Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL178-1a, I1179-1a; FRL-6216-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving two negative declarations submitted by

the State of Illinois. The first indicates there is no need for

regulations covering the industrial wastewater category in the Metro-

East St. Louis (Metro-East) ozone nonattainment area. The Metro-East

ozone nonattainment area includes Madison, Monroe and St. Clair

Counties which are located in southwest Illinois, adjacent to St.

Louis, Missouri. The second negative declaration indicates there is no

need for regulations covering the industrial cleaning solvents category

in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area. The State's negative

declarations regarding industrial wastewater category sources and

industrial cleaning solvent sources were submitted to USEPA in two

letters dated October 2, 1998. In the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register, the USEPA is proposing approval of, and soliciting

comments on, the approval of these two negative declarations. If

adverse written comments are received on this action, the USEPA will

withdraw this final rule based and address the comments received in

response to this action in a final rule based on the related proposed

rule. A second public comment period will not be provided. Parties

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

DATES: This rule is effective on March 8, 1999, unless USEPA receives

adverse written comments by February 5, 1999. If adverse comment is

received, USEPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take

effect.

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

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the negative declarations are available for inspection at

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please

telephone Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 before visiting the Region

5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-

6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background-Emission Control Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended in 1977, ozone

nonattainment areas were required to adopt emission controls reflective

of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources of

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. USEPA issued three sets of

control technique guidelines (CTGs) documents, establishing a

``presumptive norm'' for RACT for various categories of VOC sources.

The three sets of CTGs were (1) Group I--issued before January 1978 (15

CTGs); (2) Group II--issued in 1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III--issued

in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). Those sources not covered by a CTG were

called non-CTG sources. USEPA determined that an area's State

Implementation Plan (SIP) approved attainment date established which

RACT rules the area needed to adopt and implement. In those areas where

the State sought an extension of the attainment date under section

172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987, RACT was required for all

CTG sources and for all major (100 tons per year or more of VOC

emissions under the pre-amended Act) non-CTG sources. Illinois sought

and received such an extension for the Metro-East area.

Section 182(b)(2) of the Act as amended in 1990 requires States to

adopt RACT rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and

classified as moderate or above. There are three parts to the section

182(b)(2) RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing

CTG--i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the amended Act of

1990; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and (3) all

major sources not covered by a CTG. These section 182(b)(2) RACT

requirements are referred to as the RACT ``catch-up'' requirements.

Section 183 of the amended Act requires USEPA to issue CTGs for 13

source categories by November 15, 1993. A CTG was published by this

date for the following source categories-- Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactors and Distillation, aerospace

manufacturing coating operation, shipbuilding and ship repair coating

operations, and wood furniture coating operation; however, the CTGs for

the remaining source categories have not been completed. The amended

Act requires States to submit rules for sources covered by a post-

enactment CTG in accordance with a schedule specified in a CTG

document.

The USEPA created a CTG document as Appendix E to the General

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. (57 FR 18070, 18077, April 28, 1992). In Appendix

E, USEPA interpreted the Act to allow a State to submit a non-CTG rule

by November 15, 1992, or to defer submittal of a RACT rule for sources

that the State anticipated would be covered by a post-enactment CTG,

based on the list of CTGs USEPA expected to issue to meet the

requirement in section 183. Appendix E states that if USEPA fails to

issue a CTG by November 15, 1993 (which it did for 11 source

categories), the responsibility shifts to the State to submit a non-CTG

RACT rule for those sources by November 15, 1994. In accordance with

section 182(b)(2), implementation of that RACT rule should occur by May

31, 1995.

[[Page 757]]

II. The Negative Declarations and Their Justification

The USEPA does not require States to develop plans or regulations

to control emissions from sources which are not present in the planning

area. If it is thought that this might be the case, the State carefully

examines its emissions inventory before initiating the planning and

regulation development process. If a careful examination of the

emissions inventory finds no sources, then the State prepares and

submits to USEPA, a negative declaration stating that there are no

sources in the planning area which would be subject to the required

rule rather than a control plan for sources in a particular category.

On October 2, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted to USEPA a

negative declaration regarding the need for regulations covering the

industrial wastewater category in the Metro-East Area. The State

indicated that in making this determination, the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) conducted a search of its 1996 Metro-

East inventory for any major source potentially subject to USEPA's

draft Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document for the ``Control of

Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Industrial Wastewater'' [EPA-

453/D-93-056, September 1992]. The Illinois EPA found only one major

source, industrial wastewater from Shell Oil Refinery (Shell) in Wood

River with a potential to emit more than 100 tons per year from this

draft CTG category.

Portions of Shell's wastewater operation emissions are subject to

the Federal rule covering benzene waste operations applicable to

petroleum refineries, the Benzene National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (Benzene NESHAP) which was promulgated on

January 7, 1993 (58 FR 3072) and codified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart

FF. Other wastewater operation emissions are subject to the petroleum

refinery NESHAP which was promulgated on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43244)

and codified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart CC. All new sources added to

Shell's wastewater collection and treatment system will be subject to

the new source performance standards for petroleum refineries which

were promulgated on November 23, 1985 (53 FR 47623) and codified at 40

CFR part 60, subpart QQQ.

The Illinois EPA stated in its October 2, 1998, negative

declaration submittal that Shell Oil was in compliance with the above

listed requirements. They noted that this was affirmed in a consent

agreement reached among the company, Illinois EPA, and USEPA which was

issued by the United States District Court in Civil Action No. 97-539-

GPM and became effective on September 25, 1997. The Illinois EPA also

noted that Shell Oil's current operating permit for the wastewater

collection and treatment system contains permit conditions which compel

Shell Oil to meet the various requirements of the previously discussed

Federal regulations.

For these reasons, Illinois EPA believes that volatile organic

material (VOM) 1 emissions from Shell Oil, the only major

source as defined by the draft CTG for the industrial wastewater

category in the Metro-East ozone non-attainment area, are adequately

regulated. No further industrial wastewater source emissions controls

are contemplated by Illinois EPA.

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

\1\ The USEPA generally uses the term ``Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC)'' to refer to the hydrocarbon compounds that

participate in the chemical formation of ozone in the lower

Troposphere. The State of Illinois uses the term ``Volatile Organic

Material (VOM)'' to refer to the same hydrocarbon compounds. The

definition of VOM is identical to the definition of VOC. The two

terms can be used interchangeably.

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

On October 2, 1998, Illinois also submitted a second negative

declaration which addressed the need for regulations covering the use

of industrial cleaning solvents in the Metro-East area. The State

indicated that in making this determination, the Illinois EPA conducted

a search of its 1996 Metro-East inventory for any major source subject

to USEPA's 1994 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) for Industrial

Cleaning Solvents. This inventory is a combination of all permitted

sources and emissions estimates for the units therein. Any source that

would emit 100 Tons Per Year (TPY) of industrial cleaning solvent would

be required to have an operating period and would appear in this data

base.

Illinois' search of its inventory identified five industrial

cleaning solvent sources in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area,

four of which are below 3 TPY. The fifth source was in excess of 100

TPY, however it is already subject to Illinois' cold cleaning RACT

rule, 35 IAC 219.182.

It should be noted that Illinois' rules for the Metro-East ozone

non-attainment area already contain provisions for the regulation of

cleaning solvents used in cold cleaning/degreasing, conveyorized

degreasing, vapor degreasing, cleaning solutions on lithographic

printing lines and cleaning solvents for wood furniture coating

operations. It should be noted that the industrial cleaning solvent

category is not specifically exempted from coverage under Illinois'

``generic'' rules. Any industrial cleaning solvent operation in the

Metro-East ozone nonattainment area that did have maximum theoretical

emissions of 100 TPY or greater and was not otherwise regulated by 35

IAC Part 219 would be regulated by the ``generic'' rules.

III. USEPA Review of the Negative Declarations

USEPA has examined the State's negative declarations regarding the

lack of need for regulations controlling emissions from industrial

wastewater or industrial cleaning solvent sources located in the Metro-

East ozone nonattainment areas. The supporting evidence provided by the

State was also examined. Based on these examinations, USEPA agrees

there are no industrial wastewater or industrial cleaning solvent

sources in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area which would require

the adoption of rules to control these two categories of sources.

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 to approve the State Plan

should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless USEPA receives relevant adverse written

comment by February 5, 1999. Should USEPA receive such comments, it

will publish a timely withdrawal 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 March 8, 1999.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875, 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. If the mandate is unfunded, USEPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of USEPA's

[[Page 758]]

prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and

tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires 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 E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that

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 E.O. 13084, USEPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

USEPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of 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, E.O. 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 E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 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 CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

CAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 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 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. 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. USEPA 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by March 8, 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, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

[[Page 759]]

Dated: December 21, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart O--Illinois

2. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraphs (u) and (v) to

read as follows:

Sec. 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(u) Negative declaration--Industrial wastewater category. On

October 2, 1998, the State of Illinois certified to the satisfaction of

the United States Environmental Protection Agency that no major sources

categorized as part of the Industrial wastewater category are located

in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area (Metro-East). The Metro-East

area is comprised of Madison, Monroe and St. Clair Counties which are

located in southwest Illinois, adjacent to St. Louis, Missouri.

(v) Negative declaration--Industrial cleaning solvents category. On

October 2, 1998, the State of Illinois certified to the satisfaction of

the United States Environmental Protection Agency that no major sources

categorized as part of the Industrial cleaning solvents category are

located in the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area (Metro-East). The

Metro-East area is comprised of Madison, Monroe and St. Clair Counties

which are located in southwest Illinois, adjacent to St. Louis,

Missouri.

[FR Doc. 99-227 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P