[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8855-8859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4378]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL147-1a, IL156-1a; FRL-5965-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 23, 1996, and January 9, 1997, the State of
Illinois submitted to EPA two site-specific State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision requests for Solar Corporation's (Solar) manufacturing
facility located in Libertyville, Lake County, Illinois. The January
23, 1996, request seeks to revise the State's Volatile Organic Material
(VOM) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements
applicable to certain Solar adhesive operations. The January 9, 1997,
request seeks to grant a temporary variance from VOM RACT requirements
applicable to Solar's automotive plastic parts coating operations. In
this action, EPA is approving the above requested SIP revisions through
a ``direct final rulemaking;'' the rationale for this approval is
discussed below.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 24, 1998 unless adverse
written comments are received by March 25, 1998. If the effective date
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments can be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
Copies of the SIP revision request and Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this rulemaking action are available for inspection at the
following address: (It is recommended that you telephone Mark J.
Palermo at (312) 886-6082, before visiting the Region 5 office.) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J) at (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean
Air Act (Act); Public Law 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'' not already covered by a
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) for all areas classified moderate
nonattainment for ozone or above.1 The Chicago ozone
nonattainment area (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, 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 non-CTG RACT
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. CTGs are documents published by EPA which contain
information on available air pollution control techniques and
provide recommendations on what the EPA considers the ``presumptive
norm'' for RACT. Sources which are not covered by a CTG are called
``non-CTG'' sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 VOM.2 Solar's
Libertyville facility has the potential to emit more than 25 tons of
VOM per year, and therefore is subject to RACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ VOM, as defined by the State of Illinois, is identical to
``Volatile Organic Compounds'' (VOC), as defined by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Solar Operations
Solar owns and operates a facility in Libertyville, Illinois which
produces custom-made, fabric covered and/or painted plastic decorative
components for manufacturers of automobiles and electronic home and
office products. The decorative components produced by Solar for the
home and office electronics industry include speaker grilles for
stereos and televisions, pressure-formed thermoplastic back enclosures
for large-screen and projection television sets, and other decorative
molded parts and fabric wrapped subassemblies. Solar's automotive
interior products include speaker grilles, vinyl- and fabric-clad door
trim components, injection molded decorative assemblies, seating trim
[[Page 8856]]
component, and electronic subassemblies.
III. Non-CTG Adhesives Adjusted Standard
A. Existing SIP Requirements
On October 21, 1993, and March 4, 1994, the State of Illinois
submitted RACT rules covering major non-CTG sources in the Chicago
severe ozone nonattainment area, which includes subparts PP, QQ, RR,
TT, and UU of Part 218 of the 35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC), as
a revision to the Illinois SIP. The SIP revision was approved by EPA on
October 21, 1996 (61 FR at 54556). Prior to Illinois' non-CTG rule
adoption, the State's RACT rules did not apply to Solar because the
facility's emissions were below the rules' applicability threshold of
100 TPY or more of VOM. Pursuant to section 182(b), the State lowered
the applicability threshold to include as major sources all sources
with a potential to emit 25 TPY or more VOM. Solar, which had not been
affected by the 100 ton RACT rules, became subject to the 25 ton RACT
rules.
Among the non-CTG rule provisions Solar became subject to is
subpart PP, which contains VOM control requirements for miscellaneous
fabricated product manufacturing processes. Under subpart PP, Solar
would be required either to use adhesives which do not exceed 3.5
pounds of VOM per gallon (lbs VOM/gallon) as-applied, or to operate
emission capture and control techniques which achieve an overall
reduction in uncontrolled VOM emissions of at least 81 percent (%).
Subpart PP is based upon requirements promulgated under the Chicago VOC
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). In developing the FIP, the EPA used
information from existing coating CTGs and the State and EPA's
regulatory experience to establish the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon limitation
for non-CTG coating operations.
B. Solar Adjusted Standard
On February 28, 1995, Solar and the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) filed a joint petition for an adjusted
standard with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board). The
adjusted standard petition requested that Illinois relax the stringency
of the VOM limit for Solar's adhesive application from 3.5 lbs VOM/
gallon as-applied, to 5.75 lbs VOM/gallon as-applied.
In its petition, Solar noted that the technical support for the
non-CTG limitation promulgated under the Chicago FIP and adopted by
Illinois did not take into account the necessary characteristics of
adhesives used to adhere fabric to plastic parts for the home
entertainment and auto industry, which is Solar's specific industry.
Further, Solar justified the rule relaxation based upon its own
technical support demonstrating that the 3.5 lbs VOM/limit is
technically and economically infeasible, and that a 5.75 lbs VOM/gallon
limit for its adhesive operations is RACT for the facility.
A public hearing on the adjusted standard petition was held on July
18, 1995, in Libertyville, Illinois. On July 20, 1995, the Board
adopted a Final Opinion and Order, AS 94-2, granting the adjusted
standard requested by Solar. The adjusted standard also became
effective on July 20, 1995. On August 14, 1995, the IEPA filed a motion
to modify the final Board Order. On September 1, 1995, Solar filed a
response to the IEPA's motion to modify. On September 7, 1995, the
Board adopted the IEPA's proposed changes to the final opinion, noting
that the language of the July 20, 1995, opinion would not be affected.
The IEPA formally submitted the adjusted standard for Solar on January
23, 1996, as a site-specific revision to the Illinois SIP for ozone.
C. Criteria for Evaluating Adjusted Standard
The EPA has identified VOC control levels in its CTGs and non-CTG
control evaluations that it presumes to constitute RACT for various
categories of sources. However, case-by-case RACT determinations may be
developed that differ from EPA's presumptive norm. The EPA will approve
these RACT determinations as long as a demonstration is made that they
satisfy the Act's RACT requirements based on adequate documentation of
the economic and technical circumstances of the particular sources
being regulated. To make this demonstration, it must be shown that the
current SIP requirements do not represent RACT because pollution
control technology necessary to reach the requirements is not and
cannot be expected to be reasonably available. The EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether this demonstration has been made,
taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances concerning
each case. A demonstration must be made that reasonable efforts were
taken to determine and adequately document the availability of
complying coatings or other kinds of controls, as appropriate. If it is
conclusively demonstrated that complying low-solvent coatings are
unavailable, the EPA would consider an alternative RACT determination
based on the lowest level of VOM control technically and economically
feasible for the facility.
D. Solar's Efforts To Meet the Non-CTG SIP Requirement
To comply with the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon non-CTG SIP requirement,
Solar investigated reformulation of adhesives, water-based adhesives,
alternatives to adhesives, and catalytic oxidation add-on control. In
testing adhesive technologies, Solar attempted to meet the 3.5 lbs VOM/
gallon SIP limit while meeting customer aesthetic and environmental
performance specifications. Solar's customers require the company to
conduct various tests on its products to determine whether the fabric
bonds withstand a wide variety of temperatures and humidities which the
products will be subject to during shipment and actual use.
Solar's adhesive supplier attempted to reformulate the adhesives it
sells to Solar to bring the adhesives into compliance, and was able to
increase the solids content of Solar's primary adhesive from 20% to
30%, thereby reducing the VOM content from 6.02 lbs VOM/gallon to 5.49
lbs VOM/gallon. The supplier, however, determined that further
reduction could not be achieved without increasing the solids content
to 50%, which would result in an adhesive so viscous that it could not
be applied with either a manual gun or auto-spray. Solar also
investigated partially reformulating Solar's primary adhesive using
acetone, which resulted in the adhesive drying too fast before the
fabric could be properly adhered to the plastic. In addition to trying
adhesive reformulation, Solar and its adhesive supplier conducted major
test trials of several two-component water-based adhesives. However,
the testing showed that the adhesives set too quickly, which was
unacceptable given that Solar's process requires repeated repositioning
of fabric to ensure the proper tautness of the fabric on each plastic
part.
The January 1996 State submittal also provides documentation of
Solar's contacts with two other adhesive suppliers to determine whether
they could offer low-emitting adhesives to Solar which would both meet
the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon limit, as well as meet the performance
specifications of Solar's customers. However, according to the State
submittal, these suppliers did not offer adhesives which would meet the
performance specifications of Solar's
[[Page 8857]]
customers in the majority of its adhesive operations.
After EPA received the January 1996 submittal, EPA requested that
IEPA and Solar analyze whether Solar can use the adhesives or
techniques of two California companies in compliance with South Coast
Air Quality Management District adhesive limits, James B. Lansing (JBL)
and Fleetwood Motor Homes (Fleetwood). IEPA submitted subsequent
documentation on July 23, 1997, indicating that Solar cannot use the
adhesives used at the California JBL and Fleetwood plants because the
plants have distinguishable products and processes involving different
adhesive bonding requirements than that of Solar.
Besides seeking compliant adhesives, Solar has tried adhesiveless
processes as an alternative to adhesives by conducting test trials with
sonic welding and use of a heat plate. Solar was unsuccessful with
sonic welding because of the curved surfaces of many of its plastic
components. However, Solar was somewhat successful with the heat plate
technique and now uses a heat plate to bond cloth to about 20% of the
plastic parts it produces. Yet, Solar cannot use the hot plate
technique in more operations because for this technique to be feasible,
the plastic part must have sufficient cross section to withstand the
heat generated in bonding.
As for add-on controls, Solar investigated catalytic oxidation as a
means of achieving 81% capture and control of VOM emission from the
manual spray booths and auto-spray machines. Radian Corporation's
consultants examined Solar's operations estimated costs for catalytic
oxidation control to be $25,000 and $10,000 per ton for the manual
spray guns and auto-spray machines, respectively. Solar contends that
these costs are economically unreasonable for the facility.
E. EPA Analysis of Solar's Adjusted Standard
Based on the information and technical support IEPA provided in its
submittal, the EPA finds that the non-CTG SIP requirements are not
technically or economically feasible for the Solar Libertyville
facility's adhesive process, and that a limit of 5.75 lbs VOM/gallon
limit on adhesive content is RACT for the facility. For a more detailed
analysis of this SIP revision, please refer to the TSD available from
the Region 5 office listed above.
IV. Variance for Automotive Plastic Parts Coating Limit
A. Existing SIP Requirements
On October 26, 1995, EPA approved Illinois RACT regulations
covering plastic parts coating operations in the Chicago ozone
nonattainment area. The regulations establish VOM emission limitations
which can be met in one of four ways: (1) use of coatings which meet a
specified VOM content limit (218.204(n) and (o)); (2) meet a daily-
weighted average limit for those coating lines that apply coatings from
the same coating category (218.205(g)); (3) use of an add-on capture
system and control device which meets an 81% VOM capture and control
efficiency (218.207(i)); or, (4) meet a cross-line averaging limit
(218.212).
Solar through its variance petition seeks temporary relief from
218.204(n)(1)(B)(i), which requires operations that apply air dried
color coating to automotive interior plastic parts to meet a VOM
content limit of 0.38 kg/l or 3.2 lbs/gallon, by March 15, 1996.
B. Solar Variance
On May 22, 1996, Solar filed its petition for variance from 35 IAC
218.204(n)(1)(B)(i) with the Board. On July 15, 1996, the IEPA filed
its recommendation of support for the variance. A public hearing on the
variance petition was held on August 9, 1996, in Libertyville,
Illinois. On September 5, 1996, the Board adopted a Final Opinion and
Order, PCB 96-239, granting the variance requested by Solar. On
September 13, 1996, Solar signed a certificate of acceptance, which
binds Solar to all terms and conditions of the granted variance. The
IEPA formally submitted the variance for Solar on January 9, 1997, as a
site-specific revision to the Illinois SIP for ozone.
The variance was granted because Solar presented adequate proof to
the Board that immediate compliance with section 218.204(n)(1)(B)(i)
would result in an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship which outweighs
the public interest in attaining immediate compliance with regulations
designed to protect the public. Such a burden of proof is required by
Illinois law before a variance can be granted.
As of the date of the Illinois submittal, Solar replaced
approximately 98% of its coatings to water-based products. However,
Solar's coating supplier needed extra time to reformulate the remaining
paints to water-based so as to comply with the State's VOM content
requirement. Also, additional time was needed for any unanticipated
delays and to ensure that the water-based coatings meet customer
specifications.
Solar indicated in its variance petition that it hired a consultant
to investigate the use of add-on controls to comply with the State's
RACT requirements. The consultant studied carbon adsorbers, thermal and
catalytic afterburners, as well as condensers, and estimated that the
cost to install capture and control equipment at the spray booths would
be more than $25,000 per ton. Solar contends that the use of any add-on
controls is economically unreasonable because it has reformulated 98%
of its paints, and only 134.25 gallons of non-compliant paint will be
used.
IEPA agrees with Solar's position that daily-weighted averaging is
not an appropriate option for Solar because Solar's coating lines are
subject to different VOM content limits. As for cross-line averaging,
this compliance option would require an operational change to pre-
existing coating lines. Since Solar has committed to reformulating its
paints as a means to achieve compliance, the IEPA contends in the
submittal that requiring Solar to make an operation change for the five
remaining non-compliant paints is not an effective or reasonable
alternative. The IEPA further notes that these options are not
appropriate for Solar because Solar is seeking temporary, not permanent
relief.
The variance, Solar's use of non-compliant interior automotive
coating is limited to the 134.25 gallons of the above coatings Solar
has in stock. The variance indicates the vendor number, VOM content,
and gallons allowed to be used for each of the five non-compliant
coatings in stock. Solar is not allowed to use any other non-compliant
coatings under the variance. Solar is also limited to a total of 0.67
tons of VOM emissions from these compliant coatings over a 12 month
period beginning May 22, 1996. The variance terminates on the earlier
of two dates: May 22, 1997, or when the water-based interior automotive
coatings are available and approved as substitutes for the non-
compliant coatings specified in the variance.
The variance provides that Solar shall send monthly status reports
to IEPA providing various information regarding the non-compliant
interior automotive coatings. Once a water-based automotive interior
coating is available and approved by Solar's customers as a substitute
for a coating covered by the variance, the variance for that coating no
longer applies and the coating becomes subject to 35 IAC
218.204(n)(l)(B)(i). The variance
[[Page 8858]]
requires Solar to notify the IEPA within 10 days after any non-
compliant interior automotive coating subject to the variance is
converted to a water-based coating is approved and available to use.
C. EPA Analysis of Solar Variance
Based on the information provided in the SIP submittal, the EPA
finds that the variance for Solar is justified, and the compliance
milestone provisions required by the variance represent a reasonable
approach to bringing the Solar facility into compliance with the
automotive plastic parts coating limit in a timely manner. Therefore,
the EPA finds this SIP submittal approvable.
V. Final Action
The EPA is approving, through direct final rulemaking action,
Illinois' January 23, 1996, site-specific SIP revision for Solar's
Libertyville, Illinois facility, which relaxes the VOM content limit
required for its adhesive operations from 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon to 5.75
lbs VOM/gallon. The EPA is also approving, through direct final
rulemaking action, Illinois' January 9, 1997, site-specific SIP
revision which provides a temporary variance from the State's plastic
parts coating rule for Solar's Libertyville facility.
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 specified written adverse or critical comments be filed. This
rule will become effective without further notice unless the Agency
receives relevant adverse written comment on the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking (published in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register), within 30 days of today's document. Should the
Agency receive such comments, it will publish a document informing the
public that this rule did not take effect. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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, the Administrator
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any small
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State
relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions
in association with any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more. 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 the private
sector, result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA
is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under
section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 24, 1998. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 29, 1998.
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 et seq.
Subpart O--Illinois
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(135) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(135) On January 23, 1996, Illinois submitted a site-specific
revision to the State Implementation Plan which relaxes the volatile
organic material (VOM) content limit for fabricated
[[Page 8859]]
product adhesive operations at Solar Corporation's Libertyville,
Illinois facility from 3.5 pounds VOM per gallon to 5.75 pounds VOM per
gallon.
(i) Incorporation by reference. July 20, 1995, Opinion and Order of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board, AS 94-2, effective July 20, 1995.
3. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(136) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(136) On January 9, 1997, Illinois submitted a site-specific
revision to the State Implementation Plan which grants a temporary
variance from certain automotive plastic parts coating volatile organic
material requirements at Solar Corporation's Libertyville, Illinois
facility.
(i) Incorporation by reference. September 5, 1996, Opinion and
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, PCB 96-239, effective
September 13, 1996. Certificate of Acceptance signed September 13,
1996.
[FR Doc. 98-4378 Filed 2-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
