[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36351-36353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14175]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI88-01-7319a; FRL-6706-3]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Wisconsin; Site-Specific Revision for Uniroyal Engineered Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the volatile organic 
compound (VOC) control requirements for Uniroyal Engineered Products, 
Inc., located in Stoughton, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted this State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision on October 30, 1999 and revised it on February 17, 2000. Our 
approval of this revision makes federally enforceable the State's 
February 7, 2000, Consent Order AM-99-900, which establishes alternate 
control requirements for Uniroyal.
    If we receive adverse comments on this action, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register 
informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule will be effective August 7, 2000, 
unless we receive adverse or critical comments by July 10, 2000. If the 
rule is withdrawn, timely notice will be published in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
(We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, at (312) 886-
1767, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of this SIP revision is available for inspection at the 
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and Information Center (Air 
Docket 6102), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 
260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Regulation 
Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

    A. What Action is EPA Taking?
    B. How Does this Action Change Pollution Control Requirements 
for Uniroyal?
    C. Will this Action Adversely Impact Air Quality in the Area?
    D. What is EPA's Final Determination?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to Wisconsin's SIP to relax VOC control 
requirements for Uniroyal.

B. How Does This Action Change Pollution Control Requirements for 
Uniroyal?

    In the early 1980s Wisconsin adopted Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) regulations for the entire state. We approved these 
regulations and incorporated them into Wisconsin's SIP for ozone. 
Uniroyal manufactures vinyl coated fabrics and, under these rules, is 
subject to a limit of 3.8 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating, 
excluding water, for coatings used on vinyl coating lines.
    Our approval of alternate control requirements for Uniroyal exempts 
the company from the 3.8 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating limit for 
its vinyl coating lines and requires the following:
    1. At least 95% of all vinyl yardage requiring topcoats must be 
coated with waterborne topcoats on a monthly basis or if the 95% 
requirement is not met, an incinerator must control emissions to the 
level that would have been attained had the 95% requirement been met.
    2. No more than 65,630 pounds of VOC may be released into the 
ambient air per month.
    3. No more than 5,435 pounds of VOC may be released into the 
ambient air per day.
    4. Specific records and monitoring data must be kept and compliance 
testing must be performed.

C. Will This Action Adversely Impact Air Quality in the Area?

    Uniroyal is located in Dane County which is designated as 
attainment for ozone. The county is, and has been monitoring attainment 
of both the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards. Since 1987, Uniroyal has 
been operating under a State-approved variance which allows emissions 
equivalent to the emissions allowed under the SIP revision that we are 
approving with this action. Consequently, our approval of the alternate 
control requirements for

[[Page 36352]]

Uniroyal should not interfere with attainment or continued maintenance 
of the ozone standard.

D. What Is EPA'S Final Determination?

    Based on the rationale set forth above and in EPA's Technical 
Support Document, we are approving a revision to the VOC control 
requirements for Uniroyal Engineered Products. Our approval of this 
revision makes federally enforceable the State's February 7, 2000, 
Consent Order AM-99-900, which establishes alternate control 
requirements for Uniroyal.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal, because we 
view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, we are proposing to approve the State variance should 
adverse written comments be filed.
    This action will be effective August 7, 2000 without further notice 
unless relevant adverse comments are received by July 10, 2000. 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. We will then address all public comments received 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 
comments, this action will be effective August 7, 2000.
    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 SIP shall be considered 
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental 
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements.

Administrative Requirements

E. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

F. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

G. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

H. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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, 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. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

I. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because 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 create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would

[[Page 36353]]

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state 
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning 
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 
255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

J. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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, EPA 
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 EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated 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 action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

K. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 non-agency 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.

L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

M. 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 August 7, 2000. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Robert Springer,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Accordingly, title 40 of CFR part 52, Subpart YY, 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 YY--Wisconsin

    2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(100) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (100) On October 30, 1998, Wisconsin submitted a source-specific 
State Implementation Plan revision for Uniroyal Engineered Products, 
Inc., located in Stoughton, Wisconsin. The State supplemented the 
original submittal with Consent Order Number AM-99-900 on February 17, 
2000. This source-specific variance relaxes volatile organic compound 
reasonably available control technology requirements for Uniroyal.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Consent Order Number AM-99-900, issued by the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources to Uniroyal Engineered Products on 
February 17, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00-14175 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P