Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 23239

§ 100.22 Definition of ‘‘significant upgrade

or major modification.’’

(a) For equipment, facilities or

services for which an upgrade or

modification has been completed after

January 1, 1995 and on or before

October 25, 1998, the term ‘‘significant

upgrade or major modification’’ means

any fundamental or substantial change

in the network architecture or any

change that fundamentally alters the

nature or type of the existing

telecommunications equipment, facility

or service, that impedes law

enforcement’s ability to conduct

lawfully authorized electronic

surveillance, unless such change is

mandated by a Federal or State statute;

(b) For equipment, facilities or

services for which an upgrade or

modification is completed after October

25, 1998, the term ‘‘significant upgrade

or major modification’’ means any

change, whether through addition or

other modification, to any equipment,

facility or service that impedes law

enforcement’s ability to conduct

lawfully authorized electronic

surveillance, unless such change is

mandated by a Federal statute.

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Louis Freeh,

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 98–10928 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI76–01–7305; FRL–6004–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is proposing to disapprove a

site-specific volatile organic compound

(VOC) reasonably available control

technology (RACT) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for

the Amron Corporation facility located

at 525 Progress Avenue in Waukesha.

The SIP revision was submitted by the

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) on February 21,

1997, and would exempt the facility

from the emission limits applicable to

miscellaneous metal coating operations.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received before May 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the proposed SIP revision

and EPA’s analysis are available for

inspection at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

(Please telephone Kathleen D’Agostino

at (312) 886–1767 before visiting the

Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

886–1767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 21, 1997, WDNR

submitted a site-specific VOC RACT SIP

revision for the Amron Corporation

facility located at 525 Progress Avenue

in Waukesha. Amron manufactures

several different kinds of projectiles for

a United States Department of Defense

(DOD) contractor. Amron’s work is

exclusively DOD contracts.

The Amron facility is located in the

Milwaukee severe nonattainment area

and is subject to rule NR 422.15 of the

Wisconsin Administrative code, which

regulates miscellaneous metal coating

operations. NR 422.15 has been

approved by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) as meeting the RACT

requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).

Specifically, under NR 422.15(2)(a)

and (b), when coating miscellaneous

metal parts or products using a baked or

specially cured coating technology,

Amron may not exceed 4.3 pounds of

VOC per gallon of coating as applied for

clear coats and 3.5 pounds of VOC per

gallon of coating as applied for extreme

performance coatings. Under NR

422.15(3)(c), when coating

miscellaneous metal parts or products

using an air dried coating technology,

Amron may not exceed 3.5 pounds of

VOC per gallon for clear coatings.

II. Facility and Process Description

As noted above, Amron manufactures

several different kinds of projectiles for

the DOD. Process P01 at Amron is the

paint operation which encompasses five

different lines for coating numerous

types and shapes of military items,

including the 25mm cartridge case, the

M430/M918TP, the M67/M69, the

M56A4, and the M75 and M73 rockets.

As a contractor to the DOD, Amron is

required to use certain paints which are

specified by the military. Each coating

was specified by DOD for its unique

characteristics.

Exterior projectile coatings must

protect against corrosion, provide color

identification and not chip, flake or rub

off. Exterior cartridge case coatings must

protect against corrosion, provide a low

co-efficient of friction surface for

feeding and extraction, as well as not

chip or rub off. Interior and exterior

cartridge or projectile coatings must

protect against corrosion, provide a

friction-free surface between the steel

body and high explosives during

loading, and be chemically compatible

with the high explosives.

Below is a table listing the coatings

used by Amron for the various

projectiles.

Product Description Type Military specification VOC lb/gal

25MM ......................... Olive Drab ............................................ Polyamide-Amide Teflon ..................... 12013517 6.4

M430/M918 ................ Red Oxide Primer ................................ Alkyd .................................................... MIL–P–22332 4.52

Olive Drab Lacquer ............................. Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 4.94

Blue Lacquer ....................................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 4.94

M67 ............................ Red Oxide Primer ................................ Alkyd .................................................... MIL–P–22332 4.52

Off-White Primer .................................. Epoxy ................................................... MIL–P–53022 4.229

Green Zenthane .................................. Polyurethane ........................................ MIL–C–53039 3.491

M69 ............................ Blue Lacquer ....................................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 (1)

M56A4 ....................... Asphalt Type I ..................................... Asphalt ................................................. MIL–C–450C 3.744

Yellow Lacquer .................................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 4.89

Red Lacquer ........................................ Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 5.0

M73 ............................ Olive Drab Lacquer ............................. Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 4.94

Yellow Lacquer .................................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 4.89
23240 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Product Description Type Military specification VOC lb/gal

Clear Lacquer & Blue Tint ................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–10287 5.07

M75 ............................ Blue Lacquer ....................................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 (1)

Brown Lacquer .................................... Cellulose Nitrate .................................. MIL–L–11195 4.92

1 Unknown.

III. RACT Evaluation

Amron hired a consultant to take bids

for a catalytic oxidation unit, a

regenerative oxidation unit and a

regenerative catalytic oxidation unit.

The cost ranged from $7,146 to $9,060

per ton to control one coating line and

$9,909 to $18,657 per ton to control the

five coating lines. USEPA agrees that the

cost of add-on controls seems to be

economically unreasonable.

Amron has written letters to its prime

DOD contractor seeking permissible

alternate coatings, but has received no

reply. Therefore, Amron contends that it

needs an exemption from RACT

requirements for these painting

operations. The variance submitted

states that the VOC content of the

coatings used for a DOD contract shall

not exceed the DOD specification for

that coating.

USEPA has reviewed the military

specifications provided by Amron and

has independently investigated the

availability of alternate coatings. The

coatings (above) used by Amron which

are required to meet MIL–L–11195

(actually MIL–L–11195D) range from

4.89 to 5.0 pounds of VOC per gallon of

coating. This military standard was

replaced by MIL–E–11195E which

specifies a VOC content of 3.5 pounds

per gallon and would comply with

RACT requirements. Amron should seek

to modify its contract to allow for the

use of coatings complying with the

updated specification.

The off-white primer covered by

specification MIL–P–53022 is listed as

having a VOC content of 4.229 pounds

per gallon. MIL–P–53022, however,

requires coatings to meet a VOC content

of 3.5 pounds of VOC per gallon. Amron

has not explained this discrepancy. The

clear lacquer and blue tint covered by

MIL–L–10287 does not appear on the

M73 drawing provided by Amron. The

company should indicate where this

coating is required so it will be possible

to verify that no alternate specifications

are allowed. Finally, for the polyamideamide Teflon coating covered by

specification 12013517, the red oxide

primer covered by MIL–P–22332, and

the asphalt coating covered by MIL–C–

450C, as well as clear lacquer and blue

tint coating covered by MIL–L–10287,

Amron should, at a minimum,

demonstrate that it has investigated

other vendors and is using the lowest

VOC content coating which meets the

applicable military specification.

Furthermore, the variance is

unacceptable because it provides Amron

with no fixed applicable limits, and in

most cases, no applicable limits at all.

Granting the variance would give

Amron no incentive to seek the lowest

VOC content coating available. Also,

while ‘‘usage records’’ are required, no

time frame, e.g. daily, is specified.

For the reasons discussed above,

USEPA is proposing to disapprove this

SIP revision.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

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.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

USEPA’s disapproval of the State

request under Section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

State submittal does not affect its State

enforceability. Moreover, USEPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, USEPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, because it does

not remove existing requirements or

impose any new Federal requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany 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. Under section

205, USEPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires USEPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

USEPA has determined that the

disapproval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal disapproval

action imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result.

E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness 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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 891 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 nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). USEPA

is not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 23241

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 98–11278 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 69 and 80

[FRL–5999–6]

State of Alaska Petition for Exemption

From Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On March 14, 1994, EPA

granted the State of Alaska a waiver

from the requirements of EPA’s lowsulfur diesel fuel program for motor

vehicles, permanently exempting

Alaska’s remote areas and providing a

temporary exemption for areas of Alaska

served by the Federal Aid Highway

System. The exemption applied to

certain requirements in section 211(i)

and (g) of the Clean Air Act, as

implemented in EPA’s regulations. On

December 12, 1995, the Governor of

Alaska petitioned EPA to permanently

exempt the areas covered by the

temporary exemption. In this document,

EPA is proposing to grant Alaska’s

petition for a permanent exemption for

areas of Alaska served by the Federal

Aid Highway System.

This proposed rulemaking, if

finalized, is not expected to have a

significant impact on the ability of

Alaska’s communities to attain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for carbon monoxide and particulate

matter, due to the limited contribution

of emissions from diesel motor vehicles

in those areas and the sulfur level

currently found in motor vehicle diesel

fuel used in Alaska. However, if

circumstances change such that the

exemption is no longer appropriate

under Section 325 based on

consideration of the factors relevant

under that section, EPA could withdraw

this exemption in the future after public

notice and comment.

DATES: EPA will conduct a public

hearing on today’s proposal May 21,

1998, if one is requested by May 12,

1998. If a hearing is held, comments on

this proposal must be submitted on or

before June 22, 1998. If no hearing is

held, comments must be submitted on

or before May 28, 1998. For additional

information on the public hearing see

Supplementary Information.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in duplicate to Mr. Richard

Babst, Environmental Engineer, Fuels

Implementation Group, Fuels and

Energy Division (6406–J), 401 M Street

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Public Hearing: A public hearing, if

held, will be at the Anchorage Federal

Building, room 135, in Anchorage,

Alaska.

Docket: Copies of information

relevant to this petition are available for

inspection in public docket A–96–26 at

the Air Docket of the EPA, first floor,

Waterside Mall, room M–1500, 401 M

Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,

(202) 260–7548, between the hours of

8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through

Friday. A duplicate public docket has

been established at EPA Alaska

Operations Office—Anchorage, Federal

Building, Room 537, 222 W. Seventh

Avenue, #19, Anchorage, AK 99513–

7588, and is available from 8:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Richard Babst, Environmental Engineer,

Fuels Implementation Group, Fuels and

Energy Division (6406–J), 401 M Street

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202)

564–9473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearing Information

Anyone wishing to testify at the

public hearing scheduled for May 21,

1998, should notify Richard Babst by

telephone at (202) 564–9473, by fax at

(202) 565–2085, or by Internet message

at babst.richard@epa.gov. If the above

contact person fails to receive any

requests for testifying on this proposal

by May 12, 1998, the hearing will be

canceled without further notification.

Persons interested in determining if the

hearing has been canceled should

contact the person named above after

May 12, 1998.

The public hearing, if held, will begin

at 9:00 a.m and continue until all

interested parties have had an

opportunity to testify. A sign-up sheet

will be available at a registration table

the morning of the hearing for

scheduling testimony for those who

have not previously notified the contact

person listed above. Testimonies will be

scheduled on a first come, first serve

basis. EPA suggests that approximately

25 to 50 copies of the statement or

material to be presented be brought to

the hearing for distribution to the

audience. In addition, EPA would find

it helpful to receive an advance copy of

any statement or material to be

presented at the hearing in order to give

EPA staff adequate time to review the

material before the hearing. Such

advance copies should be submitted to

the contact person listed above.

The hearing will be conducted

informally and technical rules of

evidence will not apply. Because a

public hearing is designed to give

interested parties an opportunity to

participate in the proceeding, there are

no adversary parties as such. Statements

by participants will not be subject to

cross examination by other participants.

A written transcript of the hearing will

be placed in the public docket for

review. Anyone desiring to purchase a

copy of the transcript should make

individual arrangements with the court

reporter recording the proceeding. The

EPA Presiding Officer is authorized to

strike from the record statements which

he deems irrelevant or repetitious and to

impose reasonable limits on the

duration of the statement of any

witness. EPA asks that persons who

testify attempt to limit their testimony

to ten minutes, if possible.

The Administrator will base her final

decision with regard to Alaska’s petition

for exemption from the diesel fuel sulfur

content requirement on the record of the

public hearing, if held, and on any other

relevant written submissions and other

pertinent information. This information

will be available for public inspection at

the EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A–96–

26 (see ADDRESSES). For more

information on public participation, see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VII. Public

Participation.

Table of Contents

I. Regulated Entities

II. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking

Documents

III. Background

IV. Petition for Exemption

V. Comments Received and Other Issues

VI. Decision for Permanent Exemption

VII. Public Participation

VIII. Statutory Authority

IX. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

X. Compliance With the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

XII. Unfunded Mandates Act

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are refiners, marketers,

distributors, retailers and wholesale

purchaser-consumers of diesel fuel for