

[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 70804-70807]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13de07-14]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2004-IL-0002; FRL-8503-5]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois; 
Source-Specific Revision for Cromwell-Phoenix, Incorporated

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the Illinois State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate site-specific Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOC) regulations for the Corrosion Inhibiting (CI) packaging 
production facility of Cromwell-Phoenix, Incorporated (Cromwell-
Phoenix) located in Alsip, Illinois (Cook County). The EPA is approving 
an adjusted standard from Illinois' paper coating regulations for 
Cromwell-Phoenix's CI packaging production facility.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective on February 11, 2008, 
unless EPA receives adverse written comments by January 14, 2008. If an 
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: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2004-IL-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 886-5824.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation 
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2004-IL-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, 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 http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 
http://www.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 and any form of encryption, and should be free of any 
defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, 
go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
It is recommended that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental 
Scientist, at (312) 886-6057, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone: (312) 886-6057. E-mail address: 
doty.edward@epa.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    Does this action apply to me?
II. Today's Action
    A. What action is EPA taking today?
    B. Why is EPA taking this action?
    C. What are the alternative control requirements included in the 
Adjusted Standard?
    D. What information did Illinois submit in support of this SIP 
revision?
    E. Was a public hearing held?
    F. Why is this SIP revision being approved?
III. Final Rulemaking Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    This action only applies to Cromwell-Phoenix, Incorporated 
(Cromwell-Phoenix), and, in particular, to Cromwell-Phoenix's CI 
packaging production facility located in Alsip, Illinois (Cook County). 
If you are the owner or operator of this source, this action affects 
the air pollution control rules that apply to your source as contained 
in the Illinois SIP.

[[Page 70805]]

II. Today's Action

A. What action is EPA taking today?

    In this action, EPA is approving a site-specific revision to the 
Illinois SIP for Cromwell-Phoenix's CI packaging production facility 
located in Alsip, Illinois (Cook County). Specifically, EPA is 
approving a site-specific adjusted standard from volume 35 of the 
Illinois Administrative Code subpart F section 218.204(c) (35 IAC 
218.204(c)) for Cromwell-Phoenix's CI packaging production facility. 
Pursuant to this adjusted standard, the applicable paper coating 
Volatile Organic Materials (VOM) \1\ content limits and other 
associated requirements of 35 IAC 218.204(c) do not apply to the CI 
packaging production facility. The adjusted standard contains a 
revised, source-specific coating VOM content limit along with other 
requirements specific to this facility. The Illinois Pollution Control 
Board (IPCB) adopted the alternative requirements for this source 
facility on September 18, 2003. We are approving these alternative 
requirements as part of the Adjusted Standard for incorporation into 
Illinois' SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Illinois' VOC emission control rules define control 
requirements in terms of Volatile Organic Materials (VOM). Illinois' 
definition of VOM is equivalent to EPA's definition of VOC. 
Therefore, the two terms/acronyms may be used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Why is EPA taking this action?

    The use of paper impregnating solutions including organic solvents 
that do not meet Illinois' paper coating VOC content limits is 
necessary for CI packaging materials (designed to protect customer-
wrapped metal parts) produced at the subject source facility. The VOC 
used in the CI solutions are designed to carry and distribute CI 
compounds into the impregnated paper and are, themselves, CI compounds. 
Given that the VOC carriers are also CI compounds, they have low vapor 
pressures and are selected such that they are generally retained in the 
finished CI paper products. The VOC are an integral component of the CI 
solutions, providing part of the CI function of the finished product 
and help carry CI compounds to the surfaces of metal parts wrapped in 
the CI papers. The low VOC volatility results in low VOC emissions at 
the facility. Cromwell-Phoenix has estimated that the maximum VOC 
emissions from the paper coating operations is 5 to 6 tons per year in 
total for the facility.
    Cromwell-Phoenix has investigated the use of alternative, water-
based CI solutions that have VOC contents complying with the VOC 
content limit of 35 IAC 218.204(c). Two problems were noted for the use 
of such CI solutions. First, the use of such CI solutions have resulted 
in unacceptable CI packaging materials. The water-based CI solutions 
caused the paper substrates to swell and to unacceptably deform or 
crease, resulting in products not usable by customers or unacceptable 
in appearance to customers. Second, the use of water in the CI 
solutions forced the need for extra drying of the CI product, which 
actually resulted in an increase in VOC emissions per unit of product 
produced as the drying process drove off VOC along with the water. 
Therefore, based on these two conclusions, Cromwell-Phoenix concluded 
that the use of water-based CI solutions would not be acceptable.
    Consideration of add-on VOC emission control alternatives by 
Cromwell-Phoenix and the State has led to the conclusion that feasible, 
cost-effective add-on emission controls are not available for this 
facility. Cromwell-Phoenix considered the use of add-on emission 
control devices, which were determined to have an annual VOC control-
cost effectiveness ratio ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 per ton of VOC 
controlled. Cromwell-Phoenix points out that this cost-effectiveness is 
excessive, especially considering that annual VOC emissions from the 
controlled units would only be 5 to 6 tons. Therefore, this facility 
cannot meet alternative VOC control requirements, as contained in 35 
IAC 218.207(b) \2\ in a cost-effective manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rule allows the optional use of an add-on emissions 
control system in lieu of meeting a specific coating VOC content 
limit provided that the coating line is equipped with an emission 
capture system and control device that provides 81 percent reduction 
in the overall emissions of VOC from the coating line and that the 
emissions control device has a minimum efficiency of 90 percent or 
that the add-on emissions control system is demonstrated to have an 
overall efficiency sufficient to limit VOC emissions to no more than 
what is allowed under 35 IAC 218.204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, acceptable CI solvents that would allow compliance with 
the requirements of 35 IAC 218.204(c) are unavailable for Cromwell-
Phoenix's CI packaging production facility and add-on VOC emission 
controls are not feasible in a cost-effective manner. Recognizing that 
significantly reducing the VOC content of CI solutions or that 
significantly further controlling VOC emissions at this facility cannot 
be done in a cost-effective manner, we agree that this facility 
qualifies for site-specific adjusted standard as adopted by the IPCB.

C. What are the alternative control requirements included in the 
Adjusted Standard?

    In an order adopted and signed on September 18, 2003, the IPCB 
granted Cromwell-Phoenix an adjusted standard from 35 IAC 218.204(c), 
effective the same day. This adjusted standard applies to the equipment 
and emissions at Cromwell-Phoenix's facility located at 12701 South 
Ridgeway, Alsip, Cook County, Illinois existing as of July 14, 2003, as 
identified in the Clean Air Act Permit Program permit application 
Cromwell filed on March 20, 2003.
    Under the adopted IPCB order, rather than the paper coating VOC 
content limit of 35 IAC 218.204(c), the subject Cromwell-Phoenix source 
is subject to the following requirements:
    (1) The total actual VOC emissions from the entire Cromwell-Phoenix 
Alsip facility may not exceed 25 tons per year;
    (2) The Versil Pak wax laminating coatings must continue to meet 
the VOC content limitations under 35 IAC 218 Subpart F;
    (3) The web-fed and sheet-fed CI coating and printing lines must 
use only CI solutions which, as applied, have VOC content limits that 
do not exceed 8.3 pounds per gallon, less water;
    (4) Cromwell-Phoenix must operate in full compliance with all other 
applicable provisions of 35 IAC 218;
    (5) Cromwell-Phoenix must continue to investigate CI coatings with 
reduced VOC contents. Where practicable, Cromwell-Phoenix must 
substitute lower VOC coatings for current coatings as long as such 
substitution does not result in a net increase in VOC emissions from 
the facility. Beginning on October 1, 2004, Cromwell-Phoenix must 
prepare and submit an annual report summarizing the activities and 
results of its efforts to find suitable lower VOC coatings. This annual 
report must be submitted to the IEPA;
    (6) Cromwell-Phoenix must operate in full compliance with the Clean 
Air Act, Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and any other 
applicable regulations; and
    (7) Cromwell-Phoenix must continue to report annual emissions to 
the IEPA in accordance with the requirements of 35 IAC 254.

D. What information did Illinois submit in support of this SIP 
revision?

    In its October 31, 2003, SIP revision request, the Illinois EPA 
submitted the following information and supporting documentation (along 
with other less substantive procedural documents, which are also 
included in the record for this rulemaking) in support of its

[[Page 70806]]

request for EPA's approval of the adjusted standard for Cromwell-
Phoenix:
    (1) Cromwell-Phoenix's petition for a site-specific adjusted 
standard from 35 IAC 218.204(c) filed with the IPCB on May 29, 2003. 
This document describes the nature of the VOC source for which 
Cromwell-Phoenix seeks an adjusted standard and documents why Cromwell-
Phoenix cannot comply with the requirements of 35 IAC 218;
    (2) A notice of public hearing issued by the IPCB on July 3, 2003, 
noting that the public hearing would be held on August 7, 2003, in 
Chicago;
    (3) A motion for expedited review filed the IPCB on July 3, 2003. 
Cromwell-Phoenix notified the IPCB that it was in business negotiations 
with another company that prompted the need for Cromwell-Phoenix to 
request that the IPCB process a source permit with the adjusted 
standard by December 31, 2003. Cromwell-Phoenix noted that, although it 
expected its CI production to increase at the Alsip facility, the VOC 
emissions at the facility would stay below the major source threshold, 
below 25 tons per year;
    (4) A transcript of the August 7, 2003, public hearing on the 
amended standard. This transcript shows that no testimony was presented 
supporting a disapproval of the adjusted standard by the IPCB. The 
testimony given by the Illinois EPA does support its conclusion that 
the evaporation of VOC from the CI packaging material after the 
impregnation of the paper substrate is very low, even over a possible 
shelf life of up to five years. The Illinois EPA agrees that Cromwell-
Phoenix has economic and product performance incentives to ensure that 
VOC components are retained in the CI product and not emitted at the 
Alsip facility. The Illinois EPA agrees that substitution of water for 
VOC in the CI solutions does not lead to viable CI products and can 
lead to increased VOC emissions as the result of the need for 
additional warm air drying of the product prior to distribution to 
customers. Finally, the Illinois EPA agrees that the only viable add-on 
emission control systems for the Alsip CI production facility, thermal 
oxidation or combination carbon adsorption/thermal oxidation systems, 
would have cost-effectiveness ratios that are well above the level that 
would be considered to be reasonable for conventional RACT controls. 
The costs of the viable add-on emission control systems would be 
prohibitive for Cromwell-Phoenix. The Illinois EPA concludes that the 
adjusted standard for Cromwell-Phoenix; and,
    (5) The September 18, 2003, Opinion and Order of the IPCB, in which 
it adopted the amendments to the paper coating rules in 35 IAC 
218.204(c) for Cromwell-Phoenix's Alsip CI packaging production 
facility, subject to conditions and alternate requirements for this 
facility.
    Our review of the materials included in the Illinois EPA October 
31, 2003, submittal leads us to agree with the Illinois EPA that the 
adjusted standard for Cromwell-Phoenix is warranted.

E. Was a public hearing held?

    As noted above, the State held a public hearing on August 7, 2003, 
in Chicago. No parties other than those representing the State and 
those representing Cromwell-Phoenix attended the public hearing. No 
comments opposing the source-specific rule revision were submitted by 
the public during the public review period.

F. Why is this SIP revision being approved?

    We agree with the State that Cromwell-Phoenix cannot produce a 
viable CI product using paper coating solutions that meet the VOC 
content requirements of 35 IAC 218.204(c). In addition, the use of add-
on VOC emission controls for the subject source facility cannot be 
accomplished in a cost-effective manner meeting one of the general 
tenets of RACT that such emission controls be ``reasonably'' available. 
Therefore, an adjusted standard is warranted for this facility.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    For the reasons given above, EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP 
an Adjusted Standard for Cromwell-Phoenix from 35 IAC 218.204(c) for 
its CI packaging production facility in Alsip, Illinois. This Adjusted 
Standard (Opinion and Order of the Board, AS 03-5) was adopted by the 
IPCB on September 18, 2003.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a non-controversial amendment, and anticipate no adverse 
comments. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register 
publication, however, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective February 11, 2008 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by January 14, 2008. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action 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 the proposed action. We will not institute a second comment 
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. If we do not receive any relevant adverse comments, 
this action will be effective on February 11, 2008.

IV. 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 That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' 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).

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,

[[Page 70807]]

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, 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 approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

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, 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. 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 February 11, 2008. 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, Volatile organic compounds, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 27, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
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.

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(179) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (179) On October 31, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency submitted rules and related materials to address site-specific 
requirements for Cromwell-Phoenix, Incorporated, located in Alsip, 
Illinois. These rules establish an adjusted standard for the corrosion 
inhibiting packaging production facility of Cromwell-Phoenix, 
Incorporated located at this source site. These rules provide a site-
specific adjusted standard for this source facility for volume 35 of 
the Illinois Administrative Code subpart F section 218.204(c). The 
adjusted standard gives the corrosion inhibiting paper coating lines at 
the Alsip facility an adjusted volatile organic material (volatile 
organic compounds) content limit for paper coatings, and places an 
annual limit on the volatile organic material emissions from the Alsip 
facility as a whole. The adjusted standard also establishes source 
administration and reporting requirements for Cromwell-Phoenix, 
Incorporated Alsip facility. EPA is approving this site-specific 
adjusted standard as a revision of the Illinois state implementation 
plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) September 18, 2003, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board, AS 03-5, effective September 18, 2003.

[FR Doc. E7-23982 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
