Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL12-9-5167; FRL-5107-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the USEPA promulgated Federal stationary

source volatile organic compound (VOC) control measures representing

reasonably available control technology (RACT) for emission sources

located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago area) counties: Cook,

DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will. The USEPA also took final

rulemaking action on certain VOC RACT rules previously adopted and

submitted by the State of Illinois for inclusion in its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Included in the USEPA's rules was a

requirement that the Viskase Corporation's (Viskase) cellulose food

casing facility in Bedford Park (Cook County) be subject to the

``generic'' rule for miscellaneous fabricated product manufacturing

processes and the ``generic'' rule for miscellaneous formulation

manufacturing processes. On July 19, 1990, Viskase requested that USEPA

reconsider its rule as applicable to Viskase's food casing

manufacturing operations and, as a result, the USEPA convened a

proceeding for reconsideration. The USEPA has considered the issues

raised by Viskase and is presenting in this proposed rule both a

discussion of these issues and a newly proposed rulemaking applicable

to Viskase's food casing manufacturing operations. The USEPA is also

proposing rulemaking on a site-specific SIP revision for Viskase that

has been submitted by Illinois. The USEPA solicits public comments on

the USEPA's proposed rulemaking action.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by December 19, at

the address below. A public hearing, if requested, will be held in

Chicago, Illinois. Requests for a hearing should be submitted to J.

Elmer Bortzer by December 19, 1994 at the address below. Interested

persons may call Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 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 proposal, the scope

of which is discussed below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed

to J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Comments should be strictly limited to the subject matter of this

proposal.

DOCKET: Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) and (N) of the Clean Air

Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B) and (N) (1991), this action is

subject to the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore,

the USEPA has established a public docket for this action, A-93-37,

which is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m.

and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following addresses. We

recommend that you contact Randolph O. Cano before visiting the Chicago

location and Rachel Romine before visiting the Washington, DC location.

A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Regulation Development

Branch, 18th Floor, Southwest, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois

60604.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-93-37, Air Docket

(LE-131), room M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460, (202) 245-3639.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Regulation

Development Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, (312) 886-6052, at the Chicago address indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In an effort to comply with certain requirements under Part D of

the Act, as amended in 1977, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (1990),1 the

Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) adopted an organic emission

``generic'' rule on April 7, 1988. The purpose of the generic rule was

to satisfy the USEPA's requirement that Illinois adopt rules for major

(100 tons per year (TPY) and greater) non-CTG sources.2 This

requirement is discussed in the April 4, 1979, General Preamble for

Proposed Rulemaking (44 FR 20372).

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

\1\The Clean Air Act was amended on November 15, 1990. Pub. L.

101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1991).

However, the USEPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal

implementation plan for the Chicago nonattainment area arose under

the pre-amended Act, as did Illinois' obligation to submit the SIP

RACT rules that the state submitted in 1988. Therefore, while the

USEPA is procedurally subject to the amended Act in this proposed

rulemaking, the USEPA must refer to the pre-amended Act

requirements. To clarify these references, the amended Act will be

referred to as the ``Act'' and the pre-amended Act will be referred

to as the ``1977 Act''.

\2\Control techniques guideline (CTG) documents have been

prepared by the USEPA to assist States in defining RACT for the

control of VOC emissions from existing stationary sources. Each

individual CTG recommends a presumptive norm of control considered

reasonably available to a specific source category. Sources in

categories for which no CTG exists are termed ``non-CTG sources.''

See 44 FR 53762 (September 14, 1979).

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

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) first proposed

to the IPCB to control VOCs through a ``generic rule'' on May 12, 1986.

The first hearings on this rule were held in October 1986. A revised

and second revised generic rule were subsequently submitted by IEPA.

Hearings on the generic rule were held February 10 and 11, 1987, and

April 23 and 24, 1987. At the April 23, 1987, hearing, IEPA presented a

fourth proposal (alternative generic proposal), and recommended that it

be adopted rather than the original or either of its two revisions.

On August 6, 1987, the IPCB adopted the IEPA's alternative generic

proposal for First Notice of Adoption, which was published in the

August 28, 1987, Illinois Register. On November 2, 1987, the Illinois

Department of Energy and Natural Resources filed an Economic Impact

Study (EcIS). Two hearings were held on the EcIS (December 14, 1987,

and December 18, 1987). On February 4, 1988, the IPCB adopted the

alternative rule for Second Notice, and on April 7, 1988, the IPCB

adopted, as a final rule, the alternative proposal.

Under the adopted generic rule, Subpart PP, ``Miscellaneous

Fabricated Manufacturing Processes,'' regulates ``a manufacturing

process involving * * * viscose solutions for food casings,'' and

Subpart QQ, ``Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Processes,''

regulates ``a manufacturing process which compounds * * * viscose

solutions.'' These subparts require that sources either comply with an

emission limit of 3.5 pounds volatile organic material (VOM) per gallon

coating (which only applies to coating sources and therefore doesn't

apply to Viskase because it isn't a coating source) or 81 percent

reduction in VOM emissions from uncontrolled levels;3 or that they

procure an Adjusted RACT emission limitation from the IPCB.

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

\3\The State of Illinois uses the term ``VOM'' in its

regulations. For the purposes of this RACT analysis, this term is

considered equivalent to USEPA's term ``volatile organic compounds

(VOC).''

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

On August 5, 1988, Viskase filed a Petition for Adjusted RACT

Emissions Limitation with the IPCB. Under the generic rule's adjusted

standards procedures, Viskase was required to show that an 81 percent

reduction in uncontrolled VOM emissions is not RACT for Viskase, and

that the emission levels proposed by Viskase are RACT and would not

interfere with the State's plan for achieving ambient air quality

standards.

On January 5, 1989, the IPCB ruled that an 81 percent reduction of

uncontrolled emissions would not constitute RACT for Viskase's Bedford

Park facility. The IPCB determined that a 33 percent reduction in

allowable VOM emissions (to a level of 994 tons per year) constitutes

RACT for the Bedford Park facility and would not interfere with the

State's progress toward achieving attainment of the ambient air quality

standards.

At that time, the IPCB adopted the following emission standards

applicable to Viskase's Bedford Park plant.

1. The volatile organic material (VOM) emissions from Viskase's

Bedford Park plant shall not exceed 994 tons per year. In addition, VOM

emissions, computed on a monthly average basis, shall not exceed the

following: 2.22 tons per day for each month during the period from June

through August; and 3.30 tons per day for each month during the period

from September through May.

32. Emissions of VOM, including carbon disulfide, from the Bedford

Park plant shall be determined from raw material consumption and plant-

specific emission factors. These factors shall be developed using the

methods and procedures for testing contained in 40 CFR Part 60 (1988),

including Appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 15, 25, 25A and 25B, as

appropriate. The methodology for computing a monthly average from daily

emission values will be determined by the permit, issued to Viskase by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which prescribes the

emission standards set forth herein.

3. In accordance with the applicable methodologies, Viskase shall:

(a) Maintain a monthly record of raw material consumption by each

process or group of processes subject to a different emission factor;

and

(b) Calculate and record monthly VOM emissions, daily VOM

emissions, average daily VOM emissions in tons/day, on a monthly basis.

4. (a) Records of testing shall be retained by Viskase at its

Bedford Park facility for at least 5 years following the date last

relied upon for calculating emissions; and

(b) Raw material consumption records, VOM emission calculations,

and VOM emission records shall be retained by Viskase at its Bedford

Park facility for at least 2 years following the date prepared.

The IEPA submitted this adjusted standard to USEPA as a proposed

revision to the Illinois SIP4 on February 24, 1989.

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

\4\Under Illinois' regulatory procedures, IEPA does not have the

authority to adopt regulations, but must submit recommended

proposals for adoption to the IPCB, an independent rulemaking body.

IEPA is, however, responsible for submitting such regulations to

USEPA as proposed SIP revisions.

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

On April 1, 1987, the State of Wisconsin filed a complaint in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

against the USEPA and sought a judgment that the USEPA, among other

requested actions, be required to promulgate revisions to the Illinois

ozone SIP for northeastern Illinois. Wisconsin v. Reilly, No. 87-C-

0395, (E.D. Wis.). On January 18, 1989, the District Court ordered that

USEPA promulgate an ozone implementation plan for northeastern Illinois

within 14 months of the date of that order. On September 22, 1989, the

USEPA and the States of Illinois and Wisconsin signed a settlement

agreement in an attempt to substitute a more acceptable schedule for

promulgation of a plan for the control of ozone in the Chicago area. On

November 6, 1989, the District Court vacated its prior order and

ordered all further proceedings stayed, pending the performance of the

settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement called for the use of a more sophisticated

air quality model, allowed more time for the USEPA to promulgate a

Federal implementation plan (FIP) using the model5, and requires

interim emission reductions while the modeling study is being

performed. The interim emission reductions consisted of Federal

promulgation of required VOM RACT rules for Illinois to remedy

deficiencies in its State regulations.

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

\5\USEPA is no longer required to promulgate a FIP using the

modeling results because the settlement agreement relieves USEPA of

such responsibility in the event that amendments to the Act

establish new deadlines for States to achieve attainment of the

ozone standard. The primary responsibility for developing any

remaining revisions to Illinois' State implementation plan belongs

to Illinois because the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establishes

such new deadlines.

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

On December 27, 1989, (54 FR 53080) USEPA proposed to disapprove

the Illinois generic rules (Subparts AA, II, PP, QQ, RR of Part 215:

Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations) largely because

the applicability criteria were not consistent with the USEPA RACT

guidance for major non-CTG sources. On that date, the USEPA also

proposed a number of RACT rules, including generic rules which covered

all of Viskase's cellulose food casing manufacturing operations. On

March 2, 1990, Viskase submitted comments to USEPA, raising a number of

issues on the proposal.

On June 29, 1990, (55 FR 26814), the USEPA took final action to

disapprove the Illinois' generic rules and promulgate the proposed

Federal rules, including the generic ``Miscellaneous Fabricated

Manufacturing Processes'' and ``Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing

Processes'' rules. However, the USEPA stated at that time that the need

to promulgate Federal regulations, under the tight timeframe ordered by

the District Court, had prevented the USEPA from being able to consider

fully Viskase's comments, including the merits of the proposed,

alternative site-specific limits for Viskase. Consequently, the USEPA

deferred the effective date of the applicable rules with regard to

Viskase for six months. 55 FR 26846.

On July 19, 1990, Viskase filed a formal request that USEPA

reconsider the Federal rules for Viskase, and stay the compliance date

until at least one year after the USEPA has (1) fully considered the

State's rules and Viskase's comments, and (2) has either promulgated a

site-specific rule or formally refused to promulgate such a rule. As a

result, the USEPA convened a proceeding for reconsideration pursuant to

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) (56 FR 463 and

56 FR 24722). And on August 22, 1990, Viskase filed a petition for

review of the USEPA's June 29, 1990, rulemaking in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Nine other parties filed

petitions for review, which were ultimately consolidated by the Court

as Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (``IERG'') et al. v. Reilly,

No. 90-2778.

On January 4, 1991 (56 FR 460), the USEPA announced a three-month

partial stay pending reconsideration for Viskase and two other

petitioners. Elsewhere in the January 4, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR

463), the USEPA proposed to extend the stay beyond the three-month

period, only if and as necessary to complete reconsideration of the

subject rules (including any appropriate regulatory action), pursuant

to the USEPA's authority to revise the Federal rules by following

rulemaking procedures in sections 110(c) and 301(a)(1) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7410(c) and 7601(a)(1). Two of the rules for which the stay was

proposed were the ``Miscellaneous Fabricated Manufacturing Processes''

and ``Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Processes'' rules only as

applied to Viskase's cellulose food casing manufacturing operations,

codified at 40 CFR 52.741(u) and (v), as well as the July 1, 1991,

compliance date, codified at 40 CFR 52.741(u)(4) and (v)(4).

On May 31, 1991, (56 FR 24722), the USEPA responded to public

comments on the proposed extension of the partial stay, and took final

action to extend the stay as long as necessary to complete

reconsideration of the rules identified in the proposal. Today's

notice, in effect, presents the results of the USEPA's reconsideration

of the Federal generic rules as they apply to Viskase, and proposes

rulemaking based on these results.

II. Discussion of Viskase's Manufacturing Operations

Viskase's Bedford Park facility manufactures sausage casings and

related food packaging materials using the viscose process. The viscose

process, which produces regenerated cellulose food casings, is also

used to produce rayon and cellophane as well as cellulose food casings.

Production of cellulose food casings by the viscose process begins

with the reaction of a cellulose material, either cotton or wood pulp,

with an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution to produce alkali cellulose.

After aging, the alkali cellulose is reacted with carbon disulfide to

form an intermediate compound, cellulose xanthate, which is

subsequently dissolved in a dilute caustic solution to form a viscous

fluid called ``viscose.'' After aging and filtering, the viscose is

extruded into precision-sized tubes which are passed through a series

of acid baths where the cellulose is regenerated. The extruded

regenerated cellulose film is then purified, dried, and reeled and

finished.

Gaseous emissions from the viscose process consist primarily of

carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide. These gases evolve during the

xanthation, coagulation, regeneration and purification stages of the

process. Smaller volumes of carbon disulfide are also emitted during

carbon disulfide unloading and transfer operations. In 1972, the

Bedford Park plant installed a wet scrubber system to remove hydrogen

sulfide from the exhaust gas stream.

III. Viskase RACT Analysis

The IPCB's January 5, 1989, opinion on Viskase's adjusted RACT

petition states that Viskase is currently permitted to emit 1,476 TPY

of VOM and that its emission reduction proposal entails a reduction in

allowable emissions down to 994 tons per year, or a reduction of 482

TPY. This proposed reduction in allowable emissions is to be

accomplished by process changes and not add-on control. Viskase claims

that it has obtained a 12.4 percent reduction in carbon disulfide

emissions by switching from cotton to wood as a cellulose source.

In extensive comments submitted to USEPA on March 2, 1990, Viskase

contends that an 81 percent overall VOM reduction is not RACT due to a

number of reasons, including:

1. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has recently

reduced the Permissible Exposure Level for carbon disulfide from 20

parts per million (PPM) to 4 PPM. Viskase anticipates increasing the

plant exhaust rate from 220,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) to 250,000

CFM. This will increase the cost of add-on control, which is primarily

based on the flowrate.

2. No other viscose cellulose food casing manufacturer in the world

is presently required to control carbon disulfide emissions.

3. Of the five different technologies which are generally

considered to be applicable to VOC emission control, i.e., material

substitution, condensation, carbon adsorption, chemical scrubbing and

thermal incineration, only thermal incineration is potentially feasible

to control the Bedford Park plant carbon disulfide emissions to the

level required by the proposed Federal rule. An incineration control

system to be utilized at the Bedford Park plant to control carbon

disulfide emissions however would be enormously expensive according to

Viskase, who estimates that the annual costs of control would be $7,890

per ton of carbon disulfide removed.

4. In addition to unreasonable economic costs, the cross-media

environmental impact of an incinerator would also be substantial.

Incineration would produce sulfur dioxide as an incineration product,

in amounts more than twice the amount of carbon disulfide destroyed.

Incineration of the Bedford Park plant's carbon disulfide emissions

would also result in the incinerator being considered a new ``major

source'' of sulfur dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and would require

Viskase to install and operate sulfur dioxide control equipment. That

equipment would, in turn, result in the discharge with the Bedford Park

plant's wastewaters of 3.9 pounds of sodium sulfate for each pound of

carbon disulfide incinerated, or more than 7,000,000 pounds per year of

sodium sulfate, which would not otherwise be discharged to the waters

of Illinois. In addition to sulfur dioxide, incineration would also

produce approximately 17.4 pounds of carbon dioxide for each pound of

carbon disulfide destroyed, or 28,000,000 new pounds of carbon dioxide,

which would not otherwise be emitted.

5. The IPCB's January 5, 1989, opinion states that carbon disulfide

has substantially less ozone producing capability than a typical VOM.

After reviewing Viskase's comments, USEPA has determined that an 81

percent reduction of uncontrolled VOM emissions would not constitute

RACT for Viskase's Bedford Park facility. The USEPA has also determined

that a 33 percent reduction in Viskase's allowable emissions to 994

tons per year is RACT for Viskase.

However, the control requirements established by the IPCB in its

January 5, 1989, order are not approvable for the following reasons:

1. There are no short-term emission limitations. Viskase is limited

to 994 TPY and 2.22 tons per day, on a monthly average, from June

through August, and 3.30 tons per day, on a monthly average, for the

remaining months of the year. The USEPA's January 20, 1984, policy

memorandum, titled ``Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission

Limits--SIP Revision Policy'' clarifies USEPA's policy regarding

emission time averaging for existing sources of VOC. The objective of

USEPA's national VOC emissions control program is the timely attainment

and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone.

Therefore, averaging times must be reasonably consistent with

protecting the short-term ozone standard. Further, since SIPs and

associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual application of

RACT, regulatory actions that incorporate longer term averages to

circumvent the installation of overall RACT level controls cannot be

allowed. Therefore to protect the ozone standard and ensure RACT, this

policy prohibits longer than daily averaging unless source operations

are such that daily VOC emissions cannot be determined or where the

application of RACT is not economically or technically feasible. In

those cases in which daily emissions cannot be determined or in which

daily averaging is not feasible, longer averaging times can be

permitted if the conditions specified in this policy memorandum are

followed. However, Viskase has neither demonstrated that daily VOC

emissions cannot be determined, nor demonstrated the infeasibility of

complying on a daily basis. In addition, Viskase has not satisfied the

other conditions in this policy memorandum nor explained why such

conditions should not be applicable. The general need for daily

averaging is also stated on page 2-10 of ``Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' a May 25, 1988,

USEPA guidance document.

2. The IPCB's order states that emissions of VOM, including carbon

disulfide, from the Bedford Park plant shall be determined from raw

material consumption and plant-specific emission factors and these

factors are to be developed using the test methods in 40 CFR Part 60,

including Appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 15, 25, 25A and 25B, as

appropriate. While this is a generally reasonable approach, a specific

method is required for review to ensure that the daily VOM emissions

are determined in a consistent and accurate manner.

3. The recordkeeping requirements in the IPCB's order are too

general to be enforceable.

On February 9, 1994, representatives from Viskase met with

representatives from USEPA to discuss daily emission levels and

recordkeeping practices, and provided USEPA with technical information

about its process operations and emissions.

The USEPA has determined, based upon the previously discussed

information, that RACT for Viskase consists of the following:

1. VOM emissions shall never exceed 3.30 tons per day.

2. VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.22 tons per day, on a monthly

average, during June, July, and August.

3. VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.44 tons per day during June,

July, and August.

4. Compliance with the emission limits in items 1-3 above, and the

records in item 5 below, shall be determined using an emission factor

of ``0.72 pounds of VOM emissions per pound of carbon disulfide

consumed.''

5. Viskase must keep the following daily records:

(a) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its fibrous

process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per

charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each

level of carbon disulfide per charge.

(b) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its NOJAX

process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per

charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each

level of carbon disulfide per charge.

(c) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon

disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's Fibrous process.

(d) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon

disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's NOJAX process.

(e) The total quantity of carbon disulfide used per day in

Viskase's Fibrous process, the total quantity of carbon disulfide used

per day in Viskase's NOJAX process, and the daily VOM emissions

resulting from use of the carbon disulfide.

(f) The monthly use of carbon disulfide, and the monthly VOM

emissions resulting from use of the carbon disulfide, during June,

July, and August.

6. Any violation of the emission limits in items 1, 2, or 3 above

must be reported to USEPA within 30 days of its occurrence.

7. In order to determine daily and monthly VOM emissions, the test

methods in section 52.741(a)(4) may be used in addition to, and take

precedence over, the emission factor cited in item 4 above. Method 15

is to be used instead of Methods 18, 25, and 25A when the test methods

in section 52.741(a)(4) are used to determine VOM emissions from

Viskase's cellulose food casing facility.

Compliance with these requirements is required three months from

the date this action becomes final. This will allow time for Viskase to

develop its recordkeeping procedures.

IV. SIP Revision Proposed by Illinois for Viskase

On February 24, 1989, Illinois submitted a proposed revision to the

Illinois SIP. This revision consists of an adjusted RACT Standard for

Viskase, docketed as AS-88-1 by the IPCB.

On January 5, 1989, the IPCB adopted an opinion and order for this

proceeding. This IPCB Order limits VOM emissions to 994 TPY, 2.22 tons

per day, on a monthly average, for June, July, and August, and 3.30

tons per day, on a monthly average, for the remaining months.

The USEPA is proposing to disapprove this requested SIP revision

for the following reasons: (1) monthly averaging is inconsistent with

USEPA policy regarding RACT; (2) there are no specific procedures for

calculating daily emissions; and (3) there are no specific

recordkeeping requirements.

V. Summary and Conclusions

USEPA is proposing to disapprove the requested SIP revision

submitted by IEPA because of the reasons provided in the above

paragraph. USEPA is also proposing to promulgate RACT VOC emission

limits generally consistent to what was adopted by the IPCB. However,

USEPA has added daily emission limits and recordkeeping requirements

which will make the RACT limits enforceable. Also, USEPA is proposing

to withdraw the May 31, 1991, stay.

USEPA is taking this action pursuant to its authority under section

110(k)(6) of the Act to correct through rulemaking any plan or plan

revision.6 USEPA is interpreting this provision to authorize the

USEPA to make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown

to USEPA's satisfaction that the information made available to the

USEPA at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have

been clearly inadequate, and other information persuasively supports a

change in the regulation. See 57 FR 6762 at 6763 (November 30, 1992).

In this case, the information made available to USEPA during the

rulemaking for Viskase was inadequate for the development of a site-

specific RACT determination.7

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

\6\Since USEPA is taking this action pursuant to section

110(k)(6), USEPA believes that section 193 of the Act (the savings

clause) is inapplicable. By its terms, section 110(k)(6) does not

require any additional submission or evidence. Section 193 requires

an assurance of equivalency for any revision and, in order to

provide for equivalency, the State would need to provide for

compensating reductions. USEPA believes that this conflict should be

resolved concluding that section 110(k)(6) is not constrained by the

savings clause requirement of equivalent reductions. USEPA believes

that the State and the sources within the State should not have to

bear the burden of additional reductions where USEPA lacked

important site-specific information at the time of an initial

promulgation. This is particularly true in the case of FIPs, where

USEPA takes the lead in developing the regulations and is not merely

acting on State-submitted regulations.

\7\As discussed earlier, USEPA was required to promulgate the

June 29, 1990, regulations under the tight timeframe ordered by the

Court in Wisconsin v. Reilly.

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

Public comment is solicited on this proposal for Viskase. Public

comments received by the date shown above will be considered in the

development of USEPA's final rule.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the

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, the USEPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant 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.

This action involves only one source, Viskase Corporation. Viskase

is not a small entity. Therefore, the USEPA certifies that this RACT

promulgation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number

of small entities.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: November 10, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that part 52,

chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations be 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 52.741 is amended by adding a new paragraph (u)(8) and

removing and reserving paragraph (z)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.741 Control strategy: Ozone control measures for Cook, DuPage,

Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.

* * * * *

(u) * * *

(8) The control, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this

paragraph apply to the cellulose food casing manufacturing operations

at the Viskase Corporation plant in Bedford Park, Illinois (Cook

County) instead of the requirements in paragraph (v) of this section,

the other parts of paragraph (u) of this section, and the recordkeeping

requirements in paragraph (y) of this section. Unless otherwise stated,

the following requirements must be met by Viskase on and after three

months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal

Register.

(i) VOM emissions shall never exceed 3.30 tons per day.

(ii) VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.22 tons per day, on a monthly

average, during June, July, and August.

(iii) VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.44 tons per day during June,

July, and August.

(iv) Compliance with the emission limits in paragraphs (u)(8)(i)

through (iii) of this section, and the records in paragraph (u)(8)(v)

of this section, shall be determined using an emission factor of ``0.72

pounds of VOM emissions per pound of carbon disulfide consumed.''

(v) Viskase must keep the following daily records:

(A) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its Fibrous

process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per

charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each

level of carbon disulfide per charge.

(B) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its NOJAX

process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per

charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each

level of carbon disulfide per charge.

(C) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon

disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's Fibrous process.

(D) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon

disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's NOJAX process.

(E) The total quantity of carbon disulfide used per day in

Viskase's Fibrous process, the total quantity of carbon disulfide used

per day in Viskase's NOJAX process, and the daily VOM emissions

resulting from use of the carbon disulfide.

(F) The monthly use of carbon disulfide, and the monthly VOM

emissions resulting from use of the carbon disulfide, during June,

July, and August.

(vi) Any violation of the emission limits in paragraphs (u)(8) (i)

through (iii) of this section must be reported to USEPA within 30 days

of its occurrence.

(vii) In order to determine daily and monthly VOM emissions, the

test methods in Sec. 52.741(a)(4) may be used in addition to, and take

precedence over, the emission factor cited in paragraph iv above.

Method 15 is to be used instead of Methods 18, 25, and 25A when the

test methods in Sec. 52.741(a)(4) are used to determine VOM emissions

from Viskase's cellulose food casing facility.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 94-28548 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6360-50-P