dismissing MO&O on Further Reconsideration is
had dismissed the petition for PMCM’s petition for reconsideration of entirely without merit. PMCM’s Petition
reconsideration challenging the Seaford the prior Seaford decisions as untimely. challenged the allocation adopted in the
allotment because it was untimely filed For the reasons set forth below, we deny Seaford Report and Order, not the
and the Commission concludes that the AFR and affirm the Division’s Commission’s rejection of BMC’s
there is no basis to waive the statutory dismissal of the PMCM Petition.1 argument that the Commission should
deadline for the filing of petitions for
In ordering the Seaford allotment, the have placed the new allocation at
reconsideration.
Commission concluded that the channel 2 or 3. As to its request for
DATES: August 26, 2016. outcome of PMCM’s Reallocation reconsideration of the Seaford MO&O
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Request was not relevant. PMCM did on Reconsideration, the Petition
Commission, 445 12th Street SW., not seek reconsideration of that finding therefore was an impermissible
Washington, DC 20554. until nearly three years later when, for collateral challenge to the Seaford
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the first time, it opposed the new Report and Order. The deadline for
Jeremy Miller, Media Bureau, (202) 418– Seaford allotment that it had previously filing the Petition therefore was 30 days
1507, or by email at Jeremy.Miller@ ‘‘strongly’’ supported. In hindsight, after public notice of the Seaford Report
fcc.gov. PMCM now argues that the Commission and Order, not 30 days after public
should have postponed allocating a new
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
channel to Delaware while its efforts to 2 PMCM now attempts to excuse its failure to
to sections 331(a) and 307(b) of the
reallocate channel 2 played out at the object to the Seaford allotment earlier on the
Communications Act, this is a synopsis grounds that it had no reason to object to the
Commission and in court, even though
of the Commission’s Memorandum proposal to place the allotment in Seaford, in
Opinion and Order, MB Docket No. 09– Southern Delaware, which lacked robust broadcast
1 An Application for Review must establish that service, but its interests changed when Western
230, adopted August 3, 2016, and
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
the actions of the delegated authority: (i) Conflicted Pacific applied to change the community of license
released August 4, 2016. The full text of with statute, regulation, case precedent or to Dover. PMCM even sought to bid in the auction
this document is available for public Commission policy; (ii) involved a question of law for channel 5. As to its objection to an allotment
inspection and copying during normal or policy not previously resolved by the in Dover, WMDE’s application for a change in
Commission; (iii) involved precedent or policy that community of license is the proper proceeding for
business hours in the FCC’s Reference should be overturned or revised; (iv) made an the airing of this grievance, and in fact, PMCM has
Information Center at Portals II, CY– erroneous finding as to an important fact; or (v) sought reconsideration of the Bureau’s decision in
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, made a prejudicial procedural error. that proceeding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:39 Aug 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_59021/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-08-26 10:40:13
Document Modified: 2016-08-26 10:40:13
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Direct final rule. | |
| 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. | |
| Contact | Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 58855 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR