Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20147

these controls represent RACT can be

found in the Technical Support

Documents (TSDs) for Rules 74.26 and

74.27, dated November 7, 1995.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

the PCAPCD’s Rule 212, ‘‘Storage of

Organic Liquids,’’ and Rule 215,

‘‘Transfer of Gasoline into Tank Trucks,

Trailers and Railroad Tank Cars at

Loading Facilities,’’ and the VCAPCD’s

Rule 74.26, ‘‘Crude Oil Storage Tank

Degassing Operations,’’ and Rule 74.27,

‘‘Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage Tank

Degassing Operations,’’ are being

approved under section 110(k)(3) of the

CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a) and part D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this document

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective July 5, 1996,

unless, by June 5, 1996, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. 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 July 5, 1996.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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, 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-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over population of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify 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 CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under Part D of

the Clean Air Act. These rules may bind

State, local, and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. The rules being approved by this

action will impose no new requirements

because affected sources are already

subject to these regulations under State

law. Therefore, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments or to

the private sector result from this action.

EPA has also determined that this final

action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 11, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(214)(i)(D)(2) and

(E) and (c)(225)(i)(B)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(214) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) * * *

(2) Rule 74.26 and Rule 74.27,

adopted on November 8, 1994.

(E) Placer County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 215, adopted on November 3,

1994.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 212, adopted on June 8, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–11210 Filed 5–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 52

[IL129–1–7046a; FRL–5464–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On March 14, 1995, the

Illinois Environmental Protection
20148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Agency (IEPA) formally submitted three

federally enforceable State operating

permits (FESOPs) to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). These permits contained

enforceable sulfur dioxide (SO2)

emission limitations for three industrial

facilities in the Granite City area of

Madison County, Illinois. The

limitations are intended to address

modeled violations of the SO2 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). USEPA has determined that

the three FESOPs are adequate as

revisions to Illinois’ State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur

dioxide (SO2) as it applies to Madison

County, and as such, address the

previously modeled violations of the

SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This action will be effective on

July 5, 1996 unless adverse or critical

comments not previously addressed by

the State or USEPA are received by June

5, 1996. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State’s submittal and

USEPA’s analysis (Technical Support

Document) are available for inspection

at the following location: United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that

you telephone Mary Onischak at (312)

353–5954 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Onischak at (312) 353–5954.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On September 22, 1992 (57 FR 43846),

USEPA proposed to designate portions

of Madison County, Illinois, including

the Granite City area (Granite City and

Nameoki Townships) as nonattainment

for SO2. This proposed designation was

based on modeled violations of the SO2

NAAQS. On December 21, 1993 (58 FR

67336), USEPA published its intent to

defer the final SO2 designation of

Madison County, Illinois while the State

worked to revise its SO2 SIP. On March

14, 1995, Illinois submitted a SO2 SIP

revision request which consisted of SO2

emission limitations for three facilities

in Madison County: the Nestle Beverage

Company (Nestle), Reilly Industries

(Reilly), and the Granite City division of

the National Steel Corporation (Granite

City Steel). Illinois’ submittal, including

background information, demonstration

of attainment, and enforceability is

discussed further in the technical

support document.

II. Emission Limitations

A. Nestle Beverage Company

Nestle’s FESOP covers three sources:

the Nebraska boiler, Boiler Number 5,

and the tea leaf burner. Both boilers

normally use natural gas, but have the

capability of burning fuel oil as well.

The tea leaf burner combusts ‘‘spent’’

tea leaves, with natural gas or oil as

support fuels. The FESOP conditions

require that Nestle’s fuels, except for the

tea leaves, must all meet a fuel quality

rating of 0.30 pounds SO2 per million

British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU), on

an hourly basis. The SO2 and particulate

emissions from the tea leaf burner are

controlled by a flue gas desulfurization

unit, and the tea leaf burner’s SO2

emissions must not exceed 0.30 lb/

MMBTU, regardless of the fuel burned.

After April 1, 1996, the SO2 emissions

of the tea leaf burner are to be measured

and recorded hourly, using a continuous

emissions monitoring (CEM) system.

B. Reilly Industries

Reilly Industries emits SO2 from

seven Stills. The facility normally uses

natural gas at these Stills, but keeps a

supply of fuel oil as a backup fuel. The

facility originally was allowed to use

residual fuel oil, which the State of

Illinois limits to 1.0 lb/MMBTU of SO2

[35 IAC 214.161(a)]. Under the new

FESOP requirements, the facility must

burn only natural gas or distillate fuel

oil, resulting in SO2 emissions of no

more than 0.30 lb/MMBTU. Fuel which

would lead to emissions greater than 0.3

lb/MMBTU may not be burned by the

facility.

C. Granite City Steel

While most combustion units at

Granite City Steel are primarily fueled

by natural gas, the plant maintains the

ability to use several different fuels:

natural gas, blast furnace gas, fuel oil,

and coke oven gas (COG). Natural gas

and blast furnace gas do not cause

significant emissions of SO2. Fuel oil,

which contains sulfur, is primarily used

as a backup fuel. COG is produced at the

facility and must either be used as fuel

or destroyed in a flare because it cannot

be stored at the site. Granite City Steel

requested to be allowed adequate

flexibility to make use of the COG it

generates. The COG contains hydrogen

sulfide (H2S), which converts to SO2

during combustion.

The Granite City Steel FESOP

imposes daily and annual SO2 emission

caps on certain combustion units and

unit groups at the facility, with

additional 3-hour emission caps on

some units. Although certain sources

have been restricted to the use of natural

gas alone, or have been prohibited from

using fuel oil, the SO2 emission caps are

generally independent of the fuel types

used. Granite City Steel continuously

monitors its COG flow and COG sulfur

content for the calculation of SO2

emissions for compliance purposes. The

Granite City Steel FESOP limits were

developed based on modeling which

tested both the company’s most frequent

fuel routing and worst-case fuel routing.

III. Air Quality Analysis

The SO2 emission limits in the

FESOPs for the three Madison County

facilities were all supported by air

dispersion modeling. Illinois used the

Industrial Source Complex long- and

short-term models with the regulatory

default options. The Granite City area is

considered rural, so rural dispersion

coefficients were used. Other nearby

sources were explicitly modeled in

addition to the three FESOP sources.

Worst-case building dimensions were

used for downwash impacts. A reduced

load screening analysis was performed

to determine the source operating rates

that resulted in maximum ambient

impact. The receptor arrays had a

resolution of 100 meters in the areas of

concern and at the fencelines, and

because the sources are near the border

of Illinois and Missouri, interstate

impacts were taken into account. Five

years of meteorological data from St.

Louis were used, and background

concentrations were added to the final

ambient SO2 concentration predictions.

The dispersion modeling study was

used as a tool for developing the SO2

emission limits at these sources. Setting

and modeling the emission limits for

Nestle and Reilly was fairly

straightforward, but setting Granite City

Steel’s emission limits presented a

challenge. Because there are many

different emission scenarios possible at

Granite City Steel, IEPA considered the

relative impacts from each source group

separately. Illinois performed many

modeling tests to evaluate the different

operating scenarios. Emission limits

were placed on the source groups so

that any operation scenario used at the

facility could be expected to protect the

SO2 NAAQS. The final 3-hour, 24-hour,

and annual modeling runs, which

included all the Granite City area SO2

sources and background concentrations,

showed that the entire Granite City area

would attain the NAAQS for SO2.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20149

USEPA has reviewed this modeling and

determined that it is acceptable. For

further documentation of the dispersion

modeling, see the technical support

document.

IV. Enforceability

Illinois established a set of specific

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements as conditions within a

federally enforceable operating permit

for the three Granite City facilities. On

December 17, 1992 (57 FR 59928)

Illinois’ operating permit program was

approved by USEPA and incorporated

into the Illinois SIP. Permits issued

under this federally enforceable State

operating permit program may serve as

part of the SIP and may be used to

address certain SIP deficiencies.

The FESOP for Nestle (Application

No. 94110119) was issued on March 8,

1995. The FESOP for Reilly

(Application No. 94040131) was issued

on February 24, 1995. The Granite City

Steel FESOP (Application No.

94120017) was issued on March 7, 1995.

The permits were given public notice

and were made available for public

comment. The conditions of the permits

effectively limit emissions of sulfur

dioxide from the affected sources.

V. Final Rulemaking Action

The USEPA has determined that

Illinois’ March 14, 1995, SO2 SIP

revision submittal satisfies section

110(A)(2) of the Clean Air Act and is

fully approvable. The FESOPs for

Nestle, Reilly, and Granite City Steel are

expected to rectify the modeled ambient

air quality violations identified

previously. USEPA’s September 22,

1992 (57 FR 43846) proposed

redesignation of the Granite City area of

Madison County, Illinois, is rendered

moot as a consequence of this approval.

The USEPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because USEPA

views this action as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, the rulemaking

will not be deemed final if timely

unaddressed adverse or critical

comments are filed. The ‘‘direct final’’

approval shall be effective on July 5,

1996, unless USEPA receives such

adverse or critical comments by June 5,

1996. The USEPA is now soliciting

public comments on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. In the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register, USEPA is publishing a

separate document which constitutes a

‘‘proposed approval’’ of the requested

SIP revision. If warranted by comments

adverse to or critical of the approval

discussed above, which have not been

addressed by the State or USEPA,

USEPA will publish a Federal Register

document which withdraws the final

action. The USEPA will then address

public comments received in a

subsequent rulemaking document based

on the proposed approval.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The

USEPA shall consider each request for

revision to the SIP in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary D.

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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.

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 impose any new requirements, I

certify 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

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of the State

action. The Clean Air Act forbids

USEPA to base its actions concerning

SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric

Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256–66

(S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, requires

that the USEPA prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the USEPA to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the USEPA must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The USEPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the USEPA explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

This rule only approves the

incorporation of existing state rules into

the SIP. It imposes no additional

requirements. Because this final rule is

estimated to result in the expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of less then $100

million in any one year, the USEPA has

not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments

will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the USEPA is not

required to develop a plan with regard

to small governments.

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 5, 1996.

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, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 18, 1996.

David Kee,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11196 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P