[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 117 (Friday, June 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32810-32812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15531]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL183-1a; FRL-6360-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving a site specific revision to the
Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for volatile organic materials
(VOM). This revision is an exemption from the otherwise applicable SIP
requirements for W.R. Grace, a manufacturer of container sealants,
lubricant fluids, and concrete additives at 6050 West 51st Street,
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. The State's requested revision was
submitted to USEPA on September 17, 1998. In the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register, the USEPA is proposing approval of, and
soliciting comments on, this approval. If adverse written comments are
received on this action, the USEPA will withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comments received in response to this action in a final
rule on the related proposed rule. A second public comment period will
not be held. Parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. This approval makes the State's rule federally
enforceable.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 17, 1999, unless USEPA receives
adverse written comments by July 19, 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 plan and USEPA's analysis 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 Fayette Bright at (312) 886-6069 before
visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fayette Bright, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-
6069.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is USEPA taking?
II. What is a SIP?
III. Why is USEPA taking this action?
IV. What are the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements?
V. Does this source comply with CAA RACT requirements?
VI. Summary of SIP revision
a. Regulatory Background
b. USEPA's Review of this Site Specific SIP Revision Request
VII. What changes will this Federal action make?
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Executive Order 13045
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. What Action Is USEPA Taking?
USEPA is approving a SIP revision for the W.R. Grace and Company
facility at 6050 West 51st Street, Chicago, Illinois. This SIP revision
approves new Section 218.940(h), which has been added to Subpart QQ of
Part 218. Section 218.940(h) waives the control requirements that would
otherwise apply to the solvation mixers at W.R. Grace.
II. What Is a SIP?
Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop regulations and
control strategies to address air pollution within their jurisdictions.
They must submit these to USEPA for approval and incorporation into the
Federally enforceable SIP. To be approved they must meet Federal
requirements and not adversely impact attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by USEPA.
III. Why Is USEPA Taking This Action?
a. USEPA is approving this action because W.R. Grace Company has
demonstrated the infeasibility of complying with the control
regulations of Subpart QQ, which call for an overall VOM reduction of
at least 81 percent.
b. As required by Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7511a), sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe must
have reasonably available control technology (RACT) if they have the
potential to emit 25 tons of VOM annually (VOM is the same as volatile
organic compounds).
c. The information gathered from an explosion investigation, and
current state of the art technology that detects solvent emission
peaks, suggests no catalytic oxidizer may be designed for control of
emissions from W.R. Grace's mixer loading operations that will be free
from risk of another explosion.
d. W.R. Grace's consultant, Versar, determined through the control
device investigations that there is no reasonably available control
technology for the solvent mixers at Grace's facility. No add-on
control was found to be technically and economically feasible.
IV. What Are the CAA RACT Requirements?
a. Section 172 of the CAA contains general requirements for States
to implement RACT in areas that do not meet the NAAQS.
b. Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA contains more specific requirements
for moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas.
[[Page 32811]]
c. Chicago is classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone,
VOM is an ozone precursor.
V. Does This Source Comply With CAA RACT Requirements?
Yes, due to the possibility of another explosion and other economic
infeasibility issues, RACT for W.R. Grace's solvent mixers does not
require additional emission control equipment.
VI. Summary of SIP Revision
This SIP revision adds the following exemption, in Section
218.940(h), to Subpart QQ of Part 218 for W.R. Grace's solvation
mixers.
Section 218.940(h)--The control requirements of this Subpart shall
not apply to the solvation mixers at the container sealant
manufacturing facility located at 6050 West 51st Street in Chicago,
Illinois.
Grace's Chicago facility was established in 1940, and currently
employs approximately 100 people. The facility manufactures container
sealants, lubricant fluids, and concrete additives. The container
sealants are a rubbery coating material used by beverage, food, and
other can coaters to form a seal between the ends of cans to the can
body within the area where the two pieces are crimped together. Grace's
Chicago plant produces both solvent-based and water-based container
sealants.
a. Regulatory Background
In 1994, the Illinois Pollution Control Board promulgated certain
amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218 that require RACT, for sources
in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, with the potential to emit 25
tons of VOM annually, as mandated by Section 182 of the Clean Air Act.
Emissions from W.R. Grace's mixers occur in a complex and variable
manner due to the batch nature of the process. On June 14, 1996, W.R.
Grace's incinerator exploded resulting in a fire in the solvent mixing
area of the facility. The explosion significantly damaged the oxidizer
and the associated ventilation system. Information gathered in the
investigation of the explosion suggests that no catalytic oxidizer is
currently available that will control the emissions from W.R. Grace's
mixer loading operations and that will be free from the risk of another
explosion.
b. USEPA's Review of This Site Specific SIP Revision Request
This exemption was reviewed on the merits of W.R. Grace's RACT
analysis, primarily based upon the uncertainties involved in the chance
of another explosion. This site specific SIP revision request is
technically justified.
VII. What Changes Will This Federal Action Make?
It exempts W.R. Grace's solvation mixers from the control
requirements of Subpart QQ of Part 218.
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 July 19, 1999. Should USEPA 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 August 17, 1999.
VIII. 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
[[Page 32812]]
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 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. 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 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 August 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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 7, 1999.
Francis X. Lyons,
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)(149) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(149) On September 17, 1998, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency submitted a site specific State Implementation Plan revision
request for W.R. Grace and Company's facility, which manufactures
container sealants, lubricant fluids, and concrete additives, and is
located at 6050 West 51st Street in Chicago, Illinois (Cook County).
This rule revision is contained in R98-16, the July 8, 1998, Opinion
and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and consists of new
Section 218.940(h), which exempts W.R. Grace's facility from the
control requirements in 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 218
Subpart QQ.
(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, Part 218 Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations
for the Chicago Area, Subpart QQ: Miscellaneous Formulation
Manufacturing Processes, Section 218.940 Applicability, paragraph (h)
which was amended in R98-16 at 22 Ill. Reg. 14282, effective July 16,
1998.
[FR Doc. 99-15531 Filed 6-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
