Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23615

[FR Doc. 01–10986 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY–112–9933(a); FRL–6975–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Kentucky: Approval of American

Greetings Corporation; SourceSpecific State Implementation Plan

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On March 30, 1999, the

Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted,

through the Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet, a

source-specific revision to the Kentucky

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

source-specific SIP revision allows

American Greetings Corporation to have

an alternative averaging period of 30

days for compliance determination. EPA

is approving this revision because the

30 day alternate averaging period does

not jeopardize maintenance of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

July 9, 2001 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by June 8, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Randy Terry, at the EPA

Regional Office listed below. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Copies of SIP materials which are

incorporated by reference into 40 CFR

Part 52 (the documents relative to this

action) are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Region 4 Air Planning Branch; 61

Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960

Commonwealth of Kentucky; Division

for Air Quality; 803 Schenkel Lane;

Frankfort, KY 40601–1403

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Terry at 404/562–9032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 30, 1999, the

Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted,

through the Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet, a

source-specific revision to the Kentucky

SIP. This source-specific SIP revision

allows American Greetings Corporation

to have an alternative averaging period

of 30 days for compliance

determination.

To meet the requirements of this SIP

revision, American Greetings

Corporation must provide all record

keeping in accordance with regulation

401 KAR 59:212, New Graphic Arts

Facilities Using Rotogravure and

Flexography, Section 4(6). These

records shall include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(a) Applicable regulation number;

(b) Application method and substrate

type;

(c) Amount and type of graphic arts

material or solvent used at each point of

application, including exempt

compounds;

(d) The volatile organic compound

(VOC) content as applied in each

graphic arts materials or solvent;

(e) The date for each application for

graphic arts material or solvent; and

(f) The amount of surface preparation,

clean-up, or wash-up solvent (including

exempt compounds) used and the VOC

content of each;

In addition, the permittee must keep

monthly records of the pounds of each

ink and topcoat lacquer used and the

corresponding VOC contents and hours

of operation. These emissions shall be

calculated and recorded in tons per

month and tons per 12 months. Tons

per 12 months shall represent a rolling

average. These records shall be made

available for inspection to any

authorized representative of the

Division for Air Quality upon request.

Agency policy regarding SIP revisions

for averaging times for compliance with

VOC emission limits is stated in a

January 20, 1984, memo from John R.

O’Conner, Acting Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards:

‘‘Current Agency guidance specifies the

use of a daily weighted average for VOC

regulations as the preferred alternative

where continuous compliance is not

feasible.’’

The aforementioned memo also

approves the utilization of averaging

period for VOC emissions for as long as

thirty days, providing that certain

conditions are met.

These requirements consist of the

following elements.

1. The VOC limits must be specified

in an enforceable form with appropriate

compliance dates.

2. A description of the affected

processes and associated historical

production and operating rates.

3. A description of the control

techniques to be applied to the affected

processes such as low solvent and

waterborne coating; technology and/or

add-on controls.

4. The nature of the emission control

program whether a bubble, a regulation

change, a compliance schedule, or some

other form of alternative control

program.

5. The method of record keeping and

reporting to be employed to demonstrate

compliance with the new emission limit

requirement and to support the showing

that the emission limit is consistent

with Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

and the demonstration of attainment.

II. Analysis of State’s Submittal

In response to meeting the

aforementioned requirements, Kentucky

submitted the results of a detailed

statistical analysis verifying that the

actual emissions emitted are

consistently below the allowable

emissions. Based on this analysis,

Kentucky utilizing a monthly averaging

recording system has a very minimal

chance that the emissions will exceed

ten percent of the permitted emission

rate.

Kentucky’s submittal addressed the

NAAQS for ozone in the Appalachian

Air Quality Control Region where the

facility is located. Kentucky found that

there were no violations of the ozone

NAAQS during 1992–1995, based on an

evaluation of the 1996–1997 Kentucky

Environmental Quality Commission’s

Environmental Annual Status Report on

Air Quality. EPA’s review of additional

ozone data in the Aerometric

Information Retrieval System (AIRS) for

the surrounding counties of Bell, Perry,

and Pulaski for the years 1992–2000

found no ozone violations. Based on the

air quality analysis by Kentucky and

EPA’s review of additional ozone air

quality data, EPA concludes there will

be no adverse environmental impact on

the surrounding ozone attainment area

from the adoption of 30-day monthly

VOC record keeping for the American

Greetings Corporation.

The use of thirty day averaging period

as a maximum averaging time for VOC

emissions is consistent with current

agency policy, as detailed in the January

20, 1984, John O’Conner memo. Because

of the simplicity of this action, no

technical support document was

prepared.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the aforementioned

changes to the SIP because they are

23616 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

consistent with the Clean Air Act and

EPA requirements. The requirements for

averaging time frames for sources of

ozone precursors can be found in the

January 20, 1984, memo by John R.

O’Conner. EPA believes that approving

this source-specific SIP revision will

create no adverse effects in the

surrounding attainment area based on

the ozone air quality data from the

surrounding monitoring sites.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective July 9,

2001 without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by June 8, 2001.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

the proposed rule. Only parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on July 9 2001 and no further

action will be taken on the proposed

rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders and Congressional

Acts

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. 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.). Because this rule approves preexisting 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 (Public Law 104–4).

This rule also does 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,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it 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), because it 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. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. 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. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. 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.).

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 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 nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

B. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP

Revisions in Audit Law States

Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determination

or expressing any position regarding

Kentucky’s, audit privilege and penalty

immunity law, ‘‘KRS 224.01–040’’ or its

impact upon any approved provision in

the SIP, including the revision at issue

here. The action taken herein does not

express or imply any viewpoint on the

question of whether there are legal

deficiencies in this or any other Clean

Air Act program resulting from the

effect of Kentucky’s audit privilege and

immunity law. A state audit privilege

and immunity law can affect only state

enforcement and cannot have any

impact on federal enforcement

authorities. EPA may at any time invoke

its authority under the Clean Air Act,

including, for example, sections 113,

167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the

requirements or prohibitions of the state

plan, independently of any state

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen

enforcement under section 304 of the

Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by

a state audit privilege or immunity law.

C. 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 July 9, 2001.

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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23617

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: April 20, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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.

Subpart S—Kentucky

2. In § 52.920 the table in paragraph

(d) is amended by adding a new entry

for ‘‘Alternate Averaging Period for

American Greetings Corporation’’ to the

end of the table as follows:

§ 52.920 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

*******

Alternate Averaging Period for

American Greetings Corporation.

KDEPDAQ Permit V–98–049 July 9, 2001 ............................ 66 FR 23617.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–11524 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6976–8]

RIN 2090–AA19

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for the Autoliv ASP Inc. Facility in

Promontory, Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is implementing a

project under the Project XL program

that will provide site-specific regulatory

flexibility under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

for the Autoliv ASP Inc. (Autoliv)

facility in Promontory, Utah. The terms

of the XL project are defined in a Final

Project Agreement (‘‘FPA’’) which has

been available for public review and

comment. (See 65 FR 49571, August 14,

2000). Following a review of the public

comments, the FPA was signed by

Autoliv, Box Elder County, the state of

Utah, and EPA on September 20, 2000.

EPA is today publishing a final rule,

applicable only to the Promontory

Facility, to facilitate implementation of

the XL project. The principal objective

of this XL Project is to explore the

benefits of a more streamlined and

flexible RCRA regulation of pyrotechnic

hazardous wastes from the automobile

airbag industry that are treated in

industrial furnaces. Today’s final rule is

an outgrowth of the proposed rule

published on February 13, 2001 See 66

FR 9992. Today’s action provides

regulatory flexibility to Autoliv in the

form of a conditional exemption from

the definition of hazardous waste. It is

conditioned on Autoliv’s compliance

with air emission and waste

management requirements that have

been developed under this XL project.

The air emission and waste management

requirements are set forth in today’s

final rule. Today’s action is intended to

provide site-specific regulatory changes

to implement this XL project. The EPA

the state of Utah and Autoliv expect this

XL project to result in superior

environmental performance while

providing cost savings and paperwork

reduction for both Autoliv and the state

of Utah.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

May 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket: Three dockets

contain supporting information used in

developing this final rule, and are

available for public inspection and

copying at the EPA’s docket office

located at Crystal Gateway, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The public is

encouraged to phone in advance to

review docket materials. Appointments

can be scheduled by phoning the Docket

Office at (703) 603–9230. Refer to RCRA

docket number F–2001–AUFP–FFFFF.

The public may copy a maximum of 100

pages from any regulatory docket at no

charge. Additional copies cost 15 cents

per page. Project materials are also

available for review for today’s action

on the world wide web at http://

www.epa.gov/projectxl/. A duplicate

copy of the docket is available for

inspection and copying at U.S. EPA,

Region 8 Library, First Floor, 999 18th

Street, CO 80202–2466 during normal

business hours. Persons wishing to view

the duplicate docket at the Denver

location are encouraged to contact Ms.

Mary Byrne in advance, by telephoning

(303) 312–6491 or by email at or

byrne.mary@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Mary Byrne, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th

Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202–

2466 or Mr. Ted Cochin, Office of

Environmental Policy Innovation, U.S.

EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

(1802), Washington, DC 20460. Further

information on today’s action may also

be obtained on the world wide web at

http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

Questions to EPA regarding Today’s

action can be directed to Ms. Byrne at

(303) 312–6491 or Mr. Cochin at (202)

260–0880.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

development and implementation of onsite treatment would be piloted at

Autoliv’s Promontory, Utah facility

using the existing metals recovery

furnace with air pollution controls

instead of sending the materials off-site

to be open burned. This pilot is

intended to test the effectiveness of onsite treatment of automobile airbag

waste pyrotechnics in Autoliv’s Metals

Recovery Furnace (MRF). These

automobile airbag waste pyrotechnics

generated on-site at the Autoliv facility,

are currently regulated as reactive

hazardous wastes (waste code D003).

The pilot will determine whether this

approach promotes better treatment of

the waste pyrotechnics than the current

method of open burning. Autoliv will

comply with many of the general facility

standards of RCRA, and is not seeking

relief from all RCRA management

protections. Through this project,

Autoliv intends to be able to treat waste