Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20749

June 1, 1999, except for the expiration

date;

(12) Piney Creek Ltd. Partnership,

Clarion County, OP 16–127, effective

date of December 18, 1998 except for the

ton per year and #/hr limits in

Condition 4, Conditions 5 and 9;

(13) Scrubgrass Generating Co. L.P.,

Venango County, OP 61–181, April 30,

1998, except for Conditions 4, 6, 7, and

9;

(14) Statoil Energy Power Paxton, LP,

Dauphin County, OP 22–02015,

effective date of June 30, 1999 except for

the expiration date and Conditions 6,

16, 19 and 20;

(15) Stoney Creek Technologies,

L.L.C., Delaware County, CP–23–0002,

effective date of February 24, 1999

except for Conditions 4, 6, 10.A.2,

10.B—D and 11 and the expiration date;

(16) Superpac, Inc., Bucks County,

OP–09–0003, effective date of March 25,

1999; except for Conditions 4, 5, 6.a, 7,

8 (as it relates to Conditions 5 and 7 in

subparagraph 8a and 8b), 9.a, 9.b, 10

and 11.b, c, e, g and h and the

expiration date;

(17) Transit America Inc.,

Philadelphia County, PA, PLID: 1563,

effective date of June 11, 1997, except

for the expiration date and Conditions 4

and 5;

(18) Wheelabrator Frackville Energy

Company, Schuylkill County, OP 54–

0005, effective date of September 18,

1998, except for the particulate and SO2

emission limits found in Condition 4,

Condition 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13

and the expiration date;

(19) American Bank Note Co.,

Montgomery County, OP–46–0075,

effective date of August 10, 1998 except

Conditions 4.a, 12, 13, 14, and 15;

(20) Atlas Roofing Corporation, Bucks

County, OP–09–0039, effective date of

March 10, 1999, except for Conditions 6,

7, 8.b, 9–15 and the expiration date;

(21) Beckett Corporation, Chester

County, OP–15–0040, effective date of

July 8, 1997, except for Conditions 9–17

and the expiration date;

(22) Cove Shoe Company, Blair

County, OP 07–02028, effective date of

April 7, 1999, except for Conditions 5,

10 and the expiration date;

(23) Fleetwood Motor Homes,

Northumberland County, OP 49–0011,

effective date of October 30,1998, except

for Conditions 3, 5, 23–31 and the

expiration date;

(24) Hedstrom Corporation, Bedford

County, OP 05–02002A, effective date of

April 8, 1999, except for Conditions 5,

6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15.a, 16, 17, 18 and the

expiration date;

(25) Klearfold Inc., Bucks County,

OP–09–0012, effective date of April 15,

1999, except for Conditions 4, 6, 7–10,

12.F, 13–22 and the expiration date;

(26) National Label Company,

Montgomery County, OP–46–0040,

effective date of July 28, 1997, except for

the expiration date and Conditions 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, 11, the Ton per year limit in

Condition 12, 14–16.

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) Remainder of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania’s August 1, 1995,

January 6, 1995, June 14, 1995,

December 8, 1995, May 31, 1995, May

2, 1996, March 21, 1996, November 4,

1997, March 24, 1998, December 7,

1998, February 2, 1999, March 3, 1999,

April 9, 1999 and April 20, 1999 and

March 24, 1998, May 29, 1998, July 24,

1998, October 2, 1998, October 16, 1998,

December 7, 1998, February 2, 1999,

April 9, 1999, June 22, 1999 and July 28,

1999 VOC and NOX RACT SIP

submittals and supplements.

(B) Letter from the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection, dated 2/25/2000, clarifying

which provisions of its RACT permits

are to be incorporated into the

Pennsylvania State Implementation

Plan.

[FR Doc. 00–9382 Filed 4–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME–003–01–7004a; A–1–FRL–6572–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine;

RACT for VOC Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving several

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Maine. EPA is also issuing a limited

approval of one regulation submitted as

a SIP revision by the State of Maine.

These SIP revisions establish

requirements for certain facilities which

emit volatile organic compounds

(VOCs). The intended effect of this

action is to approve these revisions into

the Maine SIP. This action is being

taken in accordance with the Clean Air

Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on June 19, 2000 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by May 18, 2000. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning Unit (mail code CAQ),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 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,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA 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,

arnold.anne@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today’s

action addresses several State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP). These

SIP submittals contain reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

requirements for certain VOC sources.

On November 3, 1993, EPA received

a formal State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submittal from the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) containing Chapter 134

‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Facilities that Emit

Volatile Organic Compounds.’’ In

addition, on April 28, 1995, Maine DEP

submitted a revised version of this rule

to EPA as a SIP revision in order to

address several issues EPA had

identified with the previous submittal.

Furthermore, Maine DEP also

subsequently submitted source specific

SIP revisions for several VOC sources on

January 10, 1996, July 1, 1997, October

9, 1997, November 14, 1997, and

December 10, 1997.

Background

On November 15, 1990, amendments

to the 1977 Clean Air Act were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. In

Maine, pursuant to the Clean Air Act

Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the

Portland area (York, Sagadahoc, and

Cumberland counties), the LewistonAuburn area (Androscoggin and

Kennebec counties), and the Knox and

Lincoln Counties area were designated

as moderate ozone nonattainment areas

and the Hancock and Waldo counties

area was designated as a marginal ozone

nonattainment area. See 56 FR 56694

(Nov. 6, 1991).

Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act

requires states to adopt RACT rules for

20750 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 Technique Guideline (CTG)—

i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment

of the CAAA of 1990; (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. As previously mentioned, three

areas in Maine were designated

moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

These areas were thus subject to the

section 182(b)(2) RACT requirement.

Furthermore, the State of Maine is

located in the Northeast Ozone

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

CAAA of 1990 and for all major VOC

sources (defined as 50 tons per year for

sources in the OTR).

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. Maine has

previously addressed all of EPA’s pre1990 CTGs and EPA has approved

Maine’s submittals for these source

categories. See 57 FR 3946, 58 FR

15281, 59 FR 31154, and 60 FR 33730.

Today’s document addresses

requirements adopted by Maine

pursuant to the non-CTG and new (i.e.,

post-1990) CTG requirements of the

CAA.

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

finishing operations. Furthermore, on

March 27, 1998, EPA issued a CTG for

aerospace coating operations. CTGs for

the remaining Appendix E categories

have not yet been issued.

EPA’s Evaluation of Maine’s Submittals

(A) New CTGs

In response to the CAA requirement

to adopt RACT for all sources covered

by a new CTG, on November 15, 1994,

Maine submitted a negative declaration

for the SOCMI Distillation and Reactors

Processes CTG categories. Through the

negative declaration, the State of Maine

is asserting that there are no sources

within the State that would be subject

to a rule for these source categories. EPA

is approving this negative declaration

submittal as meeting the section

182(b)(2) and section 184(b) RACT

requirements for these two source

categories. However, if evidence is

submitted by May 18, 2000 that there

are existing sources within the State of

Maine that, for purposes of meeting the

RACT requirements, would be subject to

a rule for these categories, if developed,

such comments would be considered

adverse and EPA would withdraw its

approval action on the negative

declarations.

EPA’s shipbuilding CTG applies to

shipbuilding and ship repair coating

sources which are major VOC sources,

i.e., those with the potential to emit 50

tons or more per year in Maine. On

October 9, 1997, Maine submitted a SIP

revision for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

EPA has evaluated the license submitted

for this facility and has found it to be

approvable. Generally, the facility is

required to meet the VOC coating limits

recommended by EPA’s shipbuilding

CTG. The specific requirements

imposed on Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

and EPA’s evaluation of these

requirements are detailed in a

memorandum dated March 17, 2000,

entitled ‘‘Technical Support

Document—Maine—RACT for VOC

sources’’ (TSD). Copies of this document

are available, upon request, from the

EPA Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document. In

addition, the Bath Iron Works facility in

Bath, Maine is also subject to EPA’s

shipbuilding CTG. Maine DEP has not

yet addressed VOC RACT for this

facility but will need to do so in order

to fulfill the State’s new CTG CAA

obligations.

EPA’s CTG for wood furniture

finishing operations applies to facilities

with the potential to emit 25 tons of

VOC or more per year. EPA is aware of

at least two facilities in Maine which

may be covered by this CTG. They are

Moosehead Manufacturing’s Monson

and Dover-Foxcroft plants. Maine needs

to address these facilities, as well as any

other facilities to which the wood

furniture CTG may be applicable, in

order to fulfill the State’s new CTG CAA

obligations.

EPA’s CTG for aerospace coating

operations applies to facilities with the

potential to emit 25 tons of VOC or more

per year. EPA is aware of at least one

source in Maine, Pratt & Whitney,

which may be covered by this CTG.

Maine needs to address this facility, as

well as any other facilities to which the

aerospace CTG may be applicable, in

order to fulfill the state’s new CTG CAA

obligations.

(B) Chapter 134 Regulation

Maine’s Chapter 134 regulation

requires major non-CTG VOC sources to

implement RACT. The rule is based on

EPA Region I’s working draft rule

entitled ‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Facilities that Emit

Volatile Organic Compounds’’ and

EPA’s national ‘‘Model Volatile Organic

Compound Rules for Reasonably

Available Control Technology’’ (June

1992).

Maine’s Chapter 134 is generally

consistent with EPA guidance, however,

there is one outstanding issue associated

with this regulation. This issue involves

the generic nature of the rule and is

further discussed below. In addition,

there are two other aspects of the rule

which are somewhat unique to Maine’s

regulation. These issues are also further

discussed below.

(1) Outstanding Issue: Generic Nature of

the Regulation

Maine’s Chapter 134 establishes three

RACT options. The first two options are

methods of achieving RACT by either:

(a) operating a system to capture and

control VOC emissions such that total

VOC emissions do not exceed 15% of

the uncontrolled daily VOC emissions;

or (b) reducing VOC use and emissions

such that total VOC emissions do not

exceed 20% of the total daily VOC

emissions in calendar year 1990

(calculated on either a mass of VOC per

mass of solids applied basis for surface

coating sources or a mass of VOC per

unit of production basis). The third

method, stated in section 3(A)(3) of the

rule, is to submit a variety of strategies

as an alternative compliance plan to

reduce VOC emissions.

Since the first two options of Chapter

134 define presumptive norms for

RACT, that portion of the regulation

meets the requirements of section 182 of

the CAA. However, since the third

option describes a process by which

RACT can be defined but does not

define RACT as required by the CAA,

this portion of the rule is not

approvable. Maine must define

explicitly, and have approved by EPA,

RACT for all of those sources which do

not conform to the presumptive RACT

options outlined in the regulation.

Maine has submitted to EPA many,

although not all, of the necessary single

source SIP revisions. Specifically, SIP

revisions have been submitted for all of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20751

the applicable sources in the following

counties: York, Sagadahoc, Cumberland,

Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox,

Lincoln, Hancock, Waldo, Aroostook,

Franklin, Oxford, and Piscataquis. The

sources for which non-CTG VOC RACT

determinations have been submitted are

discussed below in section (C). Maine

must, however, submit, and EPA must

approve, SIP revisions for all of the

remaining sources which do not choose

to conform to the presumptive RACT

options outlined in the regulation in

order for Chapter 134 to be approvable

statewide. These sources are: GP Chip’n

Saw and Mearl Corporation in

Washington County, Irving Tanning in

Somerset County, and Great Northern

Paper’s two facilities in Penobscot

County.

(2) Other Aspects Unique to Maine’s

Rule

There are two other aspects of Chapter

134 which are unique to Maine’s rule.

These are the requirements for pulp and

paper processes and the exemptions

included in the rule. Section 3(A)(4) of

Chapter 134 (Option D) specifically

addresses VOC RACT requirements for

pulp and paper processes. For example,

Option D requires that emissions from

the digester system, multiple effect

evaporator systems, condensate stripper

systems, smelt tanks, and lime kilns be

controlled through incineration or wet

scrubber systems in accordance with

Maine’s Chapter 124 ‘‘Total Reduced

Sulfur Control from Kraft Pulp Mills.’’

Chapter 134 also includes exemptions

for specific pieces of equipment. For

example, the rule contains an

exemption for kraft recovery boilers.

EPA has determined that the Chapter

134 requirements for pulp and paper

processes and the exemptions included

in the rule are approvable and that the

rule is generally consistent with EPA

guidance with the exception of the

outstanding issue (i.e., the generic

nature of the rule) discussed above. The

specific requirements of Chapter 134

and EPA’s evaluation of these

requirements are detailed in the TSD.

Copies of this document are available,

upon request, from the EPA Regional

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

(C) Non-CTG RACT Determinations

On January 10, 1996, Maine submitted

licenses for the following pulp and

paper facilities: SD Warren Paper

Company (Westbrook and Skowhegan),

Lincoln Pulp and Paper, James River,

International Paper, Boise Cascade, and

Georgia Pacific. Also, on July 1, 1997,

Maine submitted licenses for Champion

International, Boise Cascade, and

International Paper to EPA as a SIP

revision. These facilities are all pulp

and paper mills. These licenses include

conditions which re-state some of the

Chapter 134 Option D requirements.

The licenses also address VOC

emissions from operations that are not

addressed in Option D, such as the

mechanical pulping operations which

occur at Boise Cascade, Champion

International, and International Paper.

In addition to the pulp and paper

licenses, Maine also submitted a license

for Pioneer Plastics on July 1, 1997.

Pioneer Plastics manufactures specialty

resins and produces a decorative

laminate used for counter tops and

furniture. Generally, Pioneer’s license

requires emissions from certain reactors

to be vented to an incinerator and

emissions from other reactors to be

vented to a vapor condenser. Also, on

November 14, 1997 and December 10,

1997, Maine submitted licenses for

Prime Tanning and Dexter Shoe. Prime

Tanning is a leather finishing facility.

Prime Tanning’s license includes

provisions which impose work practice

and equipment standards, as well as

VOC coating emission limitations, on

the facility. Dexter Shoe is a shoe

manufacturing facility. The majority of

Dexter’s VOC emissions are generated

through the use of solvent based primers

and adhesives. The use of low VOC

products and the implementation of

certain work practice and equipment

standards were determined to represent

RACT for Dexter. Furthermore, a license

for Nissen Bakeries was submitted to

EPA as a SIP revision on October 9,

1997. The majority of VOC emissions at

this facility resulted from the baking of

yeast-leavened bread. The license issued

to Nissen Bakeries requires that the

facility cease production of yeast

leavened bread by May 15, 1999.

EPA has evaluated the licenses

submitted for all of the facilities listed

above and has found that these licenses

are consistent with EPA guidance. The

specific requirements imposed on each

facility and EPA’s evaluation of these

requirements are detailed in the TSD.

Copies of this document are available,

upon request, from the EPA Regional

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

anticipates no adverse comments on this

rulemaking. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective June 19, 2000

unless adverse or critical comments are

received by May 18, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

on June 19, 2000.

Final Action

EPA is issuing a full approval of

Maine’s Chapter 134 ‘‘Reasonably

Available Control Technology for

Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic

Compounds’’ as meeting the CAA

sections 182(b)(2)(C) and 184(b) nonCTG VOC RACT requirements for York,

Sagadahoc, Cumberland, Androscoggin,

Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Hancock,

Waldo, Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford,

and Piscataquis Counties. EPA is also

issuing a limited approval of Maine’s

Chapter 134 for Washington, Somerset,

and Penobscot Counties.

In addition, EPA is approving licenses

for the following facilities and

incorporating them into the Maine SIP:

SD Warren Paper Company (Westbrook

and Skowhegan), Lincoln Pulp and

Paper, James River, International Paper,

Georgia Pacific, Pioneer Plastics,

Champion International, Nissen

Bakeries, Prime Tanning, Dexter Shoe,

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and Boise

Cascade.

Furthermore, EPA is also approving

Maine’s negative declaration for the

SOCMI Distillation and Reactor

Processes CTG categories as meeting the

CAA VOC RACT requirements for these

source categories.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

Implementation Plan. Each request for

revision to the State Implementation

Plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

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. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

20752 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. 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 June 19, 2000.

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).) 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Maine was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 24, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

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)(45) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(45) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Maine Department of Environmental

Protection on April 28, 1995, January

10, 1996, July 1, 1997, October 9, 1997,

November 14, 1997, and December 10,

1997.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Chapter 134 of the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

regulations entitled ‘‘Reasonably

Available Control Technology for

Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic

Compounds,’’ effective in the State of

Maine on February 15, 1995, is granted

a full approval for the following

counties: York, Sagadahoc, Cumberland,

Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox,

Lincoln, Hancock, Waldo, Aroostook,

Franklin, Oxford, and Piscataquis. This

rule is granted a limited approval for

Washington, Somerset, and Penobscot

Counties.

(B) License Amendment #5 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Prime Tanning Company

on July 23, 1997.

(C) License Amendment #6 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Prime Tanning Company

on October 27, 1997.

(D) License issued by the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

to JJ Nissen Baking Company on

February 25, 1997.

(E) License Amendment #4 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard on July 25, 1997.

(F) License issued by the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

to Dexter Shoe Company on December

5, 1996.

(G) License Amendment #1 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Dexter Shoe Company on

October 20, 1997.

(H) License Amendment #3 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Pioneer Plastics

Corporation on June 16, 1997.

(I) License Amendment #10 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Georgia Pacific

Corporation on January 4, 1996.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20753

(J) License Amendment #5 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Champion International

Corporation on January 18, 1996.

(K) License Amendment #8 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to International Paper

Company on October 4, 1995.

(L) License Amendment #9 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to International Paper

Company on December 13, 1995.

(M) License Amendment #6 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to James River Corporation

on December 8, 1995.

(N) License Amendment #8 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Lincoln Pulp and Paper

Co. on December 18, 1995.

(O) License Amendment #14 issued

by the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection to S.D.

Warren Paper Company’s Westbrook,

Maine facility on December 18, 1995.

(P) License Amendment #14 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to S.D. Warren Paper

Company’s Skowhegan, Maine facility

on October 4, 1995.

(Q) License Amendment #15 issued

by the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection to S.D.

Warren Paper Company’s Skowhegan,

Maine facility on January 9, 1996.

(R) License Amendment #11 issued by

the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection to Boise Cascade Corporation

on December 20, 1995.

(ii) Additional materials

(A) Letter from the Maine Department

of Environmental Protection dated

November 15, 1994 stating a negative

declaration for the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

Distillation and Reactors Control

Technique Guideline categories.

(B) Nonregulatory portions of the

submittal.

3. In § 52.1031, Table 52.1031 is

amended by adding new state citations

for Chapter 134 to read as follows:

§ 52.1031 EPA-approved Maine

Regulations

* * * * *

TABLE 52.1031—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/Subject Date adopted

by State

Date approved

by EPA

Federal Register

citation 52.1020

*******

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.2/8/95 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... Regulation fully approved for

the following counties:

York, Sagadahoc, Cumberland, Androscoggin,

Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln,

Hancock, Waldo, Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford, and

Piscataquis. Regulation

granted a limited approval

for Washington, Somerset,

and Penobscot Counties.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.2/25/97 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for JJ Nissen Baking

Company.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.7/23/97

10/27/97

4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Prime Tanning.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.7/25/97 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.12/5/96

10/20/97

4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Dexter Shoe.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.6/16/97 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Pioneer Plastics.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.1/4/96 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Georgia Pacific.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.1/18/96 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Champion International.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.10/4/95

12/13/95

4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].

(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for International Paper.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.12/8/95 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for James River.

20754 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 52.1031—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS—Continued

State citation Title/Subject Date adopted

by State

Date approved

by EPA

Federal Register

citation 52.1020

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.12/18/95 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Lincoln Pulp and

Paper.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.12/18/95 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for SD Warren Paper

Company’s Westbrook,

Maine facility.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.10/4/95

1/9/96

4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for SD Warren Paper

Company’s Skowhegan,

Maine facility.

134 ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.12/20/95 4/18/00 [Insert FR citation from published date].(c)(45) .... VOC RACT determination

for Boise Cascade.

* * * * * **

[FR Doc. 00–9537 Filed 4–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63

[FRL–6577–1]

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources (NSPS) and

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);

Delegation of Authority to the States of

Iowa; Kansas; Missouri; Nebraska;

Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; and

City of Omaha, NE

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule and delegation of

authority.

SUMMARY: The states of Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, Nebraska, and the local

agencies of Lincoln-Lancaster County,

Nebraska, and city of Omaha, Nebraska,

have submitted updated regulations for

delegation of the EPA authority for

implementation and enforcement of

NSPS and NESHAP. The submissions

cover new EPA standards and, in some

instances, revisions to standards

previously delegated. EPA’s review of

the pertinent regulations shows that

they contain adequate and effective

procedures for the implementation and

enforcement of these Federal standards.

This action informs the public of

delegations to the above-mentioned

agencies.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 18,

2000. The dates of delegation can be

found in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION; section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Effective immediately, all

notifications, applications, reports, and

other correspondence required pursuant

to the newly delegated standards and

revisions identified in this notice

should be submitted to the Region 7

office, and, with respect to sources

located in the jurisdictions identified in

this notice, to the following addresses:

Iowa Department of Natural Resources,

Air Quality Bureau, 7900 Hickman

Road, Urbandale, Iowa 50322.

Kansas Department of Health and

Environment, Bureau of Air Quality

and Radiation, Building 283, Forbes

Field, Topeka, Kansas 66620.

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources, Air Pollution Control

Program, Jefferson State Office

Building, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson

City, Missouri 65102.

Nebraska Department of Environmental

Quality, Air and Waste

Management Division, P.O. Box

98922, Statehouse Station, Lincoln,

Nebraska 68509.

Lincoln-Lancaster County Air Pollution

Control Agency, Division of

Environmental Health, 3140 ‘‘N’’

Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68510.

City of Omaha, Public Works

Department, Air Quality Control

Division, 5600 South 10th Street,

Omaha, Nebraska 68510.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913)

551–7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

supplementary information is organized

in the following order:

What does this rule do?

What is the authority for delegation?

What does delegation accomplish?

What is being delegated?

What is not being delegated?

List of Delegation Tables

Table I—NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60

Table II—NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 61

Table III—NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 63

Summary of this action

What Does This Rule Do?

EPA is providing notice that it is

delegating authority for implementation

and enforcement of the Federal

standards shown in the tables below to

the state and local air agencies in Region

7. This rule updates the delegation

tables most recently published at 63 FR

1746 (January 12, 1998.)

Section 553(b)(B) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

provides that an agency may forgo

notice-and-comment rulemaking upon

determination of ‘‘good cause’’

published with the rule. EPA considers

these updates to be minor changes

which are not subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking procedures under

the APA or any other statute.

What Is the Authority for Delegation?

1. Section 111(c)(1) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to delegate

authority to any state agency which

submits adequate regulatory procedures

for implementation and enforcement of

the NSPS program. The NSPS standards

are codified at 40 CFR Part 60.