[Federal Register: May 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 103)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30224-30227]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27my04-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL222-1a; FRL-7666-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a revision to
the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Louis Berkman
Company, doing business as the Swenson Spreader Company (Swenson). The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) requested on September
19, 2003, that EPA approve into the SIP an adjusted standard for the
volatile organic material (VOM) content limit applicable to the
painting operations at Swenson's plant located in Lindenwood, Ogle
County, Illinois. EPA is approving this request because it satisfies
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).
DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective July 26, 2004, unless
EPA receives written adverse comment by June 28, 2004. If written
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. IL-222, by
one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode AR-18J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. IL-222. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The
federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in an index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available in hard copy at the following address: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The Docket Facility
is open during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos at (312)
353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mailcode AR-18J, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number:
(312) 353-8328; fax number: (312) 886-5824; e-mail address:
panos.christos@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision
1. What Is EPA Approving?
2. Why Did the State Revise Its Rules?
3. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal?
4. Did Illinois Hold a Public Hearing?
III. EPA's Review of the SIP Revision
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
No, this action applies to a single source, the Louis Berkman
Company, doing business as the Swenson Spreader Company, in Lindenwood,
Ogle County, Illinois. This rulemaking action merely approves an
adjusted State standard into the SIP, making it federally enforceable
under the Act.
B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by
[[Page 30225]]
referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Review of State Implementation Plan Revision
1. What Is EPA Approving?
We are approving into the Illinois SIP an adjusted standard for the
emissions limit applicable to the painting operations at Swenson's
plant located in Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois. Section
215.204(j)(2) of the Illinois Administrative Code establishes a limit
for the miscellaneous metal parts and products category of 3.5 pounds
of VOM \1\ per gallon of coating (lbs VOM/gal) for air dried coating
operations. The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) granted Swenson
a ten year adjusted standard from section 215.204(j)(2) on May 7, 1998.
Under the adjusted standard Swenson is limited to a monthly average of
4.75 lbs VOM/gal until May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA generally uses the term ``Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)'' to refer to volatile organic emissions. In Illinois'
regulations, the State uses the term ``Volatile Organic Material
(VOM)'' rather than VOC. The State's definition of VOM is equivalent
to EPA's definition of VOC, and are interchangeable when discussing
volatile organic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why Did the State Revise Its Rules?
In the September 19, 2003 submission, IEPA requested that EPA
approve revisions that are specific to Swenson's painting operations at
its Lindenwood, Illinois plant. Swenson is an original equipment
manufacturer of snow and ice control equipment. The primary purchaser
of Swenson's products are federal, state, and local governmental
agencies. Because many of these agencies specify the type of paint to
use, the coatings Swenson uses to paint its products often have a VOM
content greater than the state standard of 3.5 lb/gal.
3. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal?
Swenson manufactures snow and ice removal equipment at its
Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois plant. Ogle County is in attainment
of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Part of
the manufacturing process includes applying one or more coatings of
paint. Section 215.204 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill.
Adm. Code) governs VOM emissions from manufacturing plants.
Specifically, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2) applies to
Swenson. According to that section, VOM emissions from air-dried
miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings may not exceed 3.5 lb/
gal. Manufacturers that emit less than 25 tons of VOM per year are
exempt from this limitation. EPA approved 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section
215.204 into the Illinois SIP on January 15, 1999, at 64 FR 2581.
In its request for an adjusted standard, Swenson states that the
primary purchaser of its products are governmental agencies which often
specify the type of paints to use and/or coating thicknesses to achieve
on the products they order. Many of these paints contain more than 3.5
lbs VOM/gal and, therefore, do not comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
Section 215.204(j)(2). In addition, the size and shape of its products
make relatively high solvent use necessary for proper adhesion
characteristics and the specified coating thicknesses cannot be
achieved with water-based coatings. Swenson's average annual VOM
emissions were 31.8 tons between 1992 and 1996.
Swenson filed its motion for an adjusted standard with the IPCB on
October 11, 1996. In its petition, Swenson requested a VOM limit of
5.25 lb/gal monthly average for the first year, and a VOM limit of 5.00
lb/gal monthly average for the second year and beyond following the
adjusted standard approval. Swenson based the higher VOM limit for the
first year on its existing stocks of VOM paint. Swenson noted in its
petition that the 5.00lb/gal limit is more stringent than the relief
IPCB granted to a number of other companies in the past. Swenson filed
an amendment to its petition on May 16, 1997. In the amended petition
Swenson requested a VOM limit of 5.00 lb/gal monthly average for the
first year, and a VOM limit of 4.75 lb/gal monthly average for the
second year and beyond, following the adjusted standard approval.
On February 21, 1997, IEPA submitted to IPCB a recommendation to
deny Swenson's petition. IEPA commented that Swenson failed to prove
that it is unable to comply with the requirements of section
215.204(j). Two public hearings were held before the IPCB, the first on
April 17, 1997, in Oregon, Illinois, and the second on May 21, 1997, in
Springfield, Illinois. Evidence was provided at these hearings about
the feasibility of different emission reduction methods, including the
installation of an afterburner or a powder coating system, and
reformulating the paints it uses. Swenson justified the adjusted
standard based upon its own technical support demonstrating that the
3.5 lbs VOM/gal limit is technically and economically infeasible.
Swenson asserted that the installation of emissions control equipment
would impose an unreasonable financial hardship on the company without
providing a measurable environmental benefit to the area, and that the
area has not had an exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. Further, Swenson
states that coatings that satisfy customer requirements and comply with
35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2) are currently unavailable.
In a December 4, 1997, Interim Opinion and Order, IPCB granted
Swenson an adjusted standard to use coatings that contain, on a monthly
average, 4.75 lbs VOM/gal, and made the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
(1) Coatings that comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section
215.204(j)(2) are not available for Swenson's specialty orders;
(2) The cost that Swenson would incur to comply with regulatory
alternatives to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2) are
unreasonable;
(3) The factors are substantially and significantly different from
those that IPCB considered when adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section
215.204(j)(2);
(4) An adjusted standard will not result in environmental or health
effects substantially and significantly more adverse than those
considered by IPCB in adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(2);
and,
(5) An adjusted standard is consistent with applicable Federal law.
IPCB stated that the adjusted standard will expire ten years from
the date of IPCB's final order, since compliant coatings may become
available and Swenson's customers may not always require noncompliant
coatings. Further, IPCB required Swenson to file a plan for
demonstrating compliance with the adjusted standard.
In Swenson's February 3, 1998, Compliance Plan, Swenson identified
the following operational initiatives: requesting from paint suppliers
reformulated paints with lower VOM
[[Page 30226]]
emissions; heating the paint lines to the spraying system and
purchasing high efficiency electrostatic paint guns to lessen VOM
emissions; and, recording all paint purchases and usage to track VOM
emissions. To calculate the monthly average of VOM emissions, Swenson
proposed to determine the total VOM in pounds delivered to the coating
applicator each month and divide that amount by the number of coating
gallons used that month. Swenson also identified that it is researching
a single booth powder coating system to lower its VOM emissions while
fulfilling its sales requirements.
On May 7, 1998, IPCB adopted a Final Opinion and Order, AS 97-5,
granting the adjusted standard requested by Swenson. On June 12, 1998,
IEPA filed a Motion to Reconsider the IPCB's Final Opinion and Order.
The IPCB denied IEPA's motion on July 23, 1998. The IEPA filed an
appeal of IPCB's July 23, 1998, order in the Second District Appellate
Court of Illinois through the Illinois Attorney General Office. The
Court affirmed IPCB's Final Opinions and Orders of May 7, 1998, and
July 23, 1998, on November 19, 1999. IEPA formally submitted the
adjusted standard for Swenson to EPA on September 19, 2003, as a site-
specific revision to the Illinois SIP.
4. Did Illinois Hold a Public Hearing?
Swenson filed a petition for an adjusted standard with the IPCB on
October 11, 1996. Notice of the petition was published in the Ogle
County Life on October 21, 1996. IEPA filed a response to Swenson's
petition on February 26, 1997. Two public hearings were held before the
IPCB, the first on April 17, 1997, in Oregon, Illinois, and the second
on May 21, 1997, in Springfield, Illinois.
III. EPA's Review of the SIP Revision
The EPA has identified VOM control levels that it presumes to
constitute reasonably available control technology (RACT) for various
categories of sources. However, case-by-case RACT determinations may be
developed that differ from EPA's presumptive norm. The EPA will approve
these RACT determinations as long as a demonstration is made that they
satisfy the Act's RACT requirements based on adequate documentation of
the economic and technical circumstances of the particular sources
being regulated. To make this demonstration, it must be shown that the
current SIP requirements do not represent RACT because pollution
control technology necessary to reach the requirements is not and
cannot be expected to be reasonably available. The EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether this demonstration has been made,
taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances concerning
each case. A demonstration must be made that reasonable efforts were
taken to determine and adequately document the availability of
complying coatings or other kinds of controls, as appropriate. If it is
conclusively demonstrated that complying low-solvent coatings are
unavailable, the EPA would consider an alternative RACT determination
based on the lowest level of VOM control technically and economically
feasible for the facility.
Based on the information and technical support IEPA provided in its
submittal, the EPA finds that the SIP requirements are not technically
or economically feasible for the Swenson Lindenwood facility, and that
a limit of 4.75 lbs VOM/gal will not have a negative environmental
impact in the area. Further, the adjusted standard will expire ten
years from the date of IPCB's final order, since compliant coatings may
become available and Swenson's customers may not always require
noncompliant coatings. In its plan for demonstrating compliance with
the adjusted standard Swenson identified the following operational
initiatives: requesting from paint suppliers reformulated paints with
lower VOM emissions; heating the paint lines to the spraying system and
purchasing high efficiency electrostatic paint guns to lessen VOM
emissions; and, recording all paint purchases and usage to track VOM
emissions. Swenson also identified that it is researching a single
booth powder coating system to lower its VOM emissions while fulfilling
its sales requirements. As previously stated, Ogle County is in
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Approval of this requested SIP revision
will not increase the historical VOM emission level from this source,
and will not interfere with the maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in Ogle
County. Therefore, EPA finds this SIP submittal approvable.
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP an adjusted standard for the
VOM content limit applicable to the painting operations at Swenson's
plant located in Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois. The State submitted
this SIP revision on September 19, 2003. Under the adjusted standard
Swenson is limited to a monthly average of 4.75 lbs VOM/gal until May
7, 2008.
EPA views the approval of this SIP revision as noncontroversial,
and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in
this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing approval of the
State Plan. Should adverse or critical written comments be filed, EPA
will withdraw this direct final rule and address all public comments in
a final rule based on the proposed rule published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register. This approval action will be
effective without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse
written comment by June 28, 2004. Should EPA receive adverse or
critical comments, it 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 July 26, 2004.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
[[Page 30227]]
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry our policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not
apply.
Civil Justice Reform
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
Governmental Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order, and has determined that the rule's
requirements do not constitute a taking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
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, EPA 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. EPA 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(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 July 26, 2004. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 7, 2004.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(172) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(172) On September 19, 2003, Illinois submitted a site-specific
revision to the State Implementation Plan which relaxes the volatile
organic material (VOM) content limit for the coating operations at
Louis Berkman Company, d/b/a/ the Swenson Spreader Company's
Lindenwood, Ogle County, Illinois facility from 3.5 pounds VOM per
gallon to a monthly average of 4.75 pounds VOM per gallon until May 7,
2008.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Order contained in a May 7, 1998,
Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, AS 97-5,
effective May 7, 1998.
[FR Doc. 04-11925 Filed 5-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P