[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36063-36065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17219]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL123-1-6976a; FRL 5252-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA approves the March 28, 1995, Illinois State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request which consists of a variance
for P & S, Incorporated's (P & S) facility, located in Wood Dale,
DuPage County, Illinois, from 35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC)
218.586, the regulations for Stage II vapor recovery. This variance
begins on November 1, 1994, and will ultimately expire on April 1,
1996. The granting of this variance is approvable because P & S has
demonstrated that immediate compliance with the requirements at issue
would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship. USEPA made a
finding of completeness on the SIP submittal on May 17, 1995. In the
proposed rules section of this Federal Register, USEPA is proposing
approval of and soliciting public comment on this requested SIP
revision. If adverse comments are received on this action, USEPA will
withdraw this final rule and address the comments received in response
to this action in a final rule on the related proposed rule which is
being published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register.
Please be aware that USEPA will institute another rulemaking notice on
this action only if warranted by significant revision to the rulemaking
based on any comments received in response to today's action. Parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 11, 1995 unless an
adverse comment is received by August 14, 1995. If the effective date
of this action is delayed due to adverse comments, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: 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.
Copies of the Illinois submittal are available for public review
during normal business hours, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at the
above address. A copy of this SIP revision is also available for
inspection at: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and
Information Center (Air Docket 6976), Room 1500, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Regulation
Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Telephone: (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 12, 1993, USEPA approved
Illinois's Stage II vapor recovery rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218) as a
revision to the Illinois SIP for ozone, applicable to 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). These regulations satisfy section
182(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, which requires
certain ozone nonattainment areas to require specified gasoline
dispensing facilities to install and operate Stage II vapor recovery
equipment. Stage II vapor recovery systems are designed to control and
capture at least 95 percent of the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
vapors emitted during the refueling of motor vehicles. Among these
Stage II requirements is the provision that certain gasoline dispensing
facilities, such as P & S's facility in Wood Dale, Du Page County,
Illinois, must install Stage II vapor recovery equipment no later than
November 1, 1994.
The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is currently
upgrading the roads surrounding the P & S facility. It is anticipated
that the construction of the roadway will require P & S's facility to
relocate its underground storage tanks. Completion of the construction
of the roadway is anticipated in early 1996. Installation of the Stage
II vapor recovery equipment before the completion of the upgrading of
the roadway and the relocation of the facility's tanks would mean that
the facility would then be required to install the Stage II vapor
recovery equipment twice, both before and after moving the tanks.
[[Page 36064]]
On October 29, 1994, P & S filed a petition with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (IPCB) requesting a variance from meeting the
November 1, 1994, compliance date on the grounds that requiring the
facility to install Stage II vapor recovery equipment prior to the
completion of the upgrading of the roadway and the relocation of the
facility's tanks would cause an unreasonable financial hardship. The
IPCB is charged under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act with
the responsibility of granting variance from regulations issued by the
Board whenever it is found that compliance with the regulations would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon the petitioner for
the variance.
On February 16, 1995, the IPCB granted a variance from Stage II
compliance for P & S. The variance begins November 1, 1994 and expires
on April 1, 1996, or 60 days after notification to P & S from the IDOT,
or the developer of the shopping center, that the widening of the
roadway will be abandoned for any reason, whichever is sooner. Given
both the high additional cost associated with having to install Stage
II equipment twice and the minimal impact on ozone air quality
occasioned by temporary noncompliance before April 1, 1996, the IPCB
found that requiring P & S to have installed Stage II equipment by
November 1, 1994, does constitute an unreasonable hardship. Illinois
submitted this variance as a revision to the Illinois ozone SIP on
March 28, 1995.
Final Rulemaking Action
The USEPA is approving this SIP revision because the above argument
that immediate compliance with the Stage II requirements will cause an
unreasonable hardship to P & S is acceptable to USEPA, and that the
uncontrolled emissions generated by P & S as a result of the variance
will not contribute significantly to ozone formation, given that the
variance will expire on or before April 1, 1996.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
September 11, 1995, unless adverse or critical comments are received by
August 14, 1995.
If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval
discussed above, USEPA will withdraw the approval before its effective
date by publishing a subsequent rule that withdraws this final action.
All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent
action. Please be aware that USEPA will institute another rulemaking
document on this action only if warranted by significant revision 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 that
this action will be effective September 11, 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 or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
USEPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 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. Under
section 205, the 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 the USEPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The USEPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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 Federal requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, result from this action.
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 economic 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.
The 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, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on small entities. 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 State action. The
Act forbids the USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66
(1976).
Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
USEPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to a State,
local and/or tribal government(s) in the aggregate. The USEPA must also
develop a plan with regard to small governments that would be
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
This rule applies only to a single private sector source located in
the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. To the extent that the rules
being promulgated by this action will impose any mandate upon this
source, such a mandate will not result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to that source. The rule also does not impact any
governments. Therefore, no action is required under the Unfunded
Mandates Act.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States
[[Page 36065]]
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 11, 1995.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purpose 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, Ozone,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 14, 1995.
David Kee,
Acting Regional Administrator.
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)(112) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
(c) * * *
(112) On March 28, 1995, the State of Illinois submitted a revision
to its ozone State Implementation Plan for P & S, Incorporated's
facility located in Wood Dale, Du Page County, Illinois. It grants a
compliance date extension from Stage II vapor control requirements (35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.586) from November 1, 1994 until April 1, 1996, or
60 days after notification to P & S, Incorporated that the roadway
construction complicating the installation of Stage II equipment will
be abandoned for any reason, whichever is sooner.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Illinois Pollution Control Board Final Opinion and Order, PCB
94-299, adopted on February 16, 1995, and effective on February 16,
1995. Certification dated March 1, 1995 of Acceptance by P & S,
Incorporated.
[FR Doc. 95-17219 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
