[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13346-13348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6496]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL180-1a; FRL-6308-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 13, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision revising Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements at Central Can Company (CCC), in Chicago, Illinois. The
SIP revision allows CCC to apply can coating control rules to pail
coating operations limited to certain conditions. This rulemaking
action approves, using the direct final process, the Illinois SIP
revision request.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 17, 1999, unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by April 19, 1999. If adverse comment is
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the revision request and Technical Support Document (TSD)
for this rulemaking action are available for inspection at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Mark J. Palermo at (312)
886-6082 before visiting the Region 5 Office).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean
Air Act (Act); Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.
7401-7671q. Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires States to adopt RACT
rules covering ``major sources'' of VOC for all areas classified
moderate nonattainment for ozone and above.1 The Chicago
ozone nonattainment area (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will
Counties and Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County and
Oswego Township in Kendall County) is classified as ``severe''
nonattainment for ozone, and therefore is subject to the Act's RACT
requirement. Under section 182(d) of the Act, sources located in severe
ozone nonattainment areas are considered ``major sources'' if they have
the potential to emit 25 tons per year or more of VOC. CCC's Chicago
facility has the potential to emit more than 25 tons of VOC per year,
and, consequently, is subject to RACT requirements.2 On
September 9, 1994, EPA approved several rules under 35 Ill. Adm. Code
Parts 211 and 218 pertaining to VOC RACT for the Chicago severe ozone
nonattainment area as a revision to the Illinois SIP (59 FR 46562). The
Illinois rules replaced the Chicago area Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP), and the rules are generally patterned after the FIP's RACT
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A definition of RACT is cited in a General Preamble-
Supplement published at 44 FR at 53761 (September 17, 1979). RACT is
defined 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.
\2\ It should be noted throughout the discussions that follow
that volatile organic emissions are referred to as VOC emissions. In
Illinois' regulations, the State uses the term ``Volatile Organic
Material (VOM)'' rather than VOC. The State's definition of VOM is
equivalent to EPA's definition of VOC, and are interchangeable when
discussing volatile organic emissions. For consistency with the Act
and with EPA policy, the term VOC is used in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in the rules are requirements for can coating and
miscellaneous metal parts coating. The general compliance options under
the Illinois coating rules provide for specific coating VOC content
limits, the use of daily-weighted average VOC limits for particular
coating lines, or the use of add-on control equipment requirements to
limit emissions from a coating line. The rules contain different VOC
content limits. In addition, the rules contain a special compliance
provision for can coating not available for miscellaneous metal parts
coating. Can coating operations can comply with RACT through means of
cross-line averaging, whereby daily actual emissions from can coating
lines that under-comply with the general compliance methods can be
averaged with can coating lines that over-comply. As long as the actual
average emissions from all the can coating lines at the source do not
exceed a special limit established through equations provided under the
rules, the source's can coating operation is in compliance with RACT.
The rules for miscellaneous metals coating, on the other hand, require
each coating line to meet one of the three compliance options, without
the use of cross-line averaging.
CCC coats a variety of cans and pails at its Chicago, Illinois
facility. Under Illinois' part 218 rules, the can coating requirements
apply to cans with walls thinner than 29 gauge (0.0141 inch). A pail,
on the other hand, has walls constructed of 29 gauge or thicker
material, and is subject to the miscellaneous metals requirements of
the Illinois rules.
CCC's historic practice has been to coat both cans and pails on the
same coating lines at the same time, since in many instances CCC's cans
and pails will have the same size and shape except for wall thickness.
If CCC was able to treat pails as cans under the Illinois rules, all of
its coating operations would be able to comply with the can coating
cross-line averaging provisions. As the rules currently exist, CCC
would have to coat
[[Page 13347]]
pails separately from cans on separate coating lines, and ensure that
each pail coating line was in compliance with one of the three general
compliance options for miscellaneous metals. This would lead to a
significant additional expense for CCC.
On December 5, 1994, CCC filed a petition with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (Board) for an adjusted standard allowing CCC
to apply the part 218 can coating requirements, including the cross-
line averaging provisions, to its pail coating operations. On August 6,
1998, the Board granted an adjusted standard to CCC to treat its pail
coating as can coating for purposes of complying with the State's part
218 rules, provided that: (1) no more than 20 percent of the total
number of cans and pails coated on an annual basis are pails; (2) the
pails are geometrically identical to cans coated at the facility, in
terms of shape and volume; and (3) the pails are produced from metal
with a thickness of no more than 20 gauge (0.039 inches). The adjusted
standard's effective date was made retroactive to July 1, 1991. The
adjusted standard was submitted as a SIP revision on October 13, 1998,
and the submittal was found complete by EPA on January 6, 1999.
II. EPA Review of SIP Revision
Given that the percentage of pails included in CCC's coating
operations is 20%, and that cans and pails coated at CCC have
essentially the same surface area, EPA has determined that CCC's
adjusted standard should lead to minimal changes in emissions that
would otherwise occur if CCC complied with both the can coating and
miscellaneous metals requirements. Because emissions will not
significantly increase due to the adjusted standard, the EPA finds the
adjusted standard to constitute RACT for CCC. As support documentation
for this SIP revision, EPA requested CCC to provide a written assurance
that the percentage of pails coated at CCC would not increase beyond
20% for the foreseeable future. CCC has provided such written assurance
in a February 17, 1998, letter which has been included in the SIP
submittal request. Therefore, EPA approves this SIP revision request.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the October 13, 1998,
Illinois SIP revision submittal for an adjusted standard for CCC which
was granted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board on August 6, 1998.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective
without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written
comment by April 19, 1999. Should the Agency receive such comments, it
will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will
not take effect. 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 17, 1999.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.
13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new
[[Page 13348]]
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of 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).
F. 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
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding this rulemaking action under section 801 because this is a
rule of particular applicability.
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 17, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 25, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart O--Illinois
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(148) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(148) On October 13, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision affecting Volatile
Organic Material controls at Central Can Company (CCC), located in
Chicago, Illinois. The SIP revision allows CCC to apply can coating
control rules to pail coating operations limited to certain conditions.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
August 6, 1998, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, AS 94-18, effective July 1, 1991.
[FR Doc. 99-6496 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
