Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(l) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol . . . Page 1 of 13 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/Zt}02/July/Day-15/a17698.htm 

Last October 29th, 2009 . Federal Register Environment up~aLQCUmenLS ( .)~ 

You are here: EPA Home Federal Register FR Years FR Months FR Days _FR 

Documents Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(I) 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 

Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) 

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 

Note : EPA no longer updates this information, but it may , 

be useful as a reference or resource . 

[Federal Register : July 15, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 135)] 

[Rules and Regulations] 

[Page 46393-463981 

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais .access .gpo .gov] 

[DOCID :fr15jy02-11] 

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[A-1-FRL-7240-7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) 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 . 

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

SIIMMARY : EPA is approving a delegation request submitted by the State 

of Maine . Pursuant to section 112(1) 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 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/a17698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol. . . Page 2 of 13 

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 4639411 

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 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-1 5/al7698.htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol . . . Page 3 of 13 

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(1) 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 

adequate authorities and 

section 112 programs and 

to approve its demonstration that it has 

resources to implement and enforce all CAA 

rules . This demonstration, when approved, will 

streamline the approval process for future CAA section 112(1) 

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 . 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/a17698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol. . . Page 4 of 13 

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) ) . 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/a17698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol. . . Page 5 of 13 

[[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(1) 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(1) 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 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIFJ2002/July/Day-15/a17698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol . . . Page 6 of 13 

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 

http ://www.epa .gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/al7698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol . . . Page 7 of 13 

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 4639611 

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 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/a17698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol. . . Page 8 of 13 

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 

to conduct an initial performance demonstration to document 

equivalency . The alternative, therefore, must result in emission 

LPP 

reductions that are at least equivalent to those required by the Pulp 

and Paper MACT . 

Whether LPP complies 

alternative requirements 

with the Pulp and Paper MACT or with 

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 

program will affect enforcement of and 

standards . 

Response : 

governing the 

environmental 

EPA's approval of ME DEP's 

compliance with the federal 

As discussed above in section VII, the legal 

EBP program ensures that the state's program 

framework 

sets 

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 

Nati on . 

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 

assessing tribal interests and concerns in decision making . 

and 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/al7698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air Pol . . . Page 9 of 13 

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 4639711 

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'' ( 59 FR 22951 , 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 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/al7698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air . . . Page 10 of 13 

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 

11 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 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/al7698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air . . . Page 11 of 13 

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 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-I 5/a17698.htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(1) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air . . . Page 12 of 13 

are technical standards (e .g ., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, 

adopted by voluntary 

to provide Congress, 

not to use available 

This action does 

did not consider the 

and business practices) that are developed or 

consensus standards bodies . The NTTAA directs EPA 

through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 

and applicable voluntary consensus standards . 

not involve technical standards . Therefore, EPA 

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 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/a17698 .htm 12/11/2009 
Approval and Promulgation of Section 112(l) Authority for Regulating Hazardous Air . . . Page 13 of 13 

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 

Notices 2009 2008 2007 2006 ; ;2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 r . .... .. .. _ . . .. .. For 2000 1999'

11 

1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 

http ://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2002/July/Day-15/al 7698 .htm 12/11/2009