35842 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1A definition of RACT is cited in a General

Preamble-Supplement on CTGs, published at 44 FR

at 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.

2 VOM, as defined by the State of Illinois, is

identical to VOC, as defined by U.S. EPA.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL163–1a; FRL–6119–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

SUMMARY: On August 21, 1995, U.S. EPA

promulgated a site-specific volatile

organic material (VOM) rule for

Riverside Laboratories, Inc.’s (Riverside)

Kane County facility. The rule consisted

primarily of a compliance date

extension for Riverside through

December 31, 1996, after which time

Riverside is required to meet the

applicable requirements of the Chicagoarea Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).

On October 10, 1997, the State of

Illinois requested that U.S. EPA approve

a change in regulatory status for

Riverside, based on Riverside’s current

compliance with the applicable State

Implementation Plan (SIP) rule. For the

reasons discussed below, U.S. EPA is

today approving the State plan as

applying to Riverside.

U.S. EPA is taking this action as a

‘‘direct final’’ rulemaking; the rationale

for this approach is set forth below.

Elsewhere in this Federal Register, U.S.

EPA is proposing this action and

soliciting comment. If adverse written

comments or a request for a public

hearing are received, U.S. EPA will

withdraw the direct final rule and it will

not take effect. U.S. EPA will address

the comments received in a new final

rule. If no adverse written comments are

received, no further rulemaking will

occur on this requested SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule is effective August

31, 1998 unless written adverse

comments or a request for a public

hearing are received by July 31, 1998. If

adverse comment is received, EPA 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) 886–6062

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.

Copies of the SIP revision request are

available for inspection at the following

address: (It is recommended that you

telephone Steven Rosenthal at (312)

886–6052, before visiting the Region 5

office.)

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch

(AR-18J) at (312) 886–6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 29, 1990, U.S. EPA

promulgated a FIP which contained

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) regulations for

stationary sources of Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) located in six

northeastern Illinois (Chicago area)

counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

McHenry, and Will.1 Included in U.S.

EPA’s rules was a requirement that

paper coating sources be subject to 40

CFR 52.741(e)(1)(C), which requires that

a source achieves either a coating limit

of 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of

coating or an 81 percent reduction in

emissions. On August 30, 1990,

Riverside filed a petition for review of

the FIP in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,

Riverside Laboratories, Inc., v. U.S. EPA,

Case No. 90–2886. On August 20, 1991,

Riverside filed a petition for

reconsideration (amended on September

5, 1991) with U.S. EPA, in which it

contended that its economic status

prevented the federal rules from being

RACT for its facility. Based on the

information provided, U.S. EPA agreed

to reconsider the RACT rules for

Riverside. U.S. EPA also agreed to issue

an administrative stay of the applicable

FIP rules, pending reconsideration. See

57 FR 27935 (June 23, 1992).

On September 9, 1994, U.S. EPA

approved a number of Illinois volatile

organic material (VOM) 2 RACT rules,

adopted as 35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 218.

59 FR 46562. These rules established

State VOM RACT requirements for

surface coating operations in the

Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone

nonattainment areas, and replaced a

large section of the Chicago FIP. These

regulations include 35 Ill. Admin. Code

§ 218.204, which contains a RACT rule

for paper coating operations that is

identical to the applicable FIP rule of

2.9 lbs./gal. (40 CFR 52.741(e)(1)(C)).

They also contain the Applicability

section, at 35 Ill. Admin. Code

§ 218.203. Under Section 218.103(a)(2),

the effectiveness of the Part 218 rules is

stayed as to any source which appealed

the FIP and received a stay of the

effectiveness of the FIP pending

reconsideration. The rule further

provides that:

When USEPA has published in the Federal

Register final action to revise or affirm the

provisions of the FIP specifically applicable

to such individual source or category of

sources or such stay is otherwise terminated,

the Board shall take corresponding action

and the Agency shall submit such action to

USEPA for approval. Until such time as

USEPA approves the corresponding

amendment to this Part, the FIP rule shall

remain the applicable implementation plan

for that source. * * *

On August 21, 1995, U.S. EPA

promulgated a site-specific rule for

Riverside (60 FR 43388). This rule

consists of a compliance date extension

for Riverside through December 31,

1996. During the period of the

compliance date extension Riverside

was required to, among other things,

decrease the use of VOC-containing

material. Starting on January 1, 1997,

Riverside’s polyester paper coating lines

were required to meet the applicable FIP

requirements in 40 CFR 52.741(e)(1),

(e)(2), and (e)(6). In this rulemaking,

U.S. EPA also terminated the stay of the

FIP.

On February 13, 1996, U.S. EPA

approved a revision to the Illinois RACT

rules for paper coating operations at 35

Ill. Admin. Code 218.204(c), which

further reduced the applicable VOM

pounds-per-gallon limitation to 2.3 lbs./

gal. 61 FR 5511.

On October 10, 1997, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) submitted a request to U.S. EPA

that it change the regulatory status for

Riverside to recognize the applicability

of Illinois’ SIP, as federally approved on

February 13, 1996. In its letter, IEPA

states that, as a matter of State law,

Riverside is subject to the 2.3 pounds

VOC per gallon limit in 35 Ill.

Administrative Code 218.204(c). For

that reason, IEPA has requested that the

Board not be required to conduct further

rulemaking. The State intends its

October 10, 1997, request to fulfill the

‘‘corresponding action’’ condition of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 35843

Section 218.103(a)(2). U.S. EPA agrees

that it is not necessary to require Illinois

to conduct additional rulemaking, since

the regulations are already in the SIP

and Riverside does not contest their

applicability (See Riverside’s March 26,

1998, letter regarding rule

applicability.).

II. Applicability

As a result of this action, the

approved State of Illinois regulations,

including the emission limits in 35 Ill.

Admin. Code 218.204(c) and the

associated control requirements, test

methods and recordkeeping

requirements in Part 218 and the

associated definitions in Part 211 shall

become the federally approved

regulations applicable to Riverside on

August 31, 1998. The site-specific rule

applicable to Riverside promulgated by

U.S. EPA on August 21, 1995, remains

in effect and is enforceable after August

31, 1998 for the period before August

31, 1998.

III. Final Action

At the time U.S. EPA approved Ill.

Admin. Code Part 218, the Agency

determined that the generally applicable

rules, along with the appropriate test

methods, recordkeeping requirements

and definitions, met the applicable

statutory requirements for RACT. U.S.

EPA also has concluded that the

provisions of Ill. Admin. Code

218.204(c) constitute RACT for

Riverside’s Kane County paper coating

operations. They are thus reasonable

replacements for the FIP rule that was

promulgated by U.S. EPA on June 29,

1990, and the site-specific compliance

date extension promulgated for

Riverside by U.S. EPA on August 21,

1995.

The U.S. EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because U.S.

EPA views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, U.S. EPA is proposing this

action should adverse comments be

filed or a request for a hearing be

received. This action will become

effective without further notice unless

the U.S. EPA receives relevant adverse

comments or a request for a hearing on

the parallel proposed rule (published in

the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register) by July 31, 1998.

Should the U.S. EPA receive such

comments or a request for a hearing, it

will withdraw this final rule and

publish a document informing the

public that this action did 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 August 31,

1998.

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., U.S. EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, U.S. EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This action (SIP approval and a

supersession of the FIP under section

110) does not create any new

requirements, but simply approves

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids U.S. EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, U.S. EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with any proposed or final

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in estimated costs to

state, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. 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 the

private sector, result from this action.

D. 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 August 31, 1998.

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)).

E. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 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 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. section 804(3). U.S. EPA is not

required to submit a rule report

regarding today’s action under section

801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 25, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
35844 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.726 is amended by

adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:

§ 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(s) On October 10, 1997, Illinois

submitted a site-specific revision to the

State Implementation Plan, in the form

of a letter from Bharat Mathur, Chief,

Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency. This October 10,

1997, letter requests a change in

regulatory status for Riverside

Laboratories, Inc.’s Kane County facility,

to reflect that the Federal site-specific

rule for Riverside (40 CFR 52.741(e)(10))

has been superseded by the State of

Illinois regulations, including the

emission limits in 35 Illinois

Administrative Code 218.204(c) and the

associated control requirements, test

methods and recordkeeping

requirements in Part 218 and the

associated definitions in Part 211. These

State regulations shall become the

federally approved regulations

applicable to Riverside on August 31,

1998. The site-specific rule, applicable

to Riverside, promulgated by the

Environmental Protection Agency on

August 21, 1995 (40 CFR 52.741(e)(10)),

remains in effect and is enforceable after

August 31, 1998 for the period before

August 31, 1998.

[FR Doc. 98–17517 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300673; FRL–5795–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Sodium Chlorate; Extension of

Exemption from Requirement of a

Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule extends a timelimited exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance for residues of the

desiccant sodium chlorate in or on

wheat for an additional one and onehalf-year period, to January 31, 2000.

This action is in response to EPA’s

granting of an emergency exemption

connection with a crisis exemption

declared by the state of Mississippi

under section 18 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act authorizing use of the pesticide on

wheat. Section 408(l)(6) of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

requires EPA to establish a time-limited

tolerance or exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for pesticide

chemical residues in food that will

result from the use of a pesticide under

an emergency exemption granted by

EPA under section 18 of FIFRA.

DATES: This regulation becomes

effective July 1, 1998. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA, on or before August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300673],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300673], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the

instructions in Unit II. of this preamble.

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Libby Pemberton, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Rm. 272,

CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308–9364; email: pemberton.libby@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a final rule, published in the

Federal Register of December 3, 1997

(62 FR 63858) (FRL–5754–1), which

announced that on its own initiative

and under section 408(e) of the FFDCA,

21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), it

established a time-limited exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance for

the residues of sodium chlorate in or on

wheat, with an expiration date of July

31, 1998. EPA established the

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance because section 408(l)(6) of

the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a

time-limited tolerance or exemption

from the requirement for a tolerance for

pesticide chemical residues in food that

will result from the use of a pesticide

under an emergency exemption granted

by EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such

tolerances can be established without

providing notice or period for public

comment.

EPA received a request to extend the

use of sodium chlorate on wheat for this

year growing season due to continued

heavy rains resulting in the need for a

harvest aid to desiccate winter weeds

which developed in the thin stands of

an already dimished wheat crop. After

having reviewed the submission, EPA

concurs that emergency conditions exist

for this state. EPA has authorized under

FIFRA section 18 the use of sodium

chlorate as a desiccant on wheat.

EPA assessed the potential risks

presented by residues of sodium

chlorate in or on wheat. In doing so,

EPA considered the new safety standard

in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and

decided that the necessary tolerance

under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be

consistent with the new safety standard

and with FIFRA section 18. The data

and other relevant material have been

evaluated and discussed in the final rule

of December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63858).

Based on that data and information

considered, the Agency reaffirms that

extension of the time-limited exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance will

continue to meet the requirements of

section 408(l)(6). Therefore, the timelimited exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is extended for an

additional one and one-half-year period.

Although this exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance will expire

and is revoked on January 31, 2000,

under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues

of the pesticide in or on wheat after that

date will not be unlawful, provided the

pesticide is applied in a manner that

was lawful under FIFRA and the

application occurred prior to the

revocation of the exemptionfrom a

requirement of a tolerance. EPA will

take action to revoke this exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance

earlier if any experience with, scientific

data on, or other relevant information

on this pesticide indicate that the

residues are not safe.

I. Objections and Hearing Requests

The new FFDCA section 408(g)

provides essentially the same process

for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a tolerance