[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 73 (Friday, April 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18816-18818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9466]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL174-1a; FRL-6325-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, USEPA promulgated Federal stationary source 
volatile organic compound (VOC) control measures representing 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for certain emission 
sources located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago area) counties. 
Subject sources included the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing processes at the Stepan Company (Stepan) Millsdale Plant 
manufacturing facility in Elwood, Illinois. At Stepan's request, USEPA 
agreed to reconsider its rule as it applied to Stepan and on October 1, 
1993, proposed a site-specific rule for Stepan. USEPA subsequently 
approved, as revisions to the Illinois State Implementation Plan, three 
VOC rules submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
that are applicable to Stepan's VOC sources. USEPA is today revoking 
the Federally promulgated rules, as they apply to Stepan, and replacing 
them with the Illinois rules that have been previously approved and 
apply to Stepan.
    USEPA is taking this action as a ``direct final'' rulemaking; the 
rationale for this approach is set forth below. Elsewhere in this 
Federal Register, USEPA is proposing this action and soliciting 
comment. If adverse written comments or a request for a public hearing 
are received, USEPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not 
take effect. USEPA will address the comments received in a new final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received, no further rulemaking will 
occur on this SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 15, 1999, unless written 
adverse comments or a request for a public hearing are received by May 
17, 1999. If adverse comment or a request for a public hearing is 
received, USEPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final 
rule in the Federal Register and inform the public the rule will not 
take effect.

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.
    A public hearing may be requested, to be held in Chicago, Illinois. 
Requests for a hearing should be submitted to J. Elmer Bortzer. 
Interested persons may call Steven Rosenthal at (312) 886-6052 to see 
if a hearing will be held and the date and location of the hearing. Any 
hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of this action, 
the scope of which is discussed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J) at (312) 886-6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26814), USEPA promulgated a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) which contained RACT regulations for 
stationary sources of VOC located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago 
area) counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will. This FIP 
included a rule (40 CFR 52.741(w)) requiring, among other things, 81 
percent control of Stepan's ``miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing processes.'' Stepan's chemical manufacturing facility 
includes a number of batch and continuous process emission sources as 
well as associated storage tanks.
    On August 28, 1990, Stepan filed a petition for review of USEPA's 
June 29, 1990, rulemaking in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit. By letter of October 22, 1990, Stepan requested that 
USEPA reconsider its rule as applicable to Stepan, on the basis that 
USEPA had not adequately responded to certain comments. USEPA agreed to 
do so.
    On July 1, 1991, USEPA issued a three-month administrative stay 
pending reconsideration of the applicable FIP rules for Stepan. This 
stay was published on July 23, 1991, (56 FR 33712). On March 3, 1992, 
(57 FR 7549), USEPA published an extension of the stay, but only if and 
as long as necessary to complete reconsideration of the subject rules 
(including any appropriate regulatory action), pursuant to USEPA's 
authority to revise the Federal rules in Clean Air Act sections 110(c) 
and 301(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c) and 7601(a)(1).
    As a result of USEPA's decision to reconsider the federal rules as 
applied to Stepan, USEPA proposed site-specific RACT requirements for 
Stepan's Millsdale facility on October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51279). As 
discussed further below, this proposed rule was not finalized pending 
USEPA's review of three Illinois rules that would collectively cover 
those Stepan VOC sources.
    On November 30, 1994, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA) submitted to USEPA an adopted rule (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 
218, Subpart B (and related definitions and appendix)) and supporting 
information for the control of VOC emissions from Volatile Organic 
Liquid (VOL) storage facilities as a requested SIP revision. This rule 
is the Illinois RACT rule for the category of emission sources which 
includes Stepan's VOL storage facilities. On August 8, 1996, USEPA 
published a direct final rulemaking approving the Illinois VOL storage 
facilities rule which applies to Stepan's VOL storage facilities.(61 FR 
41338). USEPA's approval became effective on October 7, 1996.
    On May 23, 1995, and June 7, 1995, IEPA submitted to USEPA an 
adopted Illinois rule (35 Ill. Admin. Code Parts 218 and 219, Subpart V 
and related definitions and appendix)) and supporting information for 
the control of VOC emissions from batch processes as a requested SIP 
revision. This rule is the Illinois RACT rule for the category of 
emission sources which includes Stepan's batch processes. On April 2, 
1996, USEPA published a direct final rulemaking approving the Illinois 
batch rule as a revision to the SIP. (61 FR 14,484). USEPA's approval 
became effective on June 1, 1996.
    On May 5, 1995 and May 26, 1995, IEPA submitted to USEPA an adopted 
rule (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218, Subpart Q (and related definitions 
and appendix)) and supporting information for the control of VOC 
emissions from continuous reactor and distillation processes as a 
requested SIP revision. This rule is the Illinois RACT rule for the 
category of emission sources which includes Stepan's continuous reactor 
and distillation processes. On June 17, 1997, (62 FR 32694), USEPA 
published a direct final rulemaking approving the Illinois continuous 
reactor and distillation processes rule for Stepan's continuous 
processes, while deferring action on the rule as it applies to other 
Illinois facilities. USEPA's approval became effective on August 18, 
1997.
    As stated above, USEPA has approved appropriate RACT rules for all 
the categories of Stepan's emission sources which would have been 
covered by 40 CFR 52.741(w) of the FIP (were it not for the appeal and 
resulting stays). Because

[[Page 18817]]

of these SIP approvals, the FIP, as it applies to Stepan, and the site-
specific rule that was proposed on October 1, 1993, are no longer 
necessary.

II. Final Action

    Stepan's VOL storage facilities, batch processes and continuous 
reactor and distillation processes are covered by 35 Ill. Admin. Code 
Part 218, Subpart B, Subpart V, and Subpart Q, respectively. These 
rules have been approved into the SIP and represent RACT for VOC. USEPA 
is therefore revoking the June 29, 1990, FIP as it applies to Stepan 
and replacing it with Illinois' VOL storage, batch process, and 
continuous reactor and distillation process rules.
    The 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 this action should adverse 
written comments be filed or a request for a hearing be received. This 
action will become effective without further notice unless the USEPA 
receives relevant adverse comments or a request for a hearing on this 
action by May 17, 1999. Should the USEPA request such comments or a 
request for a hearing, it will withdraw this final rule and publish a 
document 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 June 15, 1999.
    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.

III. 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 Executive Order 12875, USEPA 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, or USEPA consults with those governments. If USEPA 
complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires USEPA to provide 
to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of 
USEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, 
local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires USEPA 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 Executive 
Order 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 
USEPA 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 Executive Order 13084, USEPA may not issue a regulation that 
is not required by statute, that significantly 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, or USEPA consults with those 
governments. If USEPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires USEPA to 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 USEPA'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, Executive Order 13084 requires USEPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of 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 Executive 
Order 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 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 USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., versus 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, USEPA 
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

[[Page 18818]]

governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or 
more. Under Section 205, 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 
USEPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    USEPA 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. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this rulemaking 
action only applies to one company, the Paperwork Reduction Act does 
not apply.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary standards. This rulemaking 
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

I. 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.

J. 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 June 15, 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and record keeping 
requirements.

    Dated: April 9, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 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

    3. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraph (t) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.726  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (t) The Illinois volatile organic compound (VOC) rules that apply 
to the Stepan Company Millsdale Plant for volatile organic liquid 
storage (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218, Subpart B), batch processing (35 
Ill. Admin. Code Parts 218 and 219, Subpart V) and continuous reactor 
and distillation processes (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218, Subpart Q) 
were approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) on August 8, 1996, April 2, 1996, and June 17, 1997, 
respectively. Because these rules have been approved into the State 
Implementation Plan and represent reasonably available control 
technology for VOC, USEPA revokes the June 29, 1990 Federal 
Implementation Plan as it applies to Stepan and replaces it with 
Illinois' volatile organic liquid storage, batch process, and 
continuous reactor and distillation process rules.

[FR Doc. 99-9466 Filed 4-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U