Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL125-1-7030a; FRL-5312-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 5, 1995, the State of Illinois submitted a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for automotive/transportation

and business machine plastic parts coatings operations as part of the

State's 15 percent (%) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan control

measures for Volatile Organic Matter (VOM) emissions. VOM, as defined

by the State of Illinois, is identical to ``volatile organic

compounds'' (VOC), as defined by USEPA. VOC is one of the air

pollutants which combine on hot summer days to form ground-level ozone,

commonly known as smog. Ozone pollution is of particular concern

because of its harmful effects upon lung tissue and breathing passages.

RFP plans are intended to bring areas which have been exceeding the

public health based Federal ozone air quality standard closer toward

the goal of reaching and maintaining attainment with this standard. The

control measures specified in this plastic parts SIP revision are

expected by Illinois to reduce VOC (VOM) emissions by 0.28 tons per day

in the Chicago area. No applicable sources exist in the Metro-East

(East St. Louis) area at this time.

A supplement to the May 5, 1995, SIP revision request was submitted

on May 26, 1995. USEPA made a finding of completeness in a letter dated

July 13, 1995. A final approval action is being taken because the

submittal meets all pertinent Federal requirements. This SIP revision

establishes VOM emission limits for applicable plastic parts sources

located in the Chicago and Metro-East ozone nonattainment areas. The

USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because USEPA

views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document in

this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed

approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the

rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical

comments are filed. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical

of the approval, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its effective

date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document which

withdraws this final action. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Please be aware that

USEPA will institute another comment period on this action only if

warranted by significant revisions to the rulemaking based on any

comments received in response to today's action. Any parties interested

in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: The direct final rule is effective on December 26, 1995, unless

USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by November 27, 1995. If

the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis

(Technical Support Document) 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.)

Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires all

moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to achieve a 15% reduction

of 1990 emissions of VOC (VOM) by 1996. In Illinois, the Chicago area

is classified as ``severe'' nonattainment for ozone, while the Metro-

East area is classified as ``moderate'' nonattainment. As such, these

areas are subject to the 15% RFP requirement.

On September 12, 1994, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) filed the proposed plastic parts coating rule with the Illinois

Pollution Control Board (Board). A public hearing

[[Page 54808]]

on the rule was held on November 4, December 2, and December 16, 1994,

in Chicago, Illinois; on April 20, 1995, the Board adopted a Final

Opinion and Order for the proposed amendment. The rule became effective

on May 9, 1995; it was published in the Illinois State Register on May

19, 1995. The IEPA formally submitted the plastic parts coating rule to

USEPA on May 5, 1995, as a revision to the Illinois SIP for ozone;

supplemental documentation to this revision was submitted on May 26,

1995. In doing so, IEPA believes that this SIP revision's new control

requirements for plastic parts coating sources will help reduce VOM

emissions enough to meet the 15% RFP requirements.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The May 5, 1995, submittal includes the following new or revised

rules:

Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions

Subpart B: Definitions

211.660 Automotive/Transportation Plastic Parts

211.670 Baked Coatings

211.820 Business Machine Plastic Parts

211.1880 Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Frequency Interference

(EMI/RFI) Shielding Coatings

211.1900 Electrostatic Prep Coat

211.2360 Flexible Coating

211.2630 Gloss Reducers

211.4055 Non-Flexible Coating

211.4740 Plastic Part

211.5480 Reflective Argent Coating

211.5600 Resist Coat

211.6060 Soft Coat

211.6140 Specialty Coatings

211.6400 Stencil Coat

211.6580 Texture Coat

211.6880 Vacuum Metallizing

Part 218: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the

Chicago Area

Subpart F: Coating Operations

218.204(n) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/

Transportation

218.204(o) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Business

Machine

218.205(g) Daily-Weighted Average Limits for Plastic Parts

218.207(i) Alternative Emission Limitations for Plastic Parts

Part 219: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the

Metro-East St. Louis Area

Subpart F: Coating Operations

219.204(m) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/

Transportation

219.204(n) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts Coating: Business

Machine

219.205(f) Daily-Weighted Average Limits for Plastic Parts

219.207(h) Alternative Emission Limitations for Plastic Parts

This SIP revision applies to sources in the Chicago and Metro-East

St. Louis ozone nonattainment area which apply coatings to the

following plastic parts:

(1) The interior and exterior plastic components of automobiles,

trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, and other like mobile equipment intended

for primary use on land, with the exception of the following: plastic

parts coated on the main (body) paint line in automobile and light duty

refinishing of automobiles, trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, and other

like mobile equipment.

(2) The plastic housings and other exterior plastic components of

electronic office equipment and of medical and musical equipment,

including, but not limited to the following: computers, monitors,

printers and keyboards, facsimile machines, copiers, microfiche

readers, cellular and standard phones, and pencil sharpeners. The

internal electrical components of business machines are, however,

excluded from being applicable to this rule.

The Illinois plastic parts coating rule establishes VOM emission

limitations which can be met in one of three ways: (a) Through the use

of coatings meeting a low-VOM content limit (218.204 [n] and [o]/

219.204 [m] and [n]), (b) having coating lines which apply coatings

that are all subject to the same VOM content limit (specified in

section 218/219.204) meet a daily-weighted average limit based upon

that content limit (218.205[g]/219.205[f]), or (c) use of an add-on

capture system and control device (218.207[i]/219.207[h]).

The VOM content limits for plastic parts coatings established in

sections 218/219.204 are specified below. The limits are expressed in

units of VOM per volume of coating (minus water and any compounds which

are specifically exempted from the definition of VOM).

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

kg/l lb/gal

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

Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/Transportation

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

(1) Interiors:

(A) Baked:

(i) Color coat...................................... 0.49 4.1

(ii) Primer......................................... 0.46 3.8

(B) Air Dried:

(i) Color coat...................................... 0.38 3.2

(ii) Primer......................................... 0.42 3.5

(2) Exteriors (flexible and non-flexible):

(A) Baked:

(i) Primer.......................................... 0.60 5.0

(ii) Primer non-flexible............................ 0.54 4.5

(iii) Clear coat.................................... 0.52 4.3

(iv) Color coat..................................... 0.55 4.6

(B) Air Dried-

(i) Primer.......................................... 0.66 5.5

(ii) Clear coat..................................... 0.54 4.5

(iii) Color coat (red & black)...................... 0.67 5.6

(iv) Color coat (others)............................ 0.61 5.1

(3) Specialty:

(A) Vacuum metallizing basecoats, texture basecoats... 0.66 5.5

(B) Black coatings, reflective argent coatings, air

bag cover coatings, and soft coatings................ 0.71 5.9

(C) Gloss reducers, vacuum metallizing topcoats, and

texture topcoats..................................... 0.77 6.4

(D) Stencil coatings, adhesion primers, ink pad

coatings, electrostatic prep coatings, and resist

coatings............................................. 0.82 6.8

(E) Head lamp lens coatings........................... 0.89 7.4

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

Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine

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

(1) Primer.............................................. 0.14 1.2

(2) Color coat (non-texture coat)....................... 0.28 2.3

(3) Color coat (texture coat)........................... 0.28 2.3

(4) Electromagnetic interference/radio frequency

interference shielding coatings........................ 0.48 4.0

(5) Specialty Coatings:

(A) Soft Coat......................................... 0.52 4.3

(B) Plating Resist.................................... 0.71 5.9

(C) Plating Sensitizer................................ 0.85 7.1

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

In addition to meeting the provisions for emission limitations

found within the Illinois plastic parts rule, applicable sources will

have to meet provisions for test methods and reporting and

recordkeeping, as specified in the rule.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

The USEPA has undertaken its analysis of the SIP revision request,

based upon its plastic parts coating Alternative Control Techniques

(ACT) document, and has determined that the rule's control requirements

are equivalent to what is Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT) for this source category. On this basis, the USEPA has

determined that this SIP revision request is approvable.

The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates

no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document

in this Federal Register publication, which

[[Page 54809]]

constitutes a ``proposed approval'' of the requested SIP revision and

clarifies that the rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely

adverse or critical comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval

shall be effective on December 26, 1995, unless USEPA receives adverse

or critical comments by November 27, 1995. If USEPA receives comments

adverse to or critical of the approval discussed above, USEPA will

withdraw this approval before its effective date by publishing a

subsequent Federal Register notice which withdraws this final action.

All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent

rulemaking document. Please be aware that USEPA will institute another

comment period on this action only if warranted by significant

revisions to the rulemaking based on any comments received in response

to today's action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, USEPA

hereby advises the public that this action will be effective on

December 26, 1995.

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded

Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the

USEPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires

the USEPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the USEPA must

identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives

before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must

be prepared. The USEPA must select from those alternatives the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the USEPA explains why this

alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure

by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less

then $100 million in any one year, the USEPA has not prepared a

budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.

Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the USEPA is not required to develop a plan with

regard to small governments. This rule only approves the incorporation

of existing state rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional

requirements.

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)

Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant 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.

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 impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the

State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 427 U.S.

246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(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 December 26, 1995. 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

Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by

reference.

Dated: September 22, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart O--Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(116) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(116) On May 5, 1995, and May 26, 1995, the State submitted a rule

for automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts

coating operations, which consisted of new volatile organic compound

emission limitations to the Ozone Control Plan for the Chicago and

Metro-East St. Louis areas.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois Administrative Code, Title

35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I:

Pollution Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions Standards and

Limitations for Stationary Sources.

(A) Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions, Subpart B;

Definitions, Sections 211.660 Automotive/Transportation Plastic Parts,

211.670 Baked Coatings, 211.820 Business Machine Plastic Parts,

211.1880 Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Frequency Interference

Shielding Coatings, 211.1900 Electrostatic Prep Coat, 211.2360 Flexible

Coatings, 211.2630 Gloss Reducers, 211.4055 Non-Flexible Coating,

211.4740 Plastic Part, 211.5480 Reflective Argent Coating, 211.5600

Resist Coat, 211.6060 Soft Coat, 211.6140 Specialty Coatings, 211.6400

Stencil Coat, 211.6580 Texture Coat, and 211.6880 Vacuum Metallizing,

[[Page 54810]]

amended at 19 Ill. 6823, effective May 9, 1995.

(B) Part 218: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations

for the Chicago Area, Subpart F; Coating Operations, Sections 218.204

Emission Limitations, Subsection (n) Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/

Transportation and (o) Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine, 218.205

Daily-Weighted Average Limitations, Subsection (g), and 218.207

Alternative Emission Limitations, Subsection (i), amended at 19 Ill.

6848, effective May 9, 1995.

(C) Part 219: Organic Material Emissions Standards and Limitations

for the Metro-East Area, Subpart F; Coating Operations, Section 219.204

Emission Limitations, Subsection (m) Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/

Transportation and (n) Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine, 219.205

Daily-Weighted Average Limitations, Subsection (f), and 219.207

Alternative Emission Limitations, Subsection (h), amended at 19 Ill.

Reg. 6958, effective May 9, 1995.

[FR Doc. 95-26585 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P