Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34119

EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS—Continued

State citation Title/subject

State effective

date

EPA approval date Comments

*******

Sect. .0909 .................................... Compliance Schedules for Sources in New Nonattainment Areas .... 07/01/00 8/27/01

*******

Sect. .0948 .................................... VOC Emissions From Transfer Operations ........................................ 07/01/00 8/27/01

Sect. .0949 .................................... Storage of Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compounds .................... 07/01/00 8/27/01

Sect. .0951 .................................... Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compound Emissions ...................... 07/01/00 8/27/01

*******

Sect. .0958 .................................... Work Practices for Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds ............ 07/01/00 8/27/01

*******

Subchapter 2Q Air Quality Permits

*******

Section .0100 General Provisions

*******

Sect. .0102 .................................... Activities Exempted From Permit Requirements ................................ 07/01/00 8/27/01

*******

Section .0300 Construction and Operating Permits

*******

Sect. .0306 .................................... Permits Requiring Public Participation ............................................... 07/01/00 8/27/01

*******

[FR Doc. 01–15875 Filed 6–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–7003–2]

RIN 2090–AA20

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for Weyerhaeuser Company Flint River

Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today EPA is publishing a

final rule, approving revisions to the

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),

which concern the control of hazardous

air pollutant (HAP) emissions from the

pulp and paper industry. The revisions

apply only to the Weyerhaeuser

Company’s Flint River Operations in

Oglethorpe, Georgia (Weyerhaeuser).

The revisions are one of the EPA’s steps

to implement the Final Project

Agreement for Weyerhaeuser’s XL

Project.

These revisions regulate emissions of

HAPs in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act) and

to facilitate implementation of the

Project eXcellence and Leadership

(Project XL) at Weyerhaeuser. EPA also

expects implementation to result in

superior environmental performance

while providing Weyerhaeuser with

greater operational flexibility.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

June 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: A docket containing

supporting information used in

developing this final rule is available on

the world wide web at http://

www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. It is also

available for public inspection and

copying at Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30303; and at

Environmental Protection Agency,

Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Room

3802–M, Washington, DC 20460.

Persons wishing to view the materials at

the Georgia location are encouraged to

contact Mr. Lee Page in advance by

telephoning (404) 562–9131. Persons

wishing to view the materials at the

Washington DC location are encouraged

to contact Ms. Janet Murray in advance

by telephoning (202) 260–2570. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Lee Page, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Air, Pesticides &

Toxics Management Division, 61

Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, (404)

562–9131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. Authority

II. Background

A. What Is Project XL?

B. What Is EPA Publishing?

C. What Are the Environmental Benefits

Anticipated Through Project XL?

D. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL

Process

E. What Are the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants?

F. What Are the Regulatory Requirements

for the Weyerhaeuser XL Project?

G. What Is the Project Duration and

Completion Date?

34120 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

III. Rule Description

IV. Summary of Response to Public

Comments

V. Additional Information

A. Immediate Effective Date

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

C. Regulatory Flexibility

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act.

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Authority

This regulation is being published

under the authority of sections

101(b)(1), 112, and 301(a)(1) of the CAA.

EPA has determined that this

rulemaking is subject to the provisions

of section 307(d) of the CAA.

II. Background

A. What Is Project XL?

Project XL, which stands for

‘‘eXcellence and Leadership,’’ is a

national pilot program that tests

innovative ways of achieving better and

more cost-effective public health and

environmental protection through sitespecific agreements with project

sponsors. Project XL was announced on

March 16, 1995, as a central part of the

National Performance Review and EPA’s

effort to reinvent environmental

protection. See 60 FR 2782 (May 23,

1995) and 60 FR 55569 (November 1,

1995). The intent of Project XL is to

allow EPA and regulated entities to

experiment with pragmatic, potentially

promising regulatory approaches, both

to assess whether they provide superior

environmental performance and other

benefits at the specific source affected,

and whether they should be considered

for wider application. Such pilot

projects are intended to allow EPA to

collect more data on a more focused

basis prior to national rulemaking.

Today’s regulation will enable

implementation of a specific XL project.

These efforts are crucial to EPA’s ability

to test new strategies that reduce the

regulatory burden and promote

economic growth while achieving better

environmental public health protection.

EPA intends to evaluate the results of

this and other XL projects to determine

which specific elements of the project,

if any, should be more broadly applied

to other regulated entities for the benefit

of both the economy and the

environment.

B. What Is EPA Publishing?

Today EPA is publishing a sitespecific rule that supports the Clean Air

Act portion of the Project XL Final

Project Agreement (FPA) for the

Weyerhaeuser Company Flint River

Operations in Oglethorpe, Georgia. The

site-specific rule facilitates the use of

alternative pollution controls and

process changes not required by any

existing rule that applies to

Weyerhaeuser. The rule provides for

greater reductions in hazardous air

pollutants emissions, measured as

methanol, than would otherwise be

required for this mill under the

maximum available control technology

(MACT) determination specific to the

pulp and paper industry. The principles

for accounting for HAP emission

controls, including controls to

implement MACT are outlined in the

Weyerhaeuser Project XL FPA.

The FPA is among the background

documents available for review in the

docket and also available on the world

wide web at http://www.epa.gov/

ProjectXL. Federal Register documents

were published on October 11, 1996 at

61 FR 53373 and January 31, 1997 at 62

FR 4760 to notify the public of the

details of this XL project and to solicit

comments on the specific provisions of

the FPA, which embodies the Agency’s

intent to implement this project. The

FPA addresses the eight Project XL

criteria, the expectation of the Agency

that this XL project will meet those

criteria, and the manner in which the

project is expected to produce, measure,

monitor, report and demonstrate

superior environmental benefits.

In today’s action, the Agency is

publishing the site-specific regulatory

changes necessary to implement the

Clean Air Act, MACT portion of the

project.

Weyerhaeuser is an international

forest products company whose

principal businesses are the growing

and harvesting of trees; the

manufacture, distribution and sale of

forest products, including logs, wood

chips, building products, pulp, paper

and packaging products; and real estate

construction and development. The

Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations is

a Kraft pulp manufacturing source,

which produces absorbent fluff pulp.

The source is located in Oglethorpe,

Georgia and was initially constructed in

1980.

Except as specifically described in

this site-specific rule and the FPA,

nothing in today’s rule will waive,

modify, or otherwise affect any

obligations Weyerhaeuser may have

under local, State, and Federal law with

respect to the operation of its Flint River

Operations mill.

The goal of the Weyerhaeuser Flint

River Operations XL project is to

develop a regulatory structure that both

facilitates flexible manufacturing

operations and achieves superior

environmental performance. The

flexibility provided by this rule allows

Weyerhaeuser’s Flint River Operations

to provide greater reductions in HAP

emissions, measured as methanol, than

are controlled by the MACT rule from

specified equipment used in kraft pulp

manufacturing, and to obtain credit for

process improvements that reduced

HAP emissions.

At the time the MACT rule was

adopted, EPA determined that the

majority of all non-chlorinated HAP

emissions from Kraft mill pulping

process equipment is methanol. See, 63

FR 18511 (April 15, 1998). EPA’s Final

Environmental Impact Statement for the

MACT rule accepted that methanol was

an appropriate measure for HAP

emissions from Kraft mill pulping

systems. EPA addressed this point in

response to comments calling for

monitoring of speciated HAP emissions.

‘‘Methanol is an appropriate indicator of

total HAP since it is the dominant HAP

present in pulping vents and

condensates and since the control

technologies identified in the rule do

not remove HAPs preferentially.’’ Final

EIS (EPA document EPA–453/R–93–

050b) pp. 8–9 through 8–11. Today’s

site specific rule does not provide

flexibility by counting reductions of the

less dangerous HAPs to balance

increases in emissions of the more toxic

HAPs. Besides measuring HAP

emissions as methanol, as required by

the MACT rule for pulping process

vents, the source’s MACT compliance

plan does not claim any credit related

to HAP emissions from bleaching

systems. All the ‘‘extra’’ HAP emission

reductions provided by the source, and

all the flexibility proposed for the

source to control alternate process

vents, occur in the pulping process area.

Since 1992, Weyerhaeuser has

focused on a ‘‘Minimum Impact

Manufacturing’’ (MIM) model as a

holistic strategy for continuous

environmental improvement. MIM is an

aggressive plan that seeks to harmonize

Weyerhaeuser’s pulp and paper

manufacturing facilities with their

surrounding physical environments.

Weyerhaeuser is committed to managing

its raw material and resources such that

its manufacturing processes, and their

outputs, achieve continuous

improvement of air, water, and solidwaste discharges. MIM contains the

elements of a comprehensive pollution

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34121

prevention program designed to obtain

the greatest use of raw materials and to

stop waste generation rather than rely

on ‘‘end-of-pipe’’ remedies. MIM

involves multi-disciplinary teams

employing a systems engineering

approach, waste reduction and a

commitment to continuous

improvement rather than the more

traditional ‘‘project’’ focus.

Weyerhaeuser is committed to

optimizing raw materials used at the

mill level, reducing water usage,

minimizing fossil fuel for energy in

manufacturing, reducing/eliminating

hazardous waste, generating less solid

waste, reducing emissions to all media,

eliminating spills, reusing and recycling

from mills the materials and residuals

that previously went to landfills, and

collecting and recycling used waste

paper for use as a raw material.

The FPA provides that HAP

reductions at Flint River Operations

shall be guided by a MACT Compliance

Plan. The FPA sets out seven principles

to guide the MACT Compliance Plan.

The principles include the following

points: (1) HAP emission reductions

from the total source occurring after

January 1, 1996 are eligible to be

counted; (2) HAP emission reductions

occurring after January 1, 1996 that were

obtained voluntarily (from the source’s

weak gas collection system) are eligible

to be counted; (3) HAP emission

reductions at the source are to be

counted on a total pound HAP for total

pound HAP, as measured by methanol,

basis; (4) HAP measurements were

documented using EPA-approved test

methods and as provided in the MACT

Standard; (5) HAP emission reductions

are required as of the due date for

compliance provided in the MACT

Standard; (6) HAP emission reductions

from all HAP emitting units currently

regulated under applicable state or

Federal rules (e.g., 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart BB) are not eligible to be

counted against the HAP emissions

reductions required by the MACT

Standard; and (7) compliance is

required with all requirements (other

than the emission limitations) of the

MACT Standard as promulgated. In

addition, Weyerhaeuser will comply

with all other present or future Clean

Air Act Section 112 standards that are

applicable to the source.

Specific details of the MACT

Compliance Plan were agreed upon

through negotiations between

Weyerhaeuser Company, EPA Region 4

and the Georgia EPD after the MACT

rule for the kraft pulp manufacturing

industry was published on April 15,

1998. See, 63 FR 18503. The MACT

Compliance Plan is consistent with the

principles set out in the FPA. The

MACT Compliance Plan includes the

HAP emitting units that must be

controlled to comply with the MACT

Standard, the amount of HAPs allowed

to be emitted for each HAP emitting unit

at the source under the MACT Standard;

the HAP emitting units and the amount

of HAP emission reductions eligible to

be counted, the HAP emitting units that

the source plans to use to obtain

additional HAP emission reductions,

the units that present a potential to

obtain HAP emission reductions, and

the amount eligible to be counted

against HAP emission reductions

required by the MACT Standard. For

more information about the specific

equipment subject to the MACT

Compliance Plan, status of emissions,

the HAP emitting unit that will be

controlled and the accounting of HAP

emissions and emission reductions refer

to the information referenced in the

section entitled ADDRESSES.

C. What Are the Environmental Benefits

Anticipated Through Project XL?

Today’s site-specific rule supports the

goals of the Clean Air Act to protect and

enhance the quality of the Nation’s air

resources so as to promote the public

health and welfare and the productive

capacity of its population.

Specifically, this project not only

meets, but exceeds the HAP emission

reductions required by the current

MACT standard. For example,

reductions in HAP emissions are

expected from the digesting, brownstock

washing, oxygen delignification and

bleaching system processes due to

improved digester woodchip

delignification and pulp washing; from

the collection and incineration of Weak

Gas system sources and the collection

and biological treatment of methanol

containing process condensates; from

bleach plan process reductions; and

from various pollution prevention

projects. Decreased emissions of volatile

organic compounds, total reduced

sulfur, and carbon monoxide are also

expected. A more detailed discussion of

the environmental benefits associated

with the Weyerhaeuser project is

located in the FPA, EPA’s response to

comments on the proposed FPA, and

other information referenced in the

section entitled ADDRESSES.

D. Stakeholder Involvement in the XL

Process

Stakeholder involvement and

participation in developing the

Weyerhaeuser Pilot XL program was

vital to the success of the program. The

process for involving stakeholders in the

design of this pilot program was based

upon the guidance set out in the April

23, 1997 Federal Register notice (62 FR

19872). The stakeholder process has

been open and the public invited to

participate. Stakeholders that

participated in the development of the

Weyerhaeuser Company Flint River

Operations site-specific rule included

the Lake Blackshear Watershed

Association, non-management

employees at Flint River Operations,

City of Montezuma, City of Oglethorpe,

Macon Correctional Institution, Macon

County Local Emergency Planning

Committee, other leaders from Macon

County, and other interested Parties.

Together these groups served as the

primary contact with the community

throughout the process. Weyerhaeuser

will continue to work with the

stakeholders. Once EPA accepted

Weyerhaeuser as a candidate based on

its detailed proposal, Weyerhaeuser,

EPA, the State, and local stakeholders

developed a Final Project Agreement

(FPA). The FPA is a nonbinding

agreement that describes the intentions

and commitments of the implementing

parties. Stakeholders participated in the

negotiation of the FPA. Federal Register

documents were published on October

11, 1996 at 61 FR 53373 and January 31,

1997 at 62 FR 4760 to notify the public

of the details of this XL project and to

solicit comments on the specific

provisions of the FPA No public

comments were received. A Federal

Register document was also published

on March 27, 2001 at 59 FR 16637 to

notify the public of the details of the

site-specific revisions to the MACT rule

finalized herein in today’s rule. No

comments from the public were

received.

E. What Are the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants?

The main purposes of the Clean Air

Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) are to protect

and enhance the quality of our Nation’s

air resources, and to promote the public

health and welfare and the productive

capacity of the population. See CAA,

section 101(b)(1). Section 112 of the Act

provides a list of 189 hazardous air

pollutants (‘‘HAP’s’’) and directs EPA to

develop rules to control HAP emissions

from both new and existing major

sources. The Act requires that the rules

be established by categories of emission

sources considering all HAPs emitted

rather than establishing rules based on

the emission of a single pollutant from

a source category. The statute also

requires that the standards reflect the

maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAPs that is achievable,

taking into consideration the cost of

34122 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

achieving such emission reduction and

any non-air quality health and

environmental impacts and energy

requirements. This level of control is

commonly referred to as Maximum

Achievable Control Technology

(‘‘MACT’’).

In addition, the Act sets out specific

criteria to be considered for establishing

a minimum level of control and criteria

(incremental cost, energy impacts, etc.).

For evaluating control options more

stringent than the minimum level of

control. This minimum level of control

is commonly referred to as the MACT

‘‘floor.’’ The MACT floor for new

sources, as specified by the Act, is ‘‘the

emission control that is achieved in

practice by the best controlled similar

source.’’ The MACT floor for existing

sources, as specified by the Act, is the

average emission limitation achieved by

the best performing 12 percent of

existing sources in each category or

subcategory of 30 or more sources (CAA

section 112(d)(3)). For smaller categories

or subcategories, the Act specifies that

standards shall not be less stringent

than the average emission limitation

achieved by the best performing five

sources in the category or subcategory.

These floor determinations are based on

data available to the Administrator at

the time the standards are developed.

The statutory provisions do not limit

how the standard is set, beyond

requiring that it be applicable to all

sources in a category or subcategory and

at least as stringent as the MACT floor.

The emission standards are to be

reviewed and revised as necessary no

less often than every 8 years. Also, EPA

may later promulgate more stringent

standards to address any unacceptable

health or environmental risk that

remains after the imposition of controls

resulting from the standards.

To this end, section 112(d) of the CAA

directs EPA to set standards for

stationary sources emitting greater than

ten tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of

total HAPs annually (one ton is equal to

0.908 megagrams). EPA promulgated the

NESHAP for the pulp and paper

production source category at 40 CFR

Subpart S, because pulp and paper mills

have the potential to emit ten tons per

year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year

of all HAPs. Potential to emit is based

on the total of all HAP emissions from

all activities at the mill. Individual mills

are capable of emitting as much as

several hundred tons per year (TPY) of

HAPs, which may adversely affect air

quality and public health. The emission

standards for pulping and bleaching

processes provide several options for

compliance, including an alternative

pollution prevention option for the kraft

pulping process. The standards specify

compliance dates for new and existing

sources and require control devices to

be properly operated and maintained at

all times.

F. What Are the Regulatory

Requirements for the Weyerhaeuser XL

Project?

Implementation of the Weyerhaeuser

XL project requires only limited

regulatory changes. Weyerhaeuser will

achieve HAP emission reductions for

this mill that at least equal the HAP

emission reductions required to be

provided by this mill under the

applicable portions of the pulp and

paper MACT standard, 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart S (MACT standard).

Weyerhaeuser will achieve the

reductions in hazardous air pollutant

emissions required by the pulp and

paper MACT standard by using a

combination of equipment regulated by

MACT, equipment not regulated by the

MACT, and process changes.

G. What Is the Project Duration and

Completion Date?

Under Project XL, the Weyerhaeuser

Flint River Operations project is

approved to operate for the term

expressed in the FPA. The FPA was

signed on December 13, 1996 and will

be in effect for a period of 15 years,

unless it is terminated earlier. As

outlined in the FPA, the duration of the

project does not affect the term of any

permit, the duration of this rule, or any

other enforceable regulatory mechanism

that has a term fixed by applicable law

or regulation. Therefore, the terms and

requirements of this rule do not expire

unless formally amended through notice

and comment rulemaking.

III. Rule Description

Today’s final rule requires

Weyerhaeuser to control HAP emissions

from alternative process vents and to

maintain process changes at its Flint

River Operations that are currently not

required by the existing rule. In

implementing this change, this mill will

achieve a greater amount of HAP

reductions that this mill would achieve

under the existing rule.

To accomplish this alternative

compliance, the EPA is today

promulgating this site-specific rule to

amend 40 CFR Subpart S, which

provides the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Pulp and Paper Industry. This

Federal site-specific rule, amending 40

CFR 63.459, will allow the source to

provide greater reductions in HAP

emissions, measured as methanol, than

are controlled by the MACT rule from

alternative process vents and through

process changes during the kraft

pulping process. The rule does not

provide flexibility by counting

reductions of the less dangerous HAPs

to balance increases in emissions of the

more toxic HAPs. For example, instead

of controlling HAP emissions from the

brownstock diffusion washer vent, first

stage brownstock diffusion washer

filtrate tank vent, and oxygen

delignification system, the site-specific

rule allows the Weyerhaeuser Flint

River Operations to control HAP

emission from the weak liquor storage

tank; boilout tank; utility tank; 50

percent solids black liquor storage tank;

south 67 percent solids black liquor

storage tank; north 67 percent solids

black liquor storage tank; precipitator

make down tanks numbers 1, 2 and 3;

salt cake mix tank; and NaSH storage

tank. (These terms are defined in the

proposed rule.) Weyerhaeuser is

required by the generally applicable

MACT rule (40 CFR Subpart S) to

provide for record-keeping, monitoring

and reporting to demonstrate

continuous compliance for these

operations. HAP emission reductions

achieved from process changes

involving the cylinder mould decker

and the cylinder mould filtrate tank will

be counted against the total HAP

emission reductions Weyerhaeuser

would have to provide to meet the

MACT standard.

IV. Summary of Response to Public

Comments

The EPA received one public

comment on the March 27, 2001

proposed rule for the Weyerhaeuser

Flint River Operations site-specific rule.

The comment was a positive comment

from Weyerhaeuser Company,

supporting the XL project initiative and

the regulatory implementing

mechanism.

V. Additional Information

A. Immediate Effective Date

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and 42

U.S.C. 6930(b)(3), EPA finds that good

cause exists to make today’s site-specific

rule effective immediately. The

Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations is

the only regulated entity that is subject

to this rule. The Weyerhaeuser Flint

River Operations has had very extensive

notice of this final rule for site-specific

MACT revisions, and is prepared to

comply immediately. As described in

section II.D of today’s preamble, the

public and the project stakeholder group

have had several opportunities to

review today’s action, provide public

comment, and participate in the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34123

rulemaking process. An immediate

effective date will allow this XL project

to proceed without delay.

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety in

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs of the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Because the annualized cost of this

final rule will be significantly less than

$100 million and will not meet any of

the other criteria specified in the

Executive Order, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866, and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 12866 also

encourages agencies to provide a

meaningful public comment period, and

suggests that in most cases the comment

period should be 60 days. In

consideration of the very limited scope

of today’s rulemaking the considerable

public involvement in development of

the proposed Final Project Agreements

subject to today’s rule, EPA considers 30

days to be sufficient in providing a

meaningful public comment period for

today’s action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

Today’s rule does not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because it only affects one

source, the Weyerhaeuser Flint River

Operations, which is not a small entity.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action applies only to one

company, and therefore requires no

information collection activities subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and

therefore no information collection

request (ICR) will be submitted to OMB

for review in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why the alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, because this

rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, it is

not subject to UMRA section 203.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant,’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, because it is

based on technology performance and

implements previously promulgated

health or safety-based National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Categories

(NESHAPS). The effects of hazardous air

pollutants from the pulp and paper

industry on children’s health was

addressed in detail in EPA’s rulemaking

to establish Subpart S, the NESHAP for

the pulp and paper industry, and EPA

is not revisiting those issues here.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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.’’ Under

Section 6 of Executive Order 1312, EPA

may not issue a regulation that has

34124 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

federalism implications, that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs, and

that is not required by statute, unless

the Federal government provides the

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

Today’s 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. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule. Although section 6 of Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule,

EPA did fully coordinate and consult

with the affected State and local

officials in developing this rule.

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments)

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.’’

This rule does not have tribal

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on tribal governments, on

the relationship between the Federal

government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes, as

specified in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and tribal governments, EPA

specifically solicits additional comment

on this rule from tribal officials.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 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 standards. This rulemaking

does not involve technical standards.

Therefore, EPA did not consider the use

of any voluntary consensus standards.

However, EPA invited comments on this

aspect of the rulemaking, and

specifically invited the public to

identify potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards and to explain why

such standards should be used in this

regulation. No public comments were

received.

J. Congressional Review Act

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 UnitedStates. Section 804

exempts from section 801 the following

types of rules (1) rules of particular

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency

management or personnel; and (3) rules

of agency organization, procedure, or

practice that do not substantially effect

the rights or obligations of non-agency

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804 (3). EPA is not

required to submit a rule report

regarding today’s action under section

801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability affecting just one private

sector facility.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Major source, Monitoring,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, National emission

standards, Pulp and paper.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Christine Todd-Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart S—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Pulp and Paper Industry

2. § 63.459 is added to subpart S to

read as follows:

§ 63.459 Alternative standards.

(a) Flint River Mill. The owner or

operator of the pulping system using the

kraft process at the manufacturing

facility, commonly called Weyerhaeuser

Company Flint River Operations, at Old

Stagecoach Road, Oglethorpe, Georgia,

(hereafter the Site) shall comply with all

provisions of this subpart, except as

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(a)(5) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator of the

pulping system is not required to

control total HAP emissions from

equipment systems specified in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) if the

owner or operator complies with

paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this

section.

(i) The brownstock diffusion washer

vent and first stage brownstock

diffusion washer filtrate tank vent in the

pulp washing system specified in

§ 63.443(a)(1)(iii).

(ii) The oxygen delignification system

specified in § 63.443(a)(1)(v).

(2) The owner or operator of the

pulping system shall control total HAP

emissions from equipment systems

listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through

(a)(2)(ix) of this section as specified in

§ 63.443(c) and (d) of this subpart no

later than April 16, 2001.

(i) The weak liquor storage tank;

(ii) The boilout tank;

(iii) The utility tank;

(iv) The fifty percent solids black

liquor storage tank;

(v) The south sixty-seven percent

solids black liquor storage tank;

(vi) The north sixty-seven percent

solids black liquor storage tank;

(vii) The precipitator make down

tanks numbers one, two and three;

(viii) The salt cake mix tank; and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34125

(ix) The NaSH storage tank.

(3) The owner or operator of the

pulping system shall operate the

Isothermal Cooking system at the site

while pulp is being produced in the

continuous digester at any time after

April 16, 2001.

(i) The owner or operator shall

monitor the following parameters to

demonstrate that isothermal cooking is

in operation:

(A) Continuous digester dilution

factor; and

(B) The difference between the

continuous digester vapor zone

temperature and the continuous digester

extraction header temperature.

(ii) The isothermal cooking system

shall be in operation when the

continuous digester dilution factor and

the temperature difference between the

continuous digester vapor zone

temperature and the continuous digester

extraction header temperature are

maintained as set forth in Table 2:

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART S—ISOTHERMAL COOKING SYSTEM OPERATIONAL VALUES

Parameter Instrument number Limit Units

Digester Dilution Factor .................................... K1DILFAC ........................................ >0.0 .................................... None

Difference in Digester Vapor Zone Temperature and Digester.03TI0311 .......................................... <10 ..................................... Degrees F.

Extraction Header Temperature ....................... 03TI0329.

(iii) The owner or operator shall

certify annually the operational status of

the isothermal cooking system.

(4) [Reserved]

(5) Definitions. All descriptions and

references to equipment and emission

unit ID numbers refer to equipment at

the Site. All terms used in this

paragraph shall have the meaning given

them in this part and this paragraph. For

the purposes of this paragraph only the

following additional definitions apply:

Boilout tank means the tank that

provides tank storage capacity for

recovery of black liquor spills and

evaporator water washes for return to

the evaporators (emission unit ID No.

U606);

Brownstock diffusion washer means

the equipment used to wash pulp from

the surge chests to further reduce lignin

carryover in the pulp;

Continuous digester means the

digester system used to chemically and

thermally remove the lignin binding the

wood chips to produce individual pulp

fibers (emission unit ID No. P300);

Fifty percent solids black liquor

storage tank means the tank used to

store intermediate black liquor prior to

final evaporation in the 1A, 1B, and 1C

Concentrators (emission unit ID No.

U605);

First stage brownstock diffusion

washer means the equipment that

receives and stores filtrate from the first

stage of washing for return to the

pressure diffusion washer;

Isothermal cooking system means the

1995–1996 modernization of

brownstock pulping process including

conversion of the Kamyr continuous

vapor phase digester to an extended

delignification unit and changes in the

knotting, screening, and oxygen stage

systems:

NaSH storage tank means the tank

used to store sodium hydrosulfite

solution prior to use as make-up to the

liquor system

North sixty-seven percent solids black

liquor storage tank means one of two

tanks used to store black liquor prior to

burning in the Recovery Boiler for

chemical recovery (emission unit ID No.

U501);

Precipitator make down tank numbers

one, two and three mean tanks used to

mix collected particulate from

electrostatic precipitator chamber

number one with 67% black liquor for

recycle to chemical recovery in the

Recovery Boiler (emission unit ID Nos.

U504, U505 and U506);

Salt cake mix tank means the tank

used to mix collected particulate from

economizer hoppers with black liquor

for recycle to chemical recovery in the

Recovery Boiler (emission unit ID No.

U503);

South sixty-seven percent solids black

liquor storage tank means one of two

tanks used to store black liquor prior to

burning in the Recovery Boiler for

chemical recovery (emission unit ID No.

U502);

Utility tank means the tank used to

store fifty percent liquor and, during

black liquor tank inspections and

repairs, to serve as a backup liquor

storage tank (emission unit ID No.

U611);

Weak gas system means high volume,

low concentration or HVLC system as

defined in § 63.441; and

Weak liquor storage tank means the

tank that provide surge capacity for

weak black liquor from digesting prior

to feed to multiple effect evaporators

(emission unit ID No. U610).

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 01–16114 Filed 6–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 053101F]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Bycatch Rate

Standards for the Second Half of 2001

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Pacific halibut and red king crab

bycatch rate standards; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces Pacific

halibut and red king crab bycatch rate

standards for the second half of 2001.

Publication of these bycatch rate

standards is required by regulations

implementing the vessel incentive

program. This action is necessary to

implement the bycatch rate standards

for trawl vessel operators who

participate in the Alaska groundfish

trawl fisheries. The intent of this action

is to reduce prohibited species bycatch

rates and promote conservation of

groundfish and other fishery resources.

DATES: Effective 1201 hours, Alaska

local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 2001, through

2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2001.

Comments on this action must be

received no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t.,

July 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Sue Salveson, Assistant

Regional Administrator, Sustainable

Fisheries Division, Alaska Region,

NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802–1668, Attn: Lori Gravel.

Comments also may be sent via

facsimile (fax) to 907–586–7465.

Comments will not be accepted if