[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 756-759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL178-1a, I1179-1a; FRL-6216-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving two negative declarations submitted by
the State of Illinois. The first indicates there is no need for
regulations covering the industrial wastewater category in the Metro-
East St. Louis (Metro-East) ozone nonattainment area. The Metro-East
ozone nonattainment area includes Madison, Monroe and St. Clair
Counties which are located in southwest Illinois, adjacent to St.
Louis, Missouri. The second negative declaration indicates there is no
need for regulations covering the industrial cleaning solvents category
in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area. The State's negative
declarations regarding industrial wastewater category sources and
industrial cleaning solvent sources were submitted to USEPA in two
letters dated October 2, 1998. In the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register, the USEPA is proposing approval of, and soliciting
comments on, the approval of these two negative declarations. If
adverse written comments are received on this action, the USEPA will
withdraw this final rule based and address the comments received in
response to this action in a final rule based on the related proposed
rule. A second public comment period will not be provided. Parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 8, 1999, unless USEPA receives
adverse written comments by February 5, 1999. If adverse comment is
received, USEPA 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 negative declarations are available for inspection at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please
telephone Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 before visiting the Region
5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-
6036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background-Emission Control Requirements
Under the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended in 1977, ozone
nonattainment areas were required to adopt emission controls reflective
of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. USEPA issued three sets of
control technique guidelines (CTGs) documents, establishing a
``presumptive norm'' for RACT for various categories of VOC sources.
The three sets of CTGs were (1) Group I--issued before January 1978 (15
CTGs); (2) Group II--issued in 1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III--issued
in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). Those sources not covered by a CTG were
called non-CTG sources. USEPA determined that an area's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) approved attainment date established which
RACT rules the area needed to adopt and implement. In those areas where
the State sought an extension of the attainment date under section
172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987, RACT was required for all
CTG sources and for all major (100 tons per year or more of VOC
emissions under the pre-amended Act) non-CTG sources. Illinois sought
and received such an extension for the Metro-East area.
Section 182(b)(2) of the Act as amended in 1990 requires States to
adopt RACT rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and
classified as moderate or above. There are three parts to the section
182(b)(2) RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing
CTG--i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the amended Act of
1990; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and (3) all
major sources not covered by a CTG. These section 182(b)(2) RACT
requirements are referred to as the RACT ``catch-up'' requirements.
Section 183 of the amended Act requires USEPA to issue CTGs for 13
source categories by November 15, 1993. A CTG was published by this
date for the following source categories-- Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactors and Distillation, aerospace
manufacturing coating operation, shipbuilding and ship repair coating
operations, and wood furniture coating operation; however, the CTGs for
the remaining source categories have not been completed. The amended
Act requires States to submit rules for sources covered by a post-
enactment CTG in accordance with a schedule specified in a CTG
document.
The USEPA created a CTG document as Appendix E to the General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. (57 FR 18070, 18077, April 28, 1992). In Appendix
E, USEPA interpreted the Act to allow a State to submit a non-CTG rule
by November 15, 1992, or to defer submittal of a RACT rule for sources
that the State anticipated would be covered by a post-enactment CTG,
based on the list of CTGs USEPA expected to issue to meet the
requirement in section 183. Appendix E states that if USEPA fails to
issue a CTG by November 15, 1993 (which it did for 11 source
categories), the responsibility shifts to the State to submit a non-CTG
RACT rule for those sources by November 15, 1994. In accordance with
section 182(b)(2), implementation of that RACT rule should occur by May
31, 1995.
[[Page 757]]
II. The Negative Declarations and Their Justification
The USEPA does not require States to develop plans or regulations
to control emissions from sources which are not present in the planning
area. If it is thought that this might be the case, the State carefully
examines its emissions inventory before initiating the planning and
regulation development process. If a careful examination of the
emissions inventory finds no sources, then the State prepares and
submits to USEPA, a negative declaration stating that there are no
sources in the planning area which would be subject to the required
rule rather than a control plan for sources in a particular category.
On October 2, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted to USEPA a
negative declaration regarding the need for regulations covering the
industrial wastewater category in the Metro-East Area. The State
indicated that in making this determination, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) conducted a search of its 1996 Metro-
East inventory for any major source potentially subject to USEPA's
draft Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document for the ``Control of
Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Industrial Wastewater'' [EPA-
453/D-93-056, September 1992]. The Illinois EPA found only one major
source, industrial wastewater from Shell Oil Refinery (Shell) in Wood
River with a potential to emit more than 100 tons per year from this
draft CTG category.
Portions of Shell's wastewater operation emissions are subject to
the Federal rule covering benzene waste operations applicable to
petroleum refineries, the Benzene National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (Benzene NESHAP) which was promulgated on
January 7, 1993 (58 FR 3072) and codified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart
FF. Other wastewater operation emissions are subject to the petroleum
refinery NESHAP which was promulgated on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43244)
and codified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart CC. All new sources added to
Shell's wastewater collection and treatment system will be subject to
the new source performance standards for petroleum refineries which
were promulgated on November 23, 1985 (53 FR 47623) and codified at 40
CFR part 60, subpart QQQ.
The Illinois EPA stated in its October 2, 1998, negative
declaration submittal that Shell Oil was in compliance with the above
listed requirements. They noted that this was affirmed in a consent
agreement reached among the company, Illinois EPA, and USEPA which was
issued by the United States District Court in Civil Action No. 97-539-
GPM and became effective on September 25, 1997. The Illinois EPA also
noted that Shell Oil's current operating permit for the wastewater
collection and treatment system contains permit conditions which compel
Shell Oil to meet the various requirements of the previously discussed
Federal regulations.
For these reasons, Illinois EPA believes that volatile organic
material (VOM) 1 emissions from Shell Oil, the only major
source as defined by the draft CTG for the industrial wastewater
category in the Metro-East ozone non-attainment area, are adequately
regulated. No further industrial wastewater source emissions controls
are contemplated by Illinois EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The USEPA generally uses the term ``Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)'' to refer to the hydrocarbon compounds that
participate in the chemical formation of ozone in the lower
Troposphere. The State of Illinois uses the term ``Volatile Organic
Material (VOM)'' to refer to the same hydrocarbon compounds. The
definition of VOM is identical to the definition of VOC. The two
terms can be used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 1998, Illinois also submitted a second negative
declaration which addressed the need for regulations covering the use
of industrial cleaning solvents in the Metro-East area. The State
indicated that in making this determination, the Illinois EPA conducted
a search of its 1996 Metro-East inventory for any major source subject
to USEPA's 1994 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) for Industrial
Cleaning Solvents. This inventory is a combination of all permitted
sources and emissions estimates for the units therein. Any source that
would emit 100 Tons Per Year (TPY) of industrial cleaning solvent would
be required to have an operating period and would appear in this data
base.
Illinois' search of its inventory identified five industrial
cleaning solvent sources in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area,
four of which are below 3 TPY. The fifth source was in excess of 100
TPY, however it is already subject to Illinois' cold cleaning RACT
rule, 35 IAC 219.182.
It should be noted that Illinois' rules for the Metro-East ozone
non-attainment area already contain provisions for the regulation of
cleaning solvents used in cold cleaning/degreasing, conveyorized
degreasing, vapor degreasing, cleaning solutions on lithographic
printing lines and cleaning solvents for wood furniture coating
operations. It should be noted that the industrial cleaning solvent
category is not specifically exempted from coverage under Illinois'
``generic'' rules. Any industrial cleaning solvent operation in the
Metro-East ozone nonattainment area that did have maximum theoretical
emissions of 100 TPY or greater and was not otherwise regulated by 35
IAC Part 219 would be regulated by the ``generic'' rules.
III. USEPA Review of the Negative Declarations
USEPA has examined the State's negative declarations regarding the
lack of need for regulations controlling emissions from industrial
wastewater or industrial cleaning solvent sources located in the Metro-
East ozone nonattainment areas. The supporting evidence provided by the
State was also examined. Based on these examinations, USEPA agrees
there are no industrial wastewater or industrial cleaning solvent
sources in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area which would require
the adoption of rules to control these two categories of sources.
USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, USEPA is proposing to approve the State Plan
should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective
without further notice unless USEPA receives relevant adverse written
comment by February 5, 1999. Should USEPA receive such comments, it
will publish a timely withdrawal 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 March 8, 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, USEPA 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, USEPA must provide to the
Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of USEPA's
[[Page 758]]
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 USEPA 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
USEPA 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, USEPA 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,
USEPA 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 USEPA'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 USEPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of 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 (CAA) do not
create any new 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 CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids USEPA 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, USEPA
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, USEPA
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 USEPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
USEPA 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. 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. USEPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. 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 March 8, 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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
[[Page 759]]
Dated: December 21, 1998.
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 52.726 is amended by adding paragraphs (u) and (v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(u) Negative declaration--Industrial wastewater category. On
October 2, 1998, the State of Illinois certified to the satisfaction of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency that no major sources
categorized as part of the Industrial wastewater category are located
in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area (Metro-East). The Metro-East
area is comprised of Madison, Monroe and St. Clair Counties which are
located in southwest Illinois, adjacent to St. Louis, Missouri.
(v) Negative declaration--Industrial cleaning solvents category. On
October 2, 1998, the State of Illinois certified to the satisfaction of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency that no major sources
categorized as part of the Industrial cleaning solvents category are
located in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area (Metro-East). The
Metro-East area is comprised of Madison, Monroe and St. Clair Counties
which are located in southwest Illinois, adjacent to St. Louis,
Missouri.
[FR Doc. 99-227 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
