[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13346-13348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6496]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL180-1a; FRL-6308-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 13, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision revising Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
requirements at Central Can Company (CCC), in Chicago, Illinois. The 
SIP revision allows CCC to apply can coating control rules to pail 
coating operations limited to certain conditions. This rulemaking 
action approves, using the direct final process, the Illinois SIP 
revision request.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 17, 1999, unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by April 19, 1999. If adverse comment is 
received, EPA 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 revision request and Technical Support Document (TSD) 
for this rulemaking action 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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean 
Air Act (Act); Pub. L. 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'' of VOC for all areas classified 
moderate nonattainment for ozone and above.1 The Chicago 
ozone nonattainment area (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and 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 RACT 
requirement. 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 VOC. CCC's Chicago 
facility has the potential to emit more than 25 tons of VOC per year, 
and, consequently, is subject to RACT requirements.2 On 
September 9, 1994, EPA approved several rules under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 
Parts 211 and 218 pertaining to VOC RACT for the Chicago severe ozone 
nonattainment area as a revision to the Illinois SIP (59 FR 46562). The 
Illinois rules replaced the Chicago area Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP), and the rules are generally patterned after the FIP's RACT 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ It should be noted throughout the discussions that follow 
that volatile organic emissions are referred to as VOC emissions. In 
Illinois' regulations, the State uses the term ``Volatile Organic 
Material (VOM)'' rather than VOC. The State's definition of VOM is 
equivalent to EPA's definition of VOC, and are interchangeable when 
discussing volatile organic emissions. For consistency with the Act 
and with EPA policy, the term VOC is used in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Included in the rules are requirements for can coating and 
miscellaneous metal parts coating. The general compliance options under 
the Illinois coating rules provide for specific coating VOC content 
limits, the use of daily-weighted average VOC limits for particular 
coating lines, or the use of add-on control equipment requirements to 
limit emissions from a coating line. The rules contain different VOC 
content limits. In addition, the rules contain a special compliance 
provision for can coating not available for miscellaneous metal parts 
coating. Can coating operations can comply with RACT through means of 
cross-line averaging, whereby daily actual emissions from can coating 
lines that under-comply with the general compliance methods can be 
averaged with can coating lines that over-comply. As long as the actual 
average emissions from all the can coating lines at the source do not 
exceed a special limit established through equations provided under the 
rules, the source's can coating operation is in compliance with RACT. 
The rules for miscellaneous metals coating, on the other hand, require 
each coating line to meet one of the three compliance options, without 
the use of cross-line averaging.
    CCC coats a variety of cans and pails at its Chicago, Illinois 
facility. Under Illinois' part 218 rules, the can coating requirements 
apply to cans with walls thinner than 29 gauge (0.0141 inch). A pail, 
on the other hand, has walls constructed of 29 gauge or thicker 
material, and is subject to the miscellaneous metals requirements of 
the Illinois rules.
    CCC's historic practice has been to coat both cans and pails on the 
same coating lines at the same time, since in many instances CCC's cans 
and pails will have the same size and shape except for wall thickness. 
If CCC was able to treat pails as cans under the Illinois rules, all of 
its coating operations would be able to comply with the can coating 
cross-line averaging provisions. As the rules currently exist, CCC 
would have to coat

[[Page 13347]]

pails separately from cans on separate coating lines, and ensure that 
each pail coating line was in compliance with one of the three general 
compliance options for miscellaneous metals. This would lead to a 
significant additional expense for CCC.
    On December 5, 1994, CCC filed a petition with the Illinois 
Pollution Control Board (Board) for an adjusted standard allowing CCC 
to apply the part 218 can coating requirements, including the cross-
line averaging provisions, to its pail coating operations. On August 6, 
1998, the Board granted an adjusted standard to CCC to treat its pail 
coating as can coating for purposes of complying with the State's part 
218 rules, provided that: (1) no more than 20 percent of the total 
number of cans and pails coated on an annual basis are pails; (2) the 
pails are geometrically identical to cans coated at the facility, in 
terms of shape and volume; and (3) the pails are produced from metal 
with a thickness of no more than 20 gauge (0.039 inches). The adjusted 
standard's effective date was made retroactive to July 1, 1991. The 
adjusted standard was submitted as a SIP revision on October 13, 1998, 
and the submittal was found complete by EPA on January 6, 1999.

II. EPA Review of SIP Revision

    Given that the percentage of pails included in CCC's coating 
operations is 20%, and that cans and pails coated at CCC have 
essentially the same surface area, EPA has determined that CCC's 
adjusted standard should lead to minimal changes in emissions that 
would otherwise occur if CCC complied with both the can coating and 
miscellaneous metals requirements. Because emissions will not 
significantly increase due to the adjusted standard, the EPA finds the 
adjusted standard to constitute RACT for CCC. As support documentation 
for this SIP revision, EPA requested CCC to provide a written assurance 
that the percentage of pails coated at CCC would not increase beyond 
20% for the foreseeable future. CCC has provided such written assurance 
in a February 17, 1998, letter which has been included in the SIP 
submittal request. Therefore, EPA approves this SIP revision request.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the October 13, 1998, 
Illinois SIP revision submittal for an adjusted standard for CCC which 
was granted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board on August 6, 1998. 
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 
adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written 
comment by April 19, 1999. Should the Agency 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 May 17, 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, 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 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

[[Page 13348]]

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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 May 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, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 25, 1999.
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 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(148) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (148) On October 13, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted a site-
specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision affecting Volatile 
Organic Material controls at Central Can Company (CCC), located in 
Chicago, Illinois. The SIP revision allows CCC to apply can coating 
control rules to pail coating operations limited to certain conditions.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    August 6, 1998, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control 
Board, AS 94-18, effective July 1, 1991.

[FR Doc. 99-6496 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P