Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL193-1a; FRL-6435-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 9, 1999, the State of Illinois submitted a site-

specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision revising Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

requirements for Sun Chemical Corporation (Sun) in Northlake, Illinois.

The SIP revision exempts 17 resin storage tanks from bottom or

submerged pipe fill requirements, subject to certain conditions. This

rulemaking action approves, using the direct final process, the

Illinois SIP revision request.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 12, 1999, unless EPA receives

adverse written comments by October 13, 1999. If adverse comment is

received, EPA 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 revision request for this rulemaking

action 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

[[Page 49401]]

J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082 before visiting the Region 5 Office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Environmental

Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' are

used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is EPA approving in this rule?

II. Who is affected by this SIP revision?

III. What were Sun's previous SIP requirements?

IV. Why is Sun unable to meet the previous SIP requirements?

V. What are the changes to Sun's SIP requirements?

VI. What is the procedural history of this SIP revision?

VII. What is the justification for approving this SIP revision?

VIII. Final rulemaking action.

IX. Administrative Requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 12875

C. Executive Order 13045

D. Executive Order 13084

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is EPA Approving in This Rule?

We are approving, through the direct final process, a July 9, 1999,

SIP revision request for the Sun facility in Northlake, Illinois. Sun

is subject to VOC RACT requirements under section 182(b)(2) of the

Clean Air Act (Act).1 The SIP revision changes RACT as it

applies to Sun by exempting 17 resin storage tanks from bottom or

submerged pipe fill requirements, subject to certain conditions.

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

\1\ It should be noted that under Illinois' regulations, the

State uses the term ``Volatile Organic Material (VOM)'' rather than

VOC, in referring to volatile organic emissions. The State's

definition of VOM is equivalent to EPA's definition of VOC, and are

interchan geable when discussing volatile organic emissions. For

consistency with the Act and with EPA policy, we are using the term

VOC in this rulemaking.

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

II. Who Is Affected by This SIP Revision?

This SIP revision only affects VOC control requirements at Sun's

facility located in Northlake, Illinois. Sun's manufacturing operations

consist primarily of batch processes involving the mixing or blending

of resin, solvents, pigments, and varnishes to make finished inks and

bases.

III. What Were Sun's Previous SIP Requirements?

Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires States to adopt RACT rules

covering ``major sources'' of VOC for all areas classified moderate

nonattainment for ozone and above.2 The Chicago ozone

nonattainment area (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will

Counties and Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County and

Oswego Township in Kendall County) is classified as ``severe''

nonattainment for ozone, and is subject to the Act's RACT requirement.

Under section 182(d) of the Act, sources located in severe ozone

nonattainment areas are considered ``major sources'' if they have the

potential to emit 25 tons per year or more of VOC. Sun's Northlake

facility has the potential to emit more than 25 tons of VOC per year,

and, consequently, is subject to RACT requirements.

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

\2\ A definition of RACT is cited in a General Preamble-

Supplement published at 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). RACT is

defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source

is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that

is reasonably available, considering technological and economic

feasibility.

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

On September 9, 1994, we approved, as a revision to the Illinois

SIP, several rules under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 218 pertaining

to VOC RACT for the Chicago severe ozone nonattainment area (59 FR

46562). The Illinois rules replaced the Chicago area Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP), and the rules are generally patterned after

the FIP's RACT requirements.

Included in part 218 is ``Subpart AA: Paint and Ink

Manufacturing.'' Sun operates resin storage tanks which, with the

adoption of subpart AA, became subject to the rule. Particularly,

section 218.626(b), which is included under subpart AA, requires paint

and ink manufacturers to equip their stationary Volatile Organic Liquid

(VOL) storage containers with a submerged fill pipe or bottom fill

pipe. Fill pipes are the conduits through which liquids enter the

tanks. Containers with a capacity less than or equal to 946 liters (250

gallons) are exempt from the requirements. The intention behind the

fill pipe requirement is to reduce VOC emissions from tanks by

preventing splashing of volatile liquids as tanks are being filled.

IV. Why Is Sun Unable To Meet The Previous SIP Requirements?

Sun has 17 resin storage tanks which have been subject to subpart

AA submerged or bottom fill pipe requirements, but still have overhead

fill pipe systems. The tanks were installed in 1962, before emission

control equipment on such tanks was contemplated. The tanks involved

are in close proximity to each other, with some only a few feet apart,

which Sun contends makes installing control equipment difficult and

costly. Additionally, the substances stored in the tanks are thick and

can not be pumped at normal temperatures. Because of this, Sun would

have to install bottom fill rather than submerged fill pipes, since the

raw materials would clog a submerged fill pipe and require frequent

cleaning. Sun maintains that installing bottom fill pipes on these

tanks would be more difficult and expensive than submerged pipe

installation because they require fully cleaning out the tanks and

cutting into the tanks.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) estimates that

only 0.0203 tons per year of VOC is emitted from the 17 tanks at issue.

The low VOC emissions is due to the fact that liquids stored in the

tanks have a vapor pressure significantly less than 0.5 Pounds Per

Square Inch Absolute (psia), and most of the materials stored in the

tanks have vapor pressures less than 0.005 psia. Materials with a psia

this low have low volatility, and hence are not subject to rapid

vaporization and easy escape of vapors to the surrounding air.

The IEPA cost figures for installing bottom fill pipes on the 17

tanks is approximately $285,960 to $298,510. The IEPA estimates the

cost per ton of VOC emissions reduced by complying with section

218.626(b) is $1,452,338.31 per ton of VOC reduced.

V. What Are the Changes to Sun's SIP Requirements?

On May 20, 1999, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)

adopted Adjusted Standard 99-4, which provides that section 218.626(b)

shall not apply to the 17 storage tanks at Sun's Northlake, Illinois

facility. These tanks are identified as tanks no. 26, 27, 35, 36, 37,

42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, and 67 in Sun's petition

for adjusted standard, and in the IEPA's January 29, 1999, response.

The adjusted standard will remain in effect so long as (a) no odor

nuisance exists at the Sun's Northlake facility, and (b) the vapor

pressures of materials stored in the 17 identified tanks remain less

than 0.5 psia at 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Under the adjusted standard,

Sun must keep all records necessary to establish that the vapor

pressures of the materials stored in the 17 identified tanks are less

than 0.5 psia at 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Each record

[[Page 49402]]

shall be retained at the facility for a period of no less than 3 years.

This adjusted standard exempts Sun only from the requirements of

section 218.626(b) for the 17 storage tanks listed in the adjusted

standard, and not from any other requirements under part 218. Sun must

continue to comply with all other applicable regulations of part 218,

and any existing or new storage tanks not explicitly listed in the

adjusted standard order are not exempted by the adjusted standard from

section 218.626(b). Sun is subject to the test methods of part 218,

including section 218.109 ``Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic

Liquids,'' which will ensure that the vapor pressure of VOL loaded into

the 17 tanks are less than 0.5 psia at 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Section

218.109 was incorporated into the SIP on September 9, 1994 (59 FR

46562).

VI. What Is the Procedural History of This SIP Revision?

On October 22, 1998, Sun filed a petition for an adjusted standard

with the IPCB. The IPCB held a public hearing on the adjusted standard

on April 15, 1999, in Chicago, Illinois. On May 20, 1999, the IPCB

adopted a Final Opinion and Order granting the adjusted standard. On

July 9, 1999, IEPA submitted the adjusted standard as a SIP revision

request to EPA. On July 28, 1999, we sent a letter to IEPA which deemed

the SIP revision submittal administratively complete.

VII. What Is the Justification for Approving This SIP Revision?

IEPA indicates that Sun based its adjusted standard petition on

section 218.122 of the Chicago area RACT rules. This section contains

the State's general VOL storage tank loading requirements. This rule

requires that stationary tanks with a storage capacity of greater than

946 liters (250 gallons) must be equipped with a permanent submerged

load pipe or equivalent control device, unless no odor nuisance exists

and the vapor pressure of the VOL loaded is less than or equal to 17.24

kilopascals (2.5 psia) at 294.3 degrees Kelvin (70 degrees Fahrenheit).

Because of the high cost in installing bottom fill tanks on the 17

tanks, and the negligible emission benefit installing such pipes would

achieve, IEPA believes that RACT for the storage tanks should be the

level of control represented under the adjusted standard.

We agree that bottom fill or submerged fill pipe controls for the

17 tanks at the Sun facility are not technically and economically

feasible. Further, we have issued no Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)

justifying bottom fill or submerged fill pipe controls for Sun's

tanks.3 We are not aware of any paint or ink manufacturing

facilities with storage tanks having similar design and holding similar

materials as the tanks operated by Sun, which have replaced overhead

fill pipes with bottom or submerged fill pipes in a manner that is less

costly than what IEPA expects such replacement to cost Sun. Given that

the vapor pressure limitation will prevent emissions to significantly

increase from the current low emission levels, we find that the

adjusted standard constitutes RACT for Sun's 17 tanks.

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

\3\ CTGs are documents published by EPA which contain

information on available air pollution control techniques and

provide recommendations on what the EPA considers the ``presumptive

norm'' for RACT.

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

VIII. Final Rulemaking Action

In this rulemaking action, we are approving the July 9, 1999,

Illinois SIP revision submittal of an adjusted standard for Sun's

Northlake facility, which was granted by the IPCB on May 20, 1999. We

are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this

as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication,

we are proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse written

comments be filed. This action will be effective without further notice

unless we receive relevant adverse written comment by October 13, 1999.

Should we receive such comments, we 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 November 12, 1999.

IX. 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, EPA 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, EPA must provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's 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 EPA 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 EPA

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, EPA 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,

EPA 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 EPA'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

[[Page 49403]]

regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian 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 do not create any new

requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under

the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA 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, EPA

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, EPA

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 EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA 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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules

relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency

organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA

is not required to submit a rule report regarding this rulemaking

action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing

technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with

NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''

(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to

the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 12, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: August 30, 1999.

Robert Springer,

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 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(153) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(153) On July 9, 1999, the State of Illinois submitted a site-

specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision affecting Volatile

Organic Material control requirements at Sun Chemical Corporation (Sun)

in Northlake, Illinois. The SIP revision changes requirements for 17

resin storage tanks operated by Sun. Specifically, the SIP revision

exempts the 17 tanks from the bottom or submerged fill pipe

requirements, provided that no odor nuisance exists at the Sun

Northlake facility, and that the vapor pressures of materials stored in

the tanks remain less the 0.5 pounds per square inch absolute at 70

degrees Fahrenheit.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

May 20, 1999, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, AS 99-4, effective May 20, 1999.

[FR Doc. 99-23581 Filed 9-10-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P