[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 103 (Thursday, May 27, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30224-30227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11925]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL222-1a; FRL-7666-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a revision to 
the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Louis Berkman 
Company, doing business as the Swenson Spreader Company (Swenson). The 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) requested on September 
19, 2003, that EPA approve into the SIP an adjusted standard for the 
volatile organic material (VOM) content limit applicable to the 
painting operations at Swenson's plant located in Lindenwood, Ogle 
County, Illinois. EPA is approving this request because it satisfies 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective July 26, 2004, unless 
EPA receives written adverse comment by June 28, 2004. If written 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. IL-222, by 
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (312) 886-5824.
     Mail: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 
Air Programs Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode AR-18J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. IL-222. EPA's 
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public 
docket without change, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The 
federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in an index. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are 
available in hard copy at the following address: United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The Docket Facility 
is open during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos at (312) 
353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mailcode AR-18J, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: 
(312) 353-8328; fax number: (312) 886-5824; e-mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision
    1. What Is EPA Approving?
    2. Why Did the State Revise Its Rules?
    3. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal?
    4. Did Illinois Hold a Public Hearing?
III. EPA's Review of the SIP Revision
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    No, this action applies to a single source, the Louis Berkman 
Company, doing business as the Swenson Spreader Company, in Lindenwood, 
Ogle County, Illinois. This rulemaking action merely approves an 
adjusted State standard into the SIP, making it federally enforceable 
under the Act.

B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by

[[Page 30225]]

referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision

1. What Is EPA Approving?

    We are approving into the Illinois SIP an adjusted standard for the 
emissions limit applicable to the painting operations at Swenson's 
plant located in Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois. Section 
215.204(j)(2) of the Illinois Administrative Code establishes a limit 
for the miscellaneous metal parts and products category of 3.5 pounds 
of VOM \1\ per gallon of coating (lbs VOM/gal) for air dried coating 
operations. The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) granted Swenson 
a ten year adjusted standard from section 215.204(j)(2) on May 7, 1998. 
Under the adjusted standard Swenson is limited to a monthly average of 
4.75 lbs VOM/gal until May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA generally uses the term ``Volatile Organic Compounds 
(VOC)'' to refer to volatile organic 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Why Did the State Revise Its Rules?

    In the September 19, 2003 submission, IEPA requested that EPA 
approve revisions that are specific to Swenson's painting operations at 
its Lindenwood, Illinois plant. Swenson is an original equipment 
manufacturer of snow and ice control equipment. The primary purchaser 
of Swenson's products are federal, state, and local governmental 
agencies. Because many of these agencies specify the type of paint to 
use, the coatings Swenson uses to paint its products often have a VOM 
content greater than the state standard of 3.5 lb/gal.

3. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal?

    Swenson manufactures snow and ice removal equipment at its 
Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois plant. Ogle County is in attainment 
of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Part of 
the manufacturing process includes applying one or more coatings of 
paint. Section 215.204 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill. 
Adm. Code) governs VOM emissions from manufacturing plants. 
Specifically, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2) applies to 
Swenson. According to that section, VOM emissions from air-dried 
miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings may not exceed 3.5 lb/
gal. Manufacturers that emit less than 25 tons of VOM per year are 
exempt from this limitation. EPA approved 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 
215.204 into the Illinois SIP on January 15, 1999, at 64 FR 2581.
    In its request for an adjusted standard, Swenson states that the 
primary purchaser of its products are governmental agencies which often 
specify the type of paints to use and/or coating thicknesses to achieve 
on the products they order. Many of these paints contain more than 3.5 
lbs VOM/gal and, therefore, do not comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 
Section 215.204(j)(2). In addition, the size and shape of its products 
make relatively high solvent use necessary for proper adhesion 
characteristics and the specified coating thicknesses cannot be 
achieved with water-based coatings. Swenson's average annual VOM 
emissions were 31.8 tons between 1992 and 1996.
    Swenson filed its motion for an adjusted standard with the IPCB on 
October 11, 1996. In its petition, Swenson requested a VOM limit of 
5.25 lb/gal monthly average for the first year, and a VOM limit of 5.00 
lb/gal monthly average for the second year and beyond following the 
adjusted standard approval. Swenson based the higher VOM limit for the 
first year on its existing stocks of VOM paint. Swenson noted in its 
petition that the 5.00lb/gal limit is more stringent than the relief 
IPCB granted to a number of other companies in the past. Swenson filed 
an amendment to its petition on May 16, 1997. In the amended petition 
Swenson requested a VOM limit of 5.00 lb/gal monthly average for the 
first year, and a VOM limit of 4.75 lb/gal monthly average for the 
second year and beyond, following the adjusted standard approval.
    On February 21, 1997, IEPA submitted to IPCB a recommendation to 
deny Swenson's petition. IEPA commented that Swenson failed to prove 
that it is unable to comply with the requirements of section 
215.204(j). Two public hearings were held before the IPCB, the first on 
April 17, 1997, in Oregon, Illinois, and the second on May 21, 1997, in 
Springfield, Illinois. Evidence was provided at these hearings about 
the feasibility of different emission reduction methods, including the 
installation of an afterburner or a powder coating system, and 
reformulating the paints it uses. Swenson justified the adjusted 
standard based upon its own technical support demonstrating that the 
3.5 lbs VOM/gal limit is technically and economically infeasible. 
Swenson asserted that the installation of emissions control equipment 
would impose an unreasonable financial hardship on the company without 
providing a measurable environmental benefit to the area, and that the 
area has not had an exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. Further, Swenson 
states that coatings that satisfy customer requirements and comply with 
35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2) are currently unavailable.
    In a December 4, 1997, Interim Opinion and Order, IPCB granted 
Swenson an adjusted standard to use coatings that contain, on a monthly 
average, 4.75 lbs VOM/gal, and made the following findings of fact and 
conclusions of law:
    (1) Coatings that comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 
215.204(j)(2) are not available for Swenson's specialty orders;
    (2) The cost that Swenson would incur to comply with regulatory 
alternatives to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2) are 
unreasonable;
    (3) The factors are substantially and significantly different from 
those that IPCB considered when adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 
215.204(j)(2);
    (4) An adjusted standard will not result in environmental or health 
effects substantially and significantly more adverse than those 
considered by IPCB in adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2); 
and,
    (5) An adjusted standard is consistent with applicable Federal law.
    IPCB stated that the adjusted standard will expire ten years from 
the date of IPCB's final order, since compliant coatings may become 
available and Swenson's customers may not always require noncompliant 
coatings. Further, IPCB required Swenson to file a plan for 
demonstrating compliance with the adjusted standard.
    In Swenson's February 3, 1998, Compliance Plan, Swenson identified 
the following operational initiatives: requesting from paint suppliers 
reformulated paints with lower VOM

[[Page 30226]]

emissions; heating the paint lines to the spraying system and 
purchasing high efficiency electrostatic paint guns to lessen VOM 
emissions; and, recording all paint purchases and usage to track VOM 
emissions. To calculate the monthly average of VOM emissions, Swenson 
proposed to determine the total VOM in pounds delivered to the coating 
applicator each month and divide that amount by the number of coating 
gallons used that month. Swenson also identified that it is researching 
a single booth powder coating system to lower its VOM emissions while 
fulfilling its sales requirements.
    On May 7, 1998, IPCB adopted a Final Opinion and Order, AS 97-5, 
granting the adjusted standard requested by Swenson. On June 12, 1998, 
IEPA filed a Motion to Reconsider the IPCB's Final Opinion and Order. 
The IPCB denied IEPA's motion on July 23, 1998. The IEPA filed an 
appeal of IPCB's July 23, 1998, order in the Second District Appellate 
Court of Illinois through the Illinois Attorney General Office. The 
Court affirmed IPCB's Final Opinions and Orders of May 7, 1998, and 
July 23, 1998, on November 19, 1999. IEPA formally submitted the 
adjusted standard for Swenson to EPA on September 19, 2003, as a site-
specific revision to the Illinois SIP.

4. Did Illinois Hold a Public Hearing?

    Swenson filed a petition for an adjusted standard with the IPCB on 
October 11, 1996. Notice of the petition was published in the Ogle 
County Life on October 21, 1996. IEPA filed a response to Swenson's 
petition on February 26, 1997. Two public hearings were held before the 
IPCB, the first on April 17, 1997, in Oregon, Illinois, and the second 
on May 21, 1997, in Springfield, Illinois.

III. EPA's Review of the SIP Revision

    The EPA has identified VOM control levels that it presumes to 
constitute reasonably available control technology (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.
    Based on the information and technical support IEPA provided in its 
submittal, the EPA finds that the SIP requirements are not technically 
or economically feasible for the Swenson Lindenwood facility, and that 
a limit of 4.75 lbs VOM/gal will not have a negative environmental 
impact in the area. Further, the adjusted standard will expire ten 
years from the date of IPCB's final order, since compliant coatings may 
become available and Swenson's customers may not always require 
noncompliant coatings. In its plan for demonstrating compliance with 
the adjusted standard Swenson identified the following operational 
initiatives: requesting from paint suppliers reformulated paints with 
lower VOM emissions; heating the paint lines to the spraying system and 
purchasing high efficiency electrostatic paint guns to lessen VOM 
emissions; and, recording all paint purchases and usage to track VOM 
emissions. Swenson also identified that it is researching a single 
booth powder coating system to lower its VOM emissions while fulfilling 
its sales requirements. As previously stated, Ogle County is in 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Approval of this requested SIP revision 
will not increase the historical VOM emission level from this source, 
and will not interfere with the maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in Ogle 
County. Therefore, EPA finds this SIP submittal approvable.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP an adjusted standard for the 
VOM content limit applicable to the painting operations at Swenson's 
plant located in Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois. The State submitted 
this SIP revision on September 19, 2003. Under the adjusted standard 
Swenson is limited to a monthly average of 4.75 lbs VOM/gal until May 
7, 2008.
    EPA views the approval of this SIP revision as noncontroversial, 
and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in 
this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing approval of the 
State Plan. Should adverse or critical written comments be filed, EPA 
will withdraw this direct final rule and address all public comments in 
a final rule based on the proposed rule published in the proposed rules 
section of this Federal Register. This approval action will be 
effective without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse 
written comment by June 28, 2004. Should EPA receive adverse or 
critical 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 July 26, 2004.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

[[Page 30227]]

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry our policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In 
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior 
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for 
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 
Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not 
apply.

Civil Justice Reform

    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

Governmental Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights

    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the executive order, and has determined that the rule's 
requirements do not constitute a taking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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, EPA 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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 July 26, 2004. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 7, 2004.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(172) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (172) On September 19, 2003, Illinois submitted a site-specific 
revision to the State Implementation Plan which relaxes the volatile 
organic material (VOM) content limit for the coating operations at 
Louis Berkman Company, d/b/a/ the Swenson Spreader Company's 
Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois facility from 3.5 pounds VOM per 
gallon to a monthly average of 4.75 pounds VOM per gallon until May 7, 
2008.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Order contained in a May 7, 1998, 
Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, AS 97-5, 
effective May 7, 1998.

[FR Doc. 04-11925 Filed 5-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P