[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 207 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54807-54810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26585]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL125-1-7030a; FRL-5312-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 5, 1995, the State of Illinois submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for automotive/transportation
and business machine plastic parts coatings operations as part of the
State's 15 percent (%) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan control
measures for Volatile Organic Matter (VOM) emissions. VOM, as defined
by the State of Illinois, is identical to ``volatile organic
compounds'' (VOC), as defined by USEPA. VOC is one of the air
pollutants which combine on hot summer days to form ground-level ozone,
commonly known as smog. Ozone pollution is of particular concern
because of its harmful effects upon lung tissue and breathing passages.
RFP plans are intended to bring areas which have been exceeding the
public health based Federal ozone air quality standard closer toward
the goal of reaching and maintaining attainment with this standard. The
control measures specified in this plastic parts SIP revision are
expected by Illinois to reduce VOC (VOM) emissions by 0.28 tons per day
in the Chicago area. No applicable sources exist in the Metro-East
(East St. Louis) area at this time.
A supplement to the May 5, 1995, SIP revision request was submitted
on May 26, 1995. USEPA made a finding of completeness in a letter dated
July 13, 1995. A final approval action is being taken because the
submittal meets all pertinent Federal requirements. This SIP revision
establishes VOM emission limits for applicable plastic parts sources
located in the Chicago and Metro-East ozone nonattainment areas. The
USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because USEPA
views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document in
this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical
of the approval, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its effective
date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document which
withdraws this final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Please be aware that
USEPA will institute another comment period on this action only if
warranted by significant revisions to the rulemaking based on any
comments received in response to today's action. Any parties interested
in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: The direct final rule is effective on December 26, 1995, unless
USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by November 27, 1995. If
the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis
(Technical Support Document) 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.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires all
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to achieve a 15% reduction
of 1990 emissions of VOC (VOM) by 1996. In Illinois, the Chicago area
is classified as ``severe'' nonattainment for ozone, while the Metro-
East area is classified as ``moderate'' nonattainment. As such, these
areas are subject to the 15% RFP requirement.
On September 12, 1994, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) filed the proposed plastic parts coating rule with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (Board). A public hearing
[[Page 54808]]
on the rule was held on November 4, December 2, and December 16, 1994,
in Chicago, Illinois; on April 20, 1995, the Board adopted a Final
Opinion and Order for the proposed amendment. The rule became effective
on May 9, 1995; it was published in the Illinois State Register on May
19, 1995. The IEPA formally submitted the plastic parts coating rule to
USEPA on May 5, 1995, as a revision to the Illinois SIP for ozone;
supplemental documentation to this revision was submitted on May 26,
1995. In doing so, IEPA believes that this SIP revision's new control
requirements for plastic parts coating sources will help reduce VOM
emissions enough to meet the 15% RFP requirements.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
The May 5, 1995, submittal includes the following new or revised
rules:
Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions
Subpart B: Definitions
211.660 Automotive/Transportation Plastic Parts
211.670 Baked Coatings
211.820 Business Machine Plastic Parts
211.1880 Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Frequency Interference
(EMI/RFI) Shielding Coatings
211.1900 Electrostatic Prep Coat
211.2360 Flexible Coating
211.2630 Gloss Reducers
211.4055 Non-Flexible Coating
211.4740 Plastic Part
211.5480 Reflective Argent Coating
211.5600 Resist Coat
211.6060 Soft Coat
211.6140 Specialty Coatings
211.6400 Stencil Coat
211.6580 Texture Coat
211.6880 Vacuum Metallizing
Part 218: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the
Chicago Area
Subpart F: Coating Operations
218.204(n) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/
Transportation
218.204(o) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Business
Machine
218.205(g) Daily-Weighted Average Limits for Plastic Parts
218.207(i) Alternative Emission Limitations for Plastic Parts
Part 219: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the
Metro-East St. Louis Area
Subpart F: Coating Operations
219.204(m) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/
Transportation
219.204(n) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Business
Machine
219.205(f) Daily-Weighted Average Limits for Plastic Parts
219.207(h) Alternative Emission Limitations for Plastic Parts
This SIP revision applies to sources in the Chicago and Metro-East
St. Louis ozone nonattainment area which apply coatings to the
following plastic parts:
(1) The interior and exterior plastic components of automobiles,
trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, and other like mobile equipment intended
for primary use on land, with the exception of the following: plastic
parts coated on the main (body) paint line in automobile and light duty
refinishing of automobiles, trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, and other
like mobile equipment.
(2) The plastic housings and other exterior plastic components of
electronic office equipment and of medical and musical equipment,
including, but not limited to the following: computers, monitors,
printers and keyboards, facsimile machines, copiers, microfiche
readers, cellular and standard phones, and pencil sharpeners. The
internal electrical components of business machines are, however,
excluded from being applicable to this rule.
The Illinois plastic parts coating rule establishes VOM emission
limitations which can be met in one of three ways: (a) Through the use
of coatings meeting a low-VOM content limit (218.204 [n] and [o]/
219.204 [m] and [n]), (b) having coating lines which apply coatings
that are all subject to the same VOM content limit (specified in
section 218/219.204) meet a daily-weighted average limit based upon
that content limit (218.205[g]/219.205[f]), or (c) use of an add-on
capture system and control device (218.207[i]/219.207[h]).
The VOM content limits for plastic parts coatings established in
sections 218/219.204 are specified below. The limits are expressed in
units of VOM per volume of coating (minus water and any compounds which
are specifically exempted from the definition of VOM).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kg/l lb/gal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Interiors:
(A) Baked:
(i) Color coat...................................... 0.49 4.1
(ii) Primer......................................... 0.46 3.8
(B) Air Dried:
(i) Color coat...................................... 0.38 3.2
(ii) Primer......................................... 0.42 3.5
(2) Exteriors (flexible and non-flexible):
(A) Baked:
(i) Primer.......................................... 0.60 5.0
(ii) Primer non-flexible............................ 0.54 4.5
(iii) Clear coat.................................... 0.52 4.3
(iv) Color coat..................................... 0.55 4.6
(B) Air Dried-
(i) Primer.......................................... 0.66 5.5
(ii) Clear coat..................................... 0.54 4.5
(iii) Color coat (red & black)...................... 0.67 5.6
(iv) Color coat (others)............................ 0.61 5.1
(3) Specialty:
(A) Vacuum metallizing basecoats, texture basecoats... 0.66 5.5
(B) Black coatings, reflective argent coatings, air
bag cover coatings, and soft coatings................ 0.71 5.9
(C) Gloss reducers, vacuum metallizing topcoats, and
texture topcoats..................................... 0.77 6.4
(D) Stencil coatings, adhesion primers, ink pad
coatings, electrostatic prep coatings, and resist
coatings............................................. 0.82 6.8
(E) Head lamp lens coatings........................... 0.89 7.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Primer.............................................. 0.14 1.2
(2) Color coat (non-texture coat)....................... 0.28 2.3
(3) Color coat (texture coat)........................... 0.28 2.3
(4) Electromagnetic interference/radio frequency
interference shielding coatings........................ 0.48 4.0
(5) Specialty Coatings:
(A) Soft Coat......................................... 0.52 4.3
(B) Plating Resist.................................... 0.71 5.9
(C) Plating Sensitizer................................ 0.85 7.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to meeting the provisions for emission limitations
found within the Illinois plastic parts rule, applicable sources will
have to meet provisions for test methods and reporting and
recordkeeping, as specified in the rule.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
The USEPA has undertaken its analysis of the SIP revision request,
based upon its plastic parts coating Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) document, and has determined that the rule's control requirements
are equivalent to what is Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for this source category. On this basis, the USEPA has
determined that this SIP revision request is approvable.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document
in this Federal Register publication, which
[[Page 54809]]
constitutes a ``proposed approval'' of the requested SIP revision and
clarifies that the rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely
adverse or critical comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval
shall be effective on December 26, 1995, unless USEPA receives adverse
or critical comments by November 27, 1995. If USEPA receives comments
adverse to or critical of the approval discussed above, USEPA will
withdraw this approval before its effective date by publishing a
subsequent Federal Register notice which withdraws this final action.
All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent
rulemaking document. Please be aware that USEPA will institute another
comment period on this action only if warranted by significant
revisions to the rulemaking based on any comments received in response
to today's action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, USEPA
hereby advises the public that this action will be effective on
December 26, 1995.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
USEPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the USEPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the USEPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The USEPA must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the USEPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less
then $100 million in any one year, the USEPA has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, the USEPA is not required to develop a plan with
regard to small governments. This rule only approves the incorporation
of existing state rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
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, USEPA 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 do 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, I certify
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 Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
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 December 26, 1995. 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
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference.
Dated: September 22, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
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. 7401-7671q.
Subpart O--Illinois
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(116) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(116) On May 5, 1995, and May 26, 1995, the State submitted a rule
for automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts
coating operations, which consisted of new volatile organic compound
emission limitations to the Ozone Control Plan for the Chicago and
Metro-East St. Louis areas.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois Administrative Code, Title
35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I:
Pollution Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions Standards and
Limitations for Stationary Sources.
(A) Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions, Subpart B;
Definitions, Sections 211.660 Automotive/Transportation Plastic Parts,
211.670 Baked Coatings, 211.820 Business Machine Plastic Parts,
211.1880 Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Frequency Interference
Shielding Coatings, 211.1900 Electrostatic Prep Coat, 211.2360 Flexible
Coatings, 211.2630 Gloss Reducers, 211.4055 Non-Flexible Coating,
211.4740 Plastic Part, 211.5480 Reflective Argent Coating, 211.5600
Resist Coat, 211.6060 Soft Coat, 211.6140 Specialty Coatings, 211.6400
Stencil Coat, 211.6580 Texture Coat, and 211.6880 Vacuum Metallizing,
[[Page 54810]]
amended at 19 Ill. 6823, effective May 9, 1995.
(B) Part 218: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations
for the Chicago Area, Subpart F; Coating Operations, Sections 218.204
Emission Limitations, Subsection (n) Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/
Transportation and (o) Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine, 218.205
Daily-Weighted Average Limitations, Subsection (g), and 218.207
Alternative Emission Limitations, Subsection (i), amended at 19 Ill.
6848, effective May 9, 1995.
(C) Part 219: Organic Material Emissions Standards and Limitations
for the Metro-East Area, Subpart F; Coating Operations, Section 219.204
Emission Limitations, Subsection (m) Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/
Transportation and (n) Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine, 219.205
Daily-Weighted Average Limitations, Subsection (f), and 219.207
Alternative Emission Limitations, Subsection (h), amended at 19 Ill.
Reg. 6958, effective May 9, 1995.
[FR Doc. 95-26585 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
