Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL174-1a; FRL-6325-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

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

volatile organic compound (VOC) control measures representing

reasonably available control technology (RACT) for certain emission

sources located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago area) counties.

Subject sources included the miscellaneous organic chemical

manufacturing processes at the Stepan Company (Stepan) Millsdale Plant

manufacturing facility in Elwood, Illinois. At Stepan's request, USEPA

agreed to reconsider its rule as it applied to Stepan and on October 1,

1993, proposed a site-specific rule for Stepan. USEPA subsequently

approved, as revisions to the Illinois State Implementation Plan, three

VOC rules submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

that are applicable to Stepan's VOC sources. USEPA is today revoking

the Federally promulgated rules, as they apply to Stepan, and replacing

them with the Illinois rules that have been previously approved and

apply to Stepan.

USEPA is taking this action as a ``direct final'' rulemaking; the

rationale for this approach is set forth below. Elsewhere in this

Federal Register, USEPA is proposing this action and soliciting

comment. If adverse written comments or a request for a public hearing

are received, USEPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not

take effect. USEPA will address the comments received in a new final

rule. If no adverse comments are received, no further rulemaking will

occur on this SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 15, 1999, unless written

adverse comments or a request for a public hearing are received by May

17, 1999. If adverse comment or a request for a public hearing is

received, USEPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform the public the rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments can be mailed to : J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and

Radiation Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

A public hearing may be requested, to be held in Chicago, Illinois.

Requests for a hearing should be submitted to J. Elmer Bortzer.

Interested persons may call Steven Rosenthal at (312) 886-6052 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 action,

the scope of which is discussed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch

(AR-18J) at (312) 886-6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26814), USEPA promulgated a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) which contained RACT regulations for

stationary sources of VOC located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago

area) counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will. This FIP

included a rule (40 CFR 52.741(w)) requiring, among other things, 81

percent control of Stepan's ``miscellaneous organic chemical

manufacturing processes.'' Stepan's chemical manufacturing facility

includes a number of batch and continuous process emission sources as

well as associated storage tanks.

On August 28, 1990, Stepan filed a petition for review of USEPA's

June 29, 1990, rulemaking in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit. By letter of October 22, 1990, Stepan requested that

USEPA reconsider its rule as applicable to Stepan, on the basis that

USEPA had not adequately responded to certain comments. USEPA agreed to

do so.

On July 1, 1991, USEPA issued a three-month administrative stay

pending reconsideration of the applicable FIP rules for Stepan. This

stay was published on July 23, 1991, (56 FR 33712). On March 3, 1992,

(57 FR 7549), USEPA published an extension of the stay, but only if and

as long as necessary to complete reconsideration of the subject rules

(including any appropriate regulatory action), pursuant to USEPA's

authority to revise the Federal rules in Clean Air Act sections 110(c)

and 301(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c) and 7601(a)(1).

As a result of USEPA's decision to reconsider the federal rules as

applied to Stepan, USEPA proposed site-specific RACT requirements for

Stepan's Millsdale facility on October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51279). As

discussed further below, this proposed rule was not finalized pending

USEPA's review of three Illinois rules that would collectively cover

those Stepan VOC sources.

On November 30, 1994, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) submitted to USEPA an adopted rule (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part

218, Subpart B (and related definitions and appendix)) and supporting

information for the control of VOC emissions from Volatile Organic

Liquid (VOL) storage facilities as a requested SIP revision. This rule

is the Illinois RACT rule for the category of emission sources which

includes Stepan's VOL storage facilities. On August 8, 1996, USEPA

published a direct final rulemaking approving the Illinois VOL storage

facilities rule which applies to Stepan's VOL storage facilities.(61 FR

41338). USEPA's approval became effective on October 7, 1996.

On May 23, 1995, and June 7, 1995, IEPA submitted to USEPA an

adopted Illinois rule (35 Ill. Admin. Code Parts 218 and 219, Subpart V

and related definitions and appendix)) and supporting information for

the control of VOC emissions from batch processes as a requested SIP

revision. This rule is the Illinois RACT rule for the category of

emission sources which includes Stepan's batch processes. On April 2,

1996, USEPA published a direct final rulemaking approving the Illinois

batch rule as a revision to the SIP. (61 FR 14,484). USEPA's approval

became effective on June 1, 1996.

On May 5, 1995 and May 26, 1995, IEPA submitted to USEPA an adopted

rule (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218, Subpart Q (and related definitions

and appendix)) and supporting information for the control of VOC

emissions from continuous reactor and distillation processes as a

requested SIP revision. This rule is the Illinois RACT rule for the

category of emission sources which includes Stepan's continuous reactor

and distillation processes. On June 17, 1997, (62 FR 32694), USEPA

published a direct final rulemaking approving the Illinois continuous

reactor and distillation processes rule for Stepan's continuous

processes, while deferring action on the rule as it applies to other

Illinois facilities. USEPA's approval became effective on August 18,

1997.

As stated above, USEPA has approved appropriate RACT rules for all

the categories of Stepan's emission sources which would have been

covered by 40 CFR 52.741(w) of the FIP (were it not for the appeal and

resulting stays). Because

[[Page 18817]]

of these SIP approvals, the FIP, as it applies to Stepan, and the site-

specific rule that was proposed on October 1, 1993, are no longer

necessary.

II. Final Action

Stepan's VOL storage facilities, batch processes and continuous

reactor and distillation processes are covered by 35 Ill. Admin. Code

Part 218, Subpart B, Subpart V, and Subpart Q, respectively. These

rules have been approved into the SIP and represent RACT for VOC. USEPA

is therefore revoking the June 29, 1990, FIP as it applies to Stepan

and replacing it with Illinois' VOL storage, batch process, and

continuous reactor and distillation process rules.

The 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 this action should adverse

written comments be filed or a request for a hearing be received. This

action will become effective without further notice unless the USEPA

receives relevant adverse comments or a request for a hearing on this

action by May 17, 1999. Should the USEPA request such comments or a

request for a hearing, it will withdraw this final rule and publish a

document 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 June 15, 1999.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

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

SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered

separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

III. 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 Executive Order 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, or USEPA consults with those governments. If USEPA

complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires USEPA to provide

to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of

USEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State,

local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 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 Executive

Order 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 Executive Order 13084, USEPA may not issue a regulation that

is not required by statute, that significantly 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, or USEPA consults with those

governments. If USEPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires USEPA to 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, Executive Order 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 Executive

Order 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 USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., versus 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

[[Page 18818]]

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. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must

approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines

``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *

identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or

more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this rulemaking

action only applies to one company, the Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.

272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards

are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not

to use available and applicable voluntary standards. This rulemaking

action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

I. 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.

J. 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 June 15, 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,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and record keeping

requirements.

Dated: April 9, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 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

3. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraph (t) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(t) The Illinois volatile organic compound (VOC) rules that apply

to the Stepan Company Millsdale Plant for volatile organic liquid

storage (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218, Subpart B), batch processing (35

Ill. Admin. Code Parts 218 and 219, Subpart V) and continuous reactor

and distillation processes (35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218, Subpart Q)

were approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) on August 8, 1996, April 2, 1996, and June 17, 1997,

respectively. Because these rules have been approved into the State

Implementation Plan and represent reasonably available control

technology for VOC, USEPA revokes the June 29, 1990 Federal

Implementation Plan as it applies to Stepan and replaces it with

Illinois' volatile organic liquid storage, batch process, and

continuous reactor and distillation process rules.

[FR Doc. 99-9466 Filed 4-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U