[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35439-35442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12469]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME-066-7015a; A-1-FRL-7171-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine; New CTGs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Maine. This revision establishes requirements 
for certain facilities which emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 
The intended effect of this action is to approve these requirements 
into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 19, 2002, unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by June 19, 2002. If adverse comments are 
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air 
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA; Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, (Mail Code 6102), SW., Washington, 
D.C. and the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 04333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Arnold, (617) 918-1047.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:

    What action is EPA taking?
    What are the relevant Clean Air Act requirements?
    What is a control techniques guideline (CTG)?
    How has Maine addressed the new CTG categories?
    What are the requirements in the licenses submitted by Maine?
    Why is EPA approving Maine's submittal?
    What is the process for EPA's approval of this SIP revision?

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving air emission licenses for the following facilities 
and incorporating these licenses into the Maine SIP: Bath Iron Works in 
Bath; Pratt & Whitney in North Berwick; and Moosehead Manufacturing's 
Dover-Foxcroft and Monson plants.

What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?

    Sections 182(b)(2) and 184(b) of the Clean Air Act contain the 
requirements relevant to today's action. Section 182(b)(2) requires 
States to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules 
for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as 
moderate or above. There are three parts to the section 182(b)(2) RACT 
requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing Control 
Techniques Guideline (CTG)--i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment 
of the 1990 amendments to the CAA; (2) RACT for sources covered by a 
post-enactment CTG; and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG, 
i.e., non-CTG sources.
    Pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 1990, three areas in Maine were 
classified as moderate ozone nonattainment. (See 56 FR 56694; November 
6, 1991). These areas were, thus, subject to the section 182(b)(2) RACT 
requirement.
    In addition, the State of Maine is located in the Northeast Ozone

[[Page 35440]]

Transport Region (OTR). The entire State is, therefore, subject to 
section 184(b) of the amended CAA. Section 184(b) requires that RACT be 
implemented in the entire state for all VOC sources covered by a CTG 
issued before or after the enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and 
for all major VOC sources (defined as 50 tons per year for sources in 
the OTR).

What Is a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)?

    A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a ``presumptive 
norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC source category. Under the pre-
amended CAA, EPA issued CTG documents for 29 categories of VOC sources. 
Section 183 of the amended CAA requires that EPA issue 13 new CTGs. 
Appendix E of the General Preamble of Title I (57 FR 18077) lists the 
categories for which EPA plans to issue new CTGs.
    On November 15, 1993, EPA issued a CTG for Synthetic Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations and 
Reactor Processes. Also, on August 27, 1996, EPA issued a CTG for 
shipbuilding and repair operations and on May 26, 1996, EPA issued a 
CTG for wood furniture manufacturing operations. Furthermore, on March 
27, 1998, EPA issued a CTG for aerospace coating operations.

How Has Maine Addressed the New CTG Categories?

    On November 15, 1994, Maine submitted a negative declaration for 
the SOCMI Distillation and Reactors Processes CTG categories. In 
addition, in response to the shipbuilding CTG, Maine submitted a 
license for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY). The SOCMI negative 
declaration and the license for PNSY were approved by EPA on April 18, 
2000 (65 FR 20749). Furthermore, on October 11, 2001, Maine submitted 
licenses for Bath Iron Works, Pratt & Whitney, and Moosehead 
Manufacturing's Dover-Foxcroft and Monson plants. These facilities are 
subject to EPA's CTGs for shipbuilding and repair, aerospace coating 
operations, and wood furniture manufacturing operations, respectively.

What Are the Requirements in the Licenses Submitted by Maine?

    The license for Bath Iron Works imposes VOC coating emission limits 
and recordkeeping requirements on this shipbuilding and repair 
facility. Specifically, the license includes a general use coating 
emission limit, as well as limits for 22 categories of specialty 
coatings. The license for Pratt & Whitney imposes VOC coating emission 
limits and recordkeeping requirements on this aerospace coating 
facility. Specifically, the license includes VOC content limits for 
primers, topcoats, chemical milling maskants and 57 categories of 
specialty coatings. The licenses for Moosehead Manufacturing's two 
facilities impose VOC coating emission limits, work practice standards, 
and recordkeeping requirements on these wood furniture manufacturing 
facilities. Specifically, the licenses include VOC content limits for 
sealers and topcoats.

Why Is EPA approving Maine's submittal?

    EPA has evaluated the licenses submitted for the four facilities 
discussed above and has found that these licenses are consistent with 
the applicable CTG documents. The specific requirements imposed on each 
facility and EPA's evaluation of these requirements are detailed in a 
memorandum dated December 17, 2001, entitled ``Technical Support 
Document--Maine--New CTGs'' (TSD). Copies of the TSD are available, 
upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this document.

What Is the process for EPA's approval of this SIP revision?

    The 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 
adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective July 19, 2002 
without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 
19, 2002.
    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. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on July 19, 2002 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if 
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of 
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of 
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are 
not the subject of an adverse comment.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the licenses for the following facilities and 
incorporating them into the Maine SIP: Bath Iron Works; Pratt & 
Whitney; and Moosehead Manufacturing's Dover-Foxcroft and Monson 
plants. With this approval, and the previous approval of Maine's 
negative declaration for the SOCMI Distillation and Reactors Processes 
CTG categories and the license for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (65 FR 
20749), Maine has met the sections 182(b)(2) and 184(b) CAA 
requirements to address all new CTGs.

Administrative Requirements

    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. For this 
reason, 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). 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 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).
    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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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), because it merely

[[Page 35441]]

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 ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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. 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. 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 July 19, 2002. Interested 
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than 
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the 
comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 3, 2002.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 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 U--Maine

    2. Section 52.1020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(51) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (51) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection on October 11, 2001.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) License Amendment #10 issued by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection to Bath Iron Works Corporation on April 11, 
2001.
    (B) License Amendment #6 issued by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection to Pratt & Whitney on April 26, 2001.
    (C) License Amendment #7 issued by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection to Pratt & Whitney on July 2, 2001.
    (D) License Amendment #2 issued by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection to Moosehead Manufacturing Co.'s Dover-
Foxcroft plant on May 10, 2001.
    (E) License Amendment #2 issued by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection to Moosehead Manufacturing Co.'sMonson plant 
on May 10, 2001.
    (ii) Additional materials
    (A) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal.
    3. In Sec. 52.1031, Table 52.1031 is amended by adding new entries 
to existing state citations for Chapter 134 to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1031  EPA-approved Maine Regulations

* * * * *

                               Table 52.1031.--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Adopted
     State         Title/subject      date by      Approved   Federal Register      52.1020
                                       State     date by EPA      citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                     *         *         *         *         *         *         *
134............  Reasonably             4/11/01      5/20/02  [Insert FR        (c)(51)         VOC RACT
                  available                                    citation from                     determination
                  control                                      published date]                   for Bath Iron
                  technology for                                                                 Works.
                  facilities that
                  emit volatile
                  organic
                  compounds.
134............  Reasonably             4/26/01      5/20/02  [Insert FR        (c)(51)         VOC RACT
                  available              7/2/01                citation from                     determination
                  control                                      published date].                  for Pratt &
                  technology for                                                                 Whitney.
                  facilities that
                  emit volatile
                  organic
                  compounds.
134............  Reasonably             5/10/01      5/20/02  [Insert FR        (c)(51)         VOC RACT
                  available                                    citation from                     determination
                  control                                      published date].                  for for
                  technology for                                                                 Moosehead
                  facilities that                                                                Manufacturing's
                  emit volatile                                                                  Dover-Foxcroft
                  organic                                                                        plant.
                  compounds.

[[Page 35442]]

 
                 Reasonably             5/10/01      5/20/02  [Insert FR        (c)(51)         VOC RACT
                  available                                    citation from                     determination
                  control                                      published date].                  for for
                  technology for                                                                 Moosehead
                  facilities that                                                                Manufacturing's
                  emit volatile                                                                  Monson plant.
                  organic
                  compounds.
 
                     *         *         *         *         *         *         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-12469 Filed 5-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P