[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46393-46398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17698]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[A-1-FRL-7240-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(l) Authority for 
Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants; Equivalency by Permit Provisions; 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp 
and Paper Industry; State of Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a delegation request submitted by the State 
of Maine. Pursuant to section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) requested approval to 
implement and enforce state permit terms and conditions that substitute 
for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
the Pulp and Paper Industry. EPA is granting ME DEP the authority to 
implement and enforce alternative requirements in the form of title V 
permit terms and conditions after EPA has approved the state's 
alternative requirements. This action is being taken in accordance with 
the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on August 14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress 
Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian D. Cohen, Office of Ecosystems 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 02114-2023, Telephone 
(617) 918-1655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Outline

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Why is EPA taking this action?
III. What events led up to this action?
IV. In what ways can EPA delegate HAP standards to state 
governments?
V. What is the process for approval of an Equivalency by Permit 
(EBP) program?
VI. Where is Maine's EBP program in the delegation process?
VII. What are the legal standards governing the EBP program?
VIII. How much oversight authority does EPA have over an EBP 
program?

[[Page 46394]]

IX. What comments did EPA receive and how did we respond?
X. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving a delegation request submitted by ME DEP under 
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412. On January 17, 
2002, EPA proposed to approve ME DEP's delegation request for authority 
to substitute approved state permit terms and conditions for otherwise 
applicable federal section 112 standards (67 FR 2390). This action 
finalizes our approval of ME DEP's delegation request.

II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    On April 15, 1998, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Pulp and Paper Industry (63 FR 
18617), which has been codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. These 
standards regulate emissions of air toxics, or hazardous air pollutants 
(HAPs), within the pulp and paper production source category. The 
standards require both new and existing major sources within this 
category to control HAP emissions using the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). We will refer to these section 112 standards as 
``the Pulp and Paper MACT.''
    When Congress enacted the CAA amendments in 1990, it recognized 
that some state, local, and tribal (S/L/T) air pollution control 
agencies had developed their own air toxics rules. Congress therefore 
revised section 112(l) of the CAA to allow the EPA to approve S/L/T 
rules and regulations to be implemented and enforced in place of 
section 112 rules and requirements when the S/L/T agency demonstrates 
that such alternative standards or programs are no less stringent than 
EPA's rules (65 FR 55810 (September 14, 2000)).
    EPA is approving ME DEP's alternative program because ME DEP has 
demonstrated that its requirements will be no less stringent than the 
Pulp and Paper MACT.

III. What Events Led Up to This Action?

    On July 16, 1999, EPA delegated its authority to implement and 
enforce the Pulp and Paper MACT to ME DEP. Lincoln Pulp and Paper, in 
Lincoln, ME (LPP) is one of several sources in Maine currently subject 
to the Pulp and Paper MACT. On September 25, 2001, ME DEP requested 
authority to implement and enforce alternative requirements to the Pulp 
and Paper MACT at LPP. The EPA Regional Office in Boston has been 
working closely with ME DEP and LPP to define the alternative 
requirements. ME DEP will continue to implement and enforce the Pulp 
and Paper MACT without changes for all other pulp and paper mills in 
Maine.
    ME DEP also asked us to approve its demonstration that it has 
adequate authorities and resources to implement and enforce all CAA 
section 112 programs and rules. This demonstration, when approved, will 
streamline the approval process for future CAA section 112(l) 
applications.

IV. In What Ways Can EPA Delegate HAP Standards to State 
Governments?

    The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (``delegation rule'') 
outline the procedures for delegating the authority to implement and 
enforce HAP standards and other requirements to S/L/T governments. 
Subpart E contains several options to allow S/L/Ts to demonstrate 
equivalency with corresponding federal requirements. These include: 
slight amendments to the federal section 112 rule (40 CFR 63.92); rule 
for rule substitution (40 CFR 63.93); program substitution 
(substituting for part or all of the air toxics program) (40 CFR 
Sec. 63.97); or equivalency by permit (substituting rules through the 
operating permit program) (40 CFR 63.94). Under the Equivalency by 
Permit (``EBP'') provisions, approved S/L/T governments can substitute 
approved alternative requirements through title V operating permit 
terms and conditions (40 CFR 63.94).

V. What Is the Process for Approval of an Equivalency by Permit 
(EBP) Program?

    The EBP process comprises three steps.
    First, EPA gives ``up-front approval'' to a S/L/T EBP program; in 
this case, the state has submitted its EBP program. This step ensures 
that ME DEP meets the 40 CFR 63.91(d) criteria for up-front approval, 
provides a legal foundation for ME DEP to replace some federal section 
112 requirements with alternative, federally enforceable requirements, 
and delineates the specific sources and federal emission standards for 
which the state is accepting delegation (65 FR 55816). If EPA approves 
the program, EPA will amend 40 CFR part 63 to incorporate the approval. 
The approval is contingent upon the state's including, in title V 
permits, terms and conditions no less stringent than the federal 
standard. Until the state writes its approved alternative requirements 
into the specific title V permit and issues it, the federal section 112 
requirements remain applicable to the source (65 FR 55817).
    Second, the state submits pre-draft title V permit terms and 
conditions to EPA for approval. EPA evaluates these terms and 
conditions, which will apply to the sources identified in step 1, and 
determines whether as a whole they are as stringent as the federal 
standard. EPA can identify potential issues with the equivalency 
demonstration and address them prior to the normal operating permit 
review process (65 FR 55817).
    Third, the state writes the pre-draft permit terms and conditions 
that EPA approved into its draft title V permits. These then go through 
the regular title V permit issuance process, during which the public 
has an opportunity to comment on the submittal (40 CFR 70.7(a)(1)(ii) 
and (h)). EPA and the public can review the alternative requirements 
before final delegation occurs (65 FR 55817). EPA does not delegate 
authority unless the state issues the title V permit with the permit 
terms exactly as EPA approved them.

VI. Where Is Maine's EBP Program in the Delegation Process?

    This rulemaking completes step 1 in the delegation process. ME 
DEP's EBP program has also completed step 2 in the delegation process. 
The delegation rule allows a state to submit its pre-draft permit terms 
and conditions at the same time as its request for up-front approval 
(40 CFR 63.94(c)(7)). In accordance with 40 CFR 63.94(d)(1)-(3), on 
January 17, 2002, ME DEP submitted LPP's pre-draft permit terms and 
conditions in a side-by-side comparison of the alternative requirements 
with the Pulp and Paper MACT requirements. EPA reviewed the pre-draft 
title V permit terms and conditions for LPP, identified several issues, 
and worked closely with ME DEP to ensure that our concerns were 
addressed. In a letter dated April 15, 2002, the EPA Regional 
Administrator conditionally approved the pre-draft permit terms and 
conditions. The approval is conditioned upon LPP meeting a number of 
requirements, including an initial performance demonstration to 
document that the alternative approach achieves emission reductions 
equivalent to or greater than those required by the Pulp and Paper 
MACT.
    To complete the final step, the state will incorporate the approved 
permit terms and conditions into its draft title V permits for the 
affected sources (40 CFR 63.94(e)(1)). The permit must be issued or 
revised according to the provisions of 40 CFR 70.7 before EPA may 
finally delegate authority to the state to implement alternatives to 
the Pulp and Paper MACT through issuance of the permit (40 CFR 
70.7(a)(1)(ii)).

[[Page 46395]]

There will be an opportunity for public comment during this process.

VII. What Are the Legal Standards Governing the EBP Program?

    Section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 63 subpart E allow S/L/T 
governments to develop and submit EBP programs to EPA for approval. If 
EPA approves a S/L/T's EBP program, the S/L/T can implement and enforce 
it ``in lieu of'' the Pulp and Paper MACT requirements through CAA 
title V permits. Section 112(l) allows us to approve S/L/T programs if 
the S/L/T can demonstrate that the program ``achieves equivalent or 
better environmental results'' as compared to the federal standards (65 
FR at 55810). An EBP program ``shall not include authority to set 
standards less stringent than'' the federal standards (CAA Section 
112(l)(1)).
    Sections 63.91(d) and 63.94(b) specify the criteria that a S/L/T 
must meet for EPA to approve its EBP program. A request for program 
approval must: (1) To the extent possible, identify all specific 
sources or source categories for which the S/L/T is seeking authority 
to implement and enforce section 112 standards, and if any such sources 
comprise a subset of sources within the S/L/T's jurisdiction, request 
delegation for the remainder of the sources in those source categories; 
(2) to the extent possible, identify all existing and future section 
112 emission standards for which the S/L/T is seeking authority to 
implement and enforce alternative requirements; (3) include a one-time 
demonstration that the S/L/T has an approved title V operating permit 
program and that the program permits the affected sources; and (4) meet 
the requirements in 40 CFR 63.91(d) for demonstrating that adequate 
authority and resources exist to implement and enforce the S/L/T EBP 
program. ME DEP's EBP program has met these criteria. See 62 FR 7939 
(March 24, 1997) and 66 FR 52874 (December 17, 2001); Request for 
Approval of State Requirements that Substitute for a Section 112 Rule 
(September 25, 2001) (letter from James Brooks, Director, Maine DEP 
Bureau of Air Quality, submitting state's EBP program to EPA).
    Furthermore, 40 CFR 63.94(d) specifies the criteria that the 
alternative requirements must meet for EPA to approve them. EPA's 
delegation of authority to implement the Pulp and Paper MACT is 
contingent upon the state including in title V permits terms and 
conditions that are no less stringent than the federal standard and 
have been approved by EPA (65 FR at 55817).
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.94(d), all issued or revised title V permits 
under an approved program must: (1) Identify the specific terms and 
conditions with which the source would be required to comply pursuant 
to its title V permit, and contain permit terms and conditions that 
reflect all of the requirements of the otherwise applicable federal 
section 112 requirement; (2) identify specifically how the alternative 
requirements in the form of permit terms and conditions are ``the same 
as or differ from the requirements in the otherwise applicable Federal 
section 112 rule''; and (3) provide EPA with detailed documentation 
that demonstrates that the alternative requirements are at least as 
stringent as the otherwise applicable federal requirements, as 
specified in 40 CFR 63.93(b).
    In this way, the regulations governing the EBP program ensure that 
the state's program sets environmental standards at least as stringent 
as those required under the applicable federal regulations, and that 
each affected source under the program will achieve compliance no later 
than would be required by the federal regulations. The EBP program 
simply allows S/L/Ts to meet these requirements by writing its 
standards into title V permits after EPA has approved the alternative 
requirements.

VIII. How Much Oversight Authority Does EPA Have Over an EBP 
Program?

    EPA oversees enforcement and compliance with the federal HAP 
standards in a number of ways through the EBP process.
    First, EPA reviews the S/L/T's EBP program and goes through notice 
and comment rulemaking during the ``up-front approval'' step. EPA 
approves the EBP program only after ensuring that the S/L/T has 
adequate authority and resources to implement and enforce it consistent 
with CAA requirements.
    Second, even after a S/L/T's EBP program has been approved, EPA may 
object to a title V permit for noncompliance with applicable CAA 
requirements. CAA Section 505(b)(1); 40 CFR 70.8(c). Under 40 CFR 
70.8(a), a state that is authorized to implement the title V permit 
program must submit to EPA a copy of each permit application (including 
any application for permit modification), each proposed permit, and 
each final title V permit. If EPA determines that any proposed permit 
is not in compliance with applicable requirements under the CAA and 
objects to issuance of the permit within 45 days of receipt of the 
proposed permit and all necessary supporting information, the permit 
cannot be issued (40 CFR 70.8(c)). If the state fails, within 90 days 
after the date of EPA's objection, to revise and submit a proposed 
permit in response to the objection, EPA will issue or deny the permit 
in accordance with the requirements of the federal program promulgated 
under title V of the CAA (40 CFR 70.8(c)(4)).
    In each pre-draft, proposed and final permit, ME DEP is required to 
indicate prominently that the permit contains alternative section 112 
requirements. In addition, ``[i]n the notice of pre-draft permit 
availability, the state shall specifically solicit public comments on 
the alternative requirements'' (40 CFR 63.94(e)(2)).
    Third, even after the state issues a title V permit, EPA can 
terminate, modify, or revoke and reissue a permit upon a finding of 
good cause (40 CFR 70.7(g)). EPA can reopen and revise a permit under a 
number of circumstances--(e.g. where new CAA requirements apply), where 
EPA finds that the permit contains a material mistake, or where EPA 
determines that the permit must be revised or revoked to assure 
compliance with applicable requirements (40 CFR 70.7(f)). If EPA finds 
such cause, it will notify the state and the permittee of this finding 
in writing (40 CFR 70.7(g)). The state must then forward to EPA a 
``proposed determination of termination, modification, or revocation 
and reissuance,'' as appropriate (40 CFR 70.7(g)(2)). If the state 
fails to submit a proposed determination or fails to resolve any 
objection that EPA makes to the permit, EPA will ultimately terminate, 
modify, or revoke and reissue the permit (40 CFR 70.7(g)(5)).
    Fourth, EPA retains authority to enforce any applicable rule, 
emission standard or requirement established under CAA section 112 (40 
CFR 63.90(d)(2)). In addition, the CAA authorizes EPA to enforce all 
rules, programs, state or local permits, or other requirements approved 
under part 63, including the EBP program, and all resulting title V 
operating permit conditions (40 CFR 63.90(e)).
    Finally, whenever EPA determines that a permitting authority is not 
adequately administering or enforcing a program in accordance with the 
requirements of the CAA, EPA must notify the state (40 CFR 
70.10(b)(1)). If the state's failure to administer or enforce the 
program persists after such notice the state may be subject to 
sanctions under section 179(b) of the Act, and EPA may ultimately 
promulgate, administer, and enforce a federal permit program (40 CFR 
70.10(b)(2)).

[[Page 46396]]

    Thus, at every step in the EBP process, EPA reviews the S/L/T's 
program and its implementation to ensure that all applicable federal 
requirements are met. First, EPA ensures that the S/L/T has adequate 
authority and resources to implement and enforce the EBP program 
consistent with CAA requirements. Second, EPA reviews the pre-draft 
title V permit terms and conditions and can object to any proposed 
permit that fails to set standards at least as stringent as those 
required under the applicable federal regulations. Third, throughout 
the life of a title V permit that has been issued, EPA retains 
authority to terminate, modify, or revoke and reissue it upon a finding 
of good cause. Fourth, EPA retains authority to enforce the terms and 
conditions of any title V permit. Finally, whenever EPA determines that 
a permitting authority is not adequately administering and enforcing a 
program, EPA is authorized to implement a federal permit program.

IX. What Comments Did EPA Receive and How Did We Respond?

    On February 7, 2002, in response to the proposed rule, the 
Penobscot Indian Nation (``the Nation'') submitted comments to EPA. EPA 
did not receive any other comments.
    The Nation's reservation includes over 110 islands in the Penobscot 
River. Many of these islands are downstream of LPP, including Indian 
Island, seat of the Nation's government. The discharge from LPP's waste 
treatment system empties into the Penobscot River.
    a. Comment 1: The Nation is concerned about methanol emissions at 
LPP. Since its tribal reservation lands are located directly in LPP's 
discharge flow, the Nation believes that LPP's proposal to move its 
methanol emissions through its wastewater biological treatment system 
will significantly impact the Nation's natural resources all along the 
aquatic ecosystems of the river and islands.
    Response: EPA recognizes the Nation's concern about methanol 
releases into the Penobscot River. ME DEP has demonstrated, however, 
that its EBP program will ensure LPP achieves a level of control at 
least as stringent as the federal requirements in the Pulp and Paper 
MACT.
    The Pulp and Paper MACT requires kraft pulp mills to control 
emissions of condensate streams from certain processes (40 CFR 63.440 
through 63.459). One control option for kraft pulp mills is to enclose 
the condensate streams in a closed collection system and route the 
enclosed streams to a wastewater biological treatment system. Emissions 
that would have been emitted from an open sewer system can be captured 
and then destroyed in a biological treatment unit (40 CFR 63.446). The 
federal regulation requires kraft pulp mills to either: (1) Reduce or 
destroy the total HAPs by at least 92% or more by weight; or (2) for 
mills that perform bleaching, to remove 10.2 pounds per ton or more of 
total HAP per oven dried ton of pulp (ODP) (40 CFR 63.446(e)).
    LPP has proposed an alternative to the Pulp and Paper MACT where 
the condensate streams are enclosed as required in the federal rule, 
except that the streams will be routed through the facility's wetwell 
and primary clarifier prior to reaching the biological treatment unit. 
The wetwell and the primary clarifier are open to the atmosphere and 
therefore some HAP emissions will be lost from these units. To 
compensate for the emissions lost from these locations, LPP has 
completed a sewer upgrade project which includes sending two waste 
streams not regulated by the Pulp and Paper MACT through the closed 
collection system. EPA has calculated, based on preliminary data 
provided by LPP, that the losses from the wetwell and clarifier are 
less than the extra reductions from LPP's upgraded sewer project and 
the control of additional waste streams. EPA has issued a conditional 
approval of the pre-draft permit terms and conditions that requires LPP 
to conduct an initial performance demonstration to document 
equivalency. The alternative, therefore, must result in emission 
reductions that are at least equivalent to those required by the Pulp 
and Paper MACT.
    Whether LPP complies with the Pulp and Paper MACT or with 
alternative requirements through an approved EBP program, it must 
destroy HAPs by at least 92% or remove at least 10.2 lb/ODT of HAPs. 
Therefore, the alternative proposed by LPP will not significantly 
impact the Nation's natural resources in comparison with continued 
enforcement of the Pulp and Paper MACT. In addition, adequate 
monitoring provisions are in place to ensure that when LPP does emit 
too much methanol into the river or the air, the state and EPA can take 
appropriate actions to restore the performance required by the MACT.
    b. Comment 2: The Nation believes that EPA's approval of ME DEP's 
program will affect enforcement of and compliance with the federal 
standards.
    Response: As discussed above in section VII, the legal framework 
governing the EBP program ensures that the state's program sets 
environmental standards at least as stringent as those required under 
the applicable federal regulations. EPA has worked closely with ME DEP 
and LPP to ensure that the alternative requirements for LPP will 
achieve equivalent or better environmental results. In addition, as 
discussed in section VIII, EPA's delegation in no way impairs the 
Agency's authority to oversee and enforce those equivalent 
requirements. EPA's delegation therefore will not affect enforcement of 
and compliance with the federal standards.
    c. Comment 3: The Nation considers approval of ME DEP's EBP program 
to be inappropriate in light of EPA's trust responsibility to the 
Nation.
    Response: The federal government has a trust responsibility to 
federally-recognized Indian tribes that arises from Indian treaties, 
statutes, executive orders, and the historical relations between the 
United States and Indian tribes. EPA acknowledges that it must act in 
accordance with this trust responsibility when taking actions that 
affect tribal interests, including consulting with affected tribes and 
assessing tribal interests and concerns in decision making.
    EPA believes its action in approving ME DEP's EBP program is 
consistent with its trust responsibility to the Nation. As discussed 
above, EPA has determined that approval of ME DEP's EBP program will 
not have any adverse effect on the Nation's resources because the 
program will achieve a level of emissions control at least as stringent 
as the applicable federal standard and is subject to a level of EPA 
oversight equivalent to the existing part 63 and part 70 programs.
    In addition, upon EPA's receipt of this application from ME DEP in 
September 2001, EPA immediately recognized the need to consult with the 
Nation in Maine and initiated such discussions in October. EPA 
corresponded several times with representatives at the Nation's 
Department of Natural Resources from December through February, and 
also met with the Nation's representatives in Maine on February 20, 
2002.
    During the public comment period, the Nation also raised questions 
as to how EPA would consult with tribes in our oversight of the CAA 
permit program. The Regional air permitting program and the Nation have 
agreed to discuss the issue of identifying facilities that EPA expects 
to have an impact in Indian country and to work toward developing an 
approach for consultation with Indian tribes in appropriate cases as 
permits are being developed. EPA

[[Page 46397]]

will seek and carefully consider the Nation's input during this 
process.
Final Action
    EPA is approving ME DEP's request to implement and enforce 
alternative requirements in the form of title V permit terms and 
conditions for LPP for subpart S.

X. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled, 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under 
Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal implications 
because LPP is located near the Penobscot Nation's territories. This 
action will not, however, impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, the requirements of 
sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.
    EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of 
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. After carefully considering the Nation's 
concerns, as discussed above in EPA's response to comments, EPA has 
concluded that this action will have no adverse effect on tribal 
resources because the regulations governing the EBP program ensure that 
the state's program sets environmental standards at least as stringent 
as those required under the applicable federal regulations. In 
addition, EPA's delegation in no way impairs the Agency's authority to 
oversee and enforce the state's equivalent standards.

C. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), 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.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. This action simply allows Maine 
to implement equivalent alternative requirements to replace a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et. seq. generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute 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 entities with jurisdiction over 
populations of less than 50,000. This final rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because 
approvals under 40 CFR 63.94 do not create any new requirements but 
simply allows the state to implement and enforce permit terms in place 
of federal requirements that the EPA is already imposing. Therefore, 
because this 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.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 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 
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, 
or to 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 annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector.
    This Federal action allows Maine to implement equivalent 
alternative requirements to replace pre-existing requirements under 
Federal 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.

G. 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. 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. This rule is not a

[[Page 46398]]

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

I. 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 September 13, 2002. 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, Administrative 
practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 23, 2002.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E--Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal 
Authorities

    2. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(19) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.99  Delegated Federal authorities.

    (a) *  *  *
    (19) Maine.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) may 
implement and enforce alternative requirements in the form of title V 
permit terms and conditions for Lincoln Pulp and Paper, located in 
Lincoln, Maine, for subpart S--National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry. This action 
is contingent upon ME DEP including, in title V permits, terms and 
conditions that are no less stringent than the federal standard and 
have been approved by EPA. In addition, the requirement applicable to 
the source remains the federal section 112 requirement until EPA has 
approved the alternative permit terms and conditions and the final 
title V permit is issued.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-17698 Filed 7-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U