```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23239-23241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11278]

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

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    12013517                             6.4  
                                                    Teflon.                                                     
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 

[[Page 23240]]

                                                                                                                
                               Clear Lacquer &     Cellulose Nitrate  MIL-L-10287                          5.07 
                                Blue Tint.                                                                      
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 polyamide-amide 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. Secs. 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 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 cost-
effective 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 non-agency 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.

[[Page 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
```