[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80755-80776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32028]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[AD-FRL-6917-1]
RIN 2060-AH74


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 
Pulp and Paper Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3907), we proposed amendments to 
the pulp and paper national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) (63 FR 18504, April 15, 1998). The 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP is the air component of the integrated air and water rules 
for the pulp and paper industry (known as the Pulp and Paper Cluster 
Rules). The NESHAP limit and control hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
that are known to cause or suspected to cause cancer or other serious 
health or environmental effects. These final amendments include changes 
to the pulping process vent standards, the biological treatment system 
standards, monitoring requirements, and test methods and procedures to 
address technical issues identified after promulgation of the 1998 Pulp 
and Paper NESHAP. Also, drafting errors in the final rule that were 
identified since proposal of these amendments are being corrected by 
this action. These amendments do not change the level of control or 
compromise the environmental protection achieved by the 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP. This action also clarifies that downtime due to routine 
maintenance of pulping process vent control devices is included in the 
excess emissions allowances. Lastly, in compliance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), we are amending as a final rule the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval table to list the OMB control 
number issued under the PRA for information collection requirements for 
the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-40 contains supporting information for this 
action and the prior promulgated and proposed amendments to the 1998 
Pulp and Paper NESHAP. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), 
and is available for inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emission Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 
(919) 541-5397, e-mail [email protected]. For questions on compliance 
and applicability determinations, contact Mr. Seth Heminway, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assessment (2223A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7017, 
e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the 
development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because 
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries 
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of 
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory 
text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for 
review in the docket, or copies may be mailed on request from the Air 
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials. World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being 
available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's amendments

[[Page 80756]]

will be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network 
(TTN). Following signature, we will post a copy of these amendments on 
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Also, a 
separate page on the TTN provides all the proposal and promulgation 
notices, support documents, and implementation information for the 1998 
Pulp and Paper NESHAP http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html. If 
you need more information regarding the TTN, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. The EPA proposed these amendments to the 1998 Pulp 
and Paper NESHAP on January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3907). This final rule 
adopting the amendments constitutes final administrative action 
concerning that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of final rules is available only by filing a petition for review 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
February 20, 2001. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by today's final rule may not be challenged later in civil 
or criminal proceeding brought by the EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                         SIC          NAICS         Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................................           26          3221   Pulp mills and integrated mills
                                                                            (mills that manufacture pulp and
                                                                            paper/paperboard) that chemically
                                                                            pulp wood fiber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive. It provides a guide 
regarding the types of entities that we expect to regulate by this 
action. To determine whether this action would regulate your facility, 
you must carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.440 of 
the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular situation or questions about compliance 
approaches, permitting, enforcement, and rule determinations, please 
contact the local or State air pollution control agency who has 
permitting authority for your facility. If you are unsure of who has 
the permitting authority or need additional assistance, you should 
contact the appropriate EPA regional office below.

Region I: U.S. EPA New England Director, Air Compliance Program, 1 
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SEA), Boston, MA 02114-2023, Phone: (617) 
918-1650, Fax: (617) 918-1505
Region II: U.S. EPA--Region 2, Air Compliance Branch, 290 Broadway, New 
York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 637-4080, Fax: (212) 637-3998
Region III: U.S. EPA--Region 3, Chief, Air Enforcement Branch (3AP12), 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone: (215) 814-3438, 
Fax: (215) 814-2134, Region 3 Office Website: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/hazpollut/hazairpol.htm
Region IV: U.S. EPA--Region 4, Air and Radiation Technology Branch, 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104, 
Phone: (404) 562-9105, Fax: (404) 562-9095
Region V: U.S. EPA--Region 5, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 
Branch (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, 
Phone: (312) 353-2088, Fax: (312) 353-8289
Region VI: U.S. EPA--Region 6, Chief, Toxics Enforcement Section (6EN-
AT), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Phone: (214) 665-7224, 
Fax: (214) 665-7446, Region 6 Office Website: www.epa.gov/region6
Region VII: U.S. EPA--Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 
66101, Phone: (913) 551-7020, Fax: (913) 551-7844, Office Website: 
http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/toxics/airtox1.htm.
Region VIII: U.S. EPA--Region 8, Air Enforcement Program (8ENF-T), 999 
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: (303) 312-6312, Fax: 
(303) 312-6409
Region IX: U.S. EPA--Region 9, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 744-1219, Fax: (415) 744-1076
Region X: U.S. EPA--Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 553-4273, Fax: (206) 553-
0110
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
III. Summary of Public Comments, Responses, and Changes to the 
Standards
IV. Information Collection Request (ICR)
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultations and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    The EPA promulgated the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP on April 15, 
1998 (63 FR 18504), with subsequent amendments for corrections, 
clarifications, and to provide technical amendments.
    On January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3907), we proposed amendments to the 
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP to revise the compliance demonstration 
procedures for combustion devices used to control pulping vent gases 
and for biological treatment systems used to treat pulping condensates, 
and to correct minor drafting errors. The proposed amendment regarding 
the pulping vent combustion devices removed the requirement, in some 
cases, to conduct an initial performance test or to continuously 
monitor the temperature of the control device. Briefly, the proposed 
amendments for biological treatment systems: Added an alternative 
emission standard (minimum HAP or methanol mass removal), specified a 
finite list of HAP (instead of total HAP) for use in demonstrating 
compliance, allowed for determination of site-specific monitoring 
parameters, and added testing and monitoring procedures for biological 
treatment systems that do not meet the criteria for a ``thoroughly 
mixed'' system.
    In response to the January 25, 2000 proposed amendments, we 
received four public comment letters from industry representatives. In 
developing today's final rule amendments, we considered public comment 
where appropriate, and we are revising the compliance demonstration 
procedures for combustion devices used to control pulping vent gases; 
revising the standards, monitoring requirements,

[[Page 80757]]

and test methods and procedures for biological treatment systems; and 
correcting minor drafting errors. We are also specifying that downtime 
due to routine maintenance of pulping process vent control devices is 
included in the excess emissions allowances. Although maintenance 
downtime was not part of the January 25, 2000 proposed amendments, we 
are using this notice to clarify our intent.

II. Summary of the Final Amendments

    In today's final rule, we are promulgating the following amendments 
to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP and clarifying the downtime provision 
for pulping vent control devices. We are amending:
     The standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and 
semi-chemical processes (Sec. 63.443(d)(4)) to remove the requirement, 
in some cases, to conduct an initial performance test or to 
continuously monitor the temperature of the pulping vent control 
device.
     The standards for kraft pulping process condensates to add 
mass emissions standards for biological treatment provisions 
(Sec. 63.446(e)(2)) and to refer to the procedure for measuring total 
HAP in Sec. 63.457(g).
     The standards for kraft pulping process condensates 
(Sec. 63.446(i)) to add a reference to the minimum mass condensate 
collection option (Sec. 63.446(c)(3)) and to correct a minor drafting 
error.
     The open biological treatment system monitoring 
requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)) to allow for site-specific monitoring 
parameters and to clarify the quarterly performance test procedures.
     The monitoring requirements section (Sec. 63.453(n)) to 
include the reference to the site-specific biological treatment system 
monitoring parameters and to correct a minor drafting error.
     The open biological treatment system monitoring 
requirements (Sec. 63.453(p)) to revise the procedures for conducting 
the optional performance tests and clarify the timing of corrective 
actions taken during monitoring parameter excursions.
     Sec. 63.454 to address recordkeeping requirements for 
documenting unsafe sampling conditions and the results of optional 
performance tests conducted in response to monitoring parameter 
excursions, and add corresponding reference.
     The reporting requirements section (Sec. 63.455(e)) to add 
performance testing notification requirements to be used if open 
biological treatment system performance test results are used to revise 
approved monitoring values or ranges.
     The test methods and procedures section 
(Sec. 63.457(c)(1)) to correct the reference to the liquid sampling 
procedures.
     The test methods and procedures section 
(Sec. 63.457(c)(4)) to add the word ``open'' before ``biological 
treatment system.''
     The test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c)(5) 
and (6)) to specify the procedures for determining the minimum 
measurement level of HAP for a given test method.
     The test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(g)) 
to specify the measurement of only four HAP for biological treatment 
systems.
     The test methods and procedures for open biological 
treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(l)) to remove the total HAP percent 
reduction procedure, to add the methanol percent reduction and mass 
removal procedures, to add an equation for determining the ratio of 
nonmethanol HAP to methanol, to add clarity to the purpose of the 
requirements, and to correct minor drafting errors.
     The test methods and procedures for open biological 
treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(m)) to correct references.
     The test methods and procedures for open biological 
treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(n)) to add the word ``open'' to the 
paragraph title and to correct minor drafting errors.
     The delegation of authority section (Sec. 63.458(b)(5)) to 
add a reference to the procedure for determining the minimum 
measurement level of HAP.
     To add monitoring procedures (appendix E) for biological 
treatment systems when more detailed sampling is unsafe.
     The table in part 9 that includes the currently approved 
information request control numbers to add the 1998 Pulp and Paper 
NESHAP information collection requirements.

III. Summary of Public Comments, Responses, and Changes to the 
Standards

    Generally, the comments were supportive of the proposed amendments, 
and we have not summarized those positive comments. We received no 
adverse comments regarding the proposed amendment for pulping vent 
combustion devices; therefore, the amendment is being promulgated as 
proposed. Below is an overview of the major issues raised by commenters 
and our responses. A complete summary of major comments and responses 
is available in the docket and on the WWW. The ADDRESSES and 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this preamble contain detailed 
information on the docket and WWW.
    The major public comments we received suggested changes and 
clarifications to the proposed amendments for the standards, monitoring 
requirements, and test methods for biological treatment systems.
    Individual HAP procedure. We proposed a procedure (the ``individual 
HAP procedure'') that can be used to demonstrate compliance of 
biological treatment systems on an individual HAP basis (either percent 
reduction or mass removal). The procedure was proposed as an 
alternative to demonstrating compliance by measuring total HAP. To use 
the procedure, you must measure the mass of the individual HAP entering 
and exiting the biological treatment system.
    The comments stated that the proposed procedure is not viable 
because the outlet concentrations of the nonmethanol HAP will be below 
the detection limit of the test methods specified in the 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP. We agree with the commenter that the proposed individual 
HAP procedure is not viable due to lack of adequate test methods. 
Therefore, we are withdrawing the proposed individual HAP procedure and 
its associated test methods (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i) and Sec. 63.457(l)(1) 
and (2) of the proposed amendments).
    Minimum measurement level procedure. We proposed amendments to the 
test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c)) that added two 
alternative procedures for determining the minimum measurement level 
(MML) of specific HAP in pulping process condensate streams. The 
comments received stated that several clarifications and corrections to 
the proposed procedures were needed. We agree with the suggested 
clarifications and corrections, and we have revised the 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP accordingly.
    Methanol procedure for biological treatment systems. We proposed a 
procedure (the ``methanol procedure'') that can be used as an 
alternative to demonstrating compliance of biological treatment systems 
on an individual HAP basis. As part of the methanol procedure, you are 
required to measure the ratio of nonmethanol HAP (acetaldehyde, methyl 
ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde) mass to methanol mass. The value of 
this ratio is designated in the proposed amendments as ``r.'' The 1998 
Pulp and Paper NESHAP require total HAP measurements on a quarterly 
basis. We requested comments and data to

[[Page 80758]]

determine if quarterly testing for total HAP is still warranted, or if 
testing for total HAP annually is adequate.
    The comments received stated that an annual measurement of ``r'' is 
sufficient since the value of ``r'' is very low and the corresponding 
impact on the mass removal determinations will be small. We agree with 
the commenter that an annual measurement of ``r'' is sufficient. 
Therefore, we are revising the biological treatment system monitoring 
requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)(3)(ii)) to specify that the value of ``r'' 
must be determined only during the first-quarter test of each year.
    Quarterly performance tests versus initial performance tests. We 
proposed adding a mass removal option for biological treatment systems 
in addition to the percent reduction standard already contained in the 
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP. We also proposed to amend the quarterly 
testing and compliance monitoring requirements to make conforming 
revisions by replacing the term ``percent reduction tests'' with 
``performance test'' or ``compliance test.''
    The comments received stated that the EPA should clarify that the 
requirements for the quarterly tests are less extensive than for the 
initial performance test since the quarterly tests are part of the 
monitoring requirements. We disagree with the comments, and we are 
making text changes to the quarterly testing requirements and the 
reporting requirements to use consistent language.
    Condensate variability. We received several comments stating that 
the performance test and continuous monitoring procedures for the 
condensate collection and treatment requirements should account for 
inherent hour-to-hour and day-to-day variability in the amount of 
methanol generated in the regulated condensates. Based on the data 
being collected for industry condensate characterization studies, the 
comments stated that there is significant variability over all time 
scales, and the causes of methanol variability are beyond the control 
of the mill operator. Consequently, there is a chance that the amount 
of methanol collected and sent to treatment on a short-term basis can 
be less than that required by the standards and can lead to 
noncompliance, even though the pulping processes and controls are 
operating normally.
    We agree that condensate variability is a concern in both the 
initial and continuous compliance demonstrations. Variability is 
particularly a concern for the mass removal option where compliance is 
based on an amount of mass collected and the performance of the control 
device or system.
    Some comments recommended that because of the variability of 
methanol in condensate streams, the rule should be revised to clarify 
that long-term averages are necessary for demonstrating initial and 
continuous compliance with the condensate collection standards. While 
we agree that variability should be considered in establishing 
appropriate averaging periods, the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP already 
provide you with flexibility in establishing the appropriate averaging 
periods for demonstrating initial compliance and conducting continuous 
compliance monitoring. Consequently, we are not changing the 1998 Pulp 
and Paper NESHAP text to address this issue.
    We proposed mass removal standards, expressed as either individual 
HAP or methanol, for biological treatment systems as an alternative to 
the percent reduction standards. Compliance with a mass removal 
standard requires that the inlet HAP (methanol) mass and the 
performance of the treatment device be measured over the same time 
period. The comments recommended that the rule be revised to consider 
variability of inlet mass concentrations during performance tests of 
condensate treatment devices (i.e., steam strippers and biological 
treatment systems). To address short-term variability in condensates on 
the day the performance test is conducted, these comments recommended 
that the mass in condensates be based on long-term averages established 
prior to the date of the test.
    We disagree with the comments that the mass in condensates be based 
on data established prior to the date of the treatment system 
performance test. The performance test for the treatment standard must 
be based on actual test data of the inlet HAP (or methanol) mass and 
the treatment device performance on the same time basis. However, we 
agree with the comments that the proposed rule amendments did not 
adequately account for variability during optional tests to confirm the 
performance of biological treatment systems during parameter 
excursions. Today's final rule amendments, therefore, provide some 
additional flexibility in conducting these tests.
    Procedures for responding to parameter excursions in biological 
treatment systems. We proposed a modeling procedure (appendix E of 40 
CFR part 63) to use during unsafe sampling conditions. The procedure 
would be used whenever a parameter excursion occurs during an event 
when it is too dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe for personnel 
to collect samples from an open nonthoroughly mixed biological 
treatment system. The procedure would be used to satisfy the daily 
monitoring requirements until such time as a full performance test can 
be conducted under safe conditions.
    The comments received stated that a conflict exists between the 
timing of the modeling procedure and the subsequent performance test, 
and on initiating steps to end the parameter excursion. We are revising 
the monitoring requirements of the rule to clarify the timing of the 
modeling procedure, the performance test, and implementation of 
corrective actions; however, the intent of the 1998 Pulp and Paper 
NESHAP remains unchanged since we believe that there is no conflict in 
this rule requirement.
    Monitoring procedures for biological treatment systems during 
unsafe conditions. We proposed a modeling procedure (appendix E of 40 
CFR part 63) for monitoring open biological treatment systems that can 
be used when unsafe conditions exist in the system that would prevent 
personnel from conducting the sampling necessary to conduct a full 
performance test. The comments suggested several clarifications and 
corrections to the proposed modeling procedure. We agree that 
clarifications are needed in some of the cases identified by the 
commenter, and these clarifications have been added.
    Performance test notifications. We proposed that the notification 
period for certain compliance monitoring testing be reduced from 60 
days, as required by the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP general provisions 
(Sec. 63.7(b)), to 15 days. This shortened notification period would be 
used if a mill intends to revise the allowable monitoring parameter 
ranges or values using data recorded during any valid subsequent 
performance tests required in the monitoring requirements section of 
the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP. We received comments stating that the 
15-day period was too long, and that same day notification should be 
allowed. We disagree with the comments, and we believe the length of 
the notification period (15 days) is appropriate. Consequently, the 15-
day notification change is being made to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP 
as proposed.
    Drafting errors and clarifications. We proposed several corrections 
to minor drafting errors identified following promulgation of the 1998 
Pulp and Paper NESHAP. No comments were received regarding those 
proposed corrections. Therefore, the amendments for the corrections and 
minor drafting errors are being published as proposed.

[[Page 80759]]

However, below are some additional corrections found since these 
amendments were proposed on January 25, 2000.
    In the April 12, 1999 final rule interpretation and technical 
amendments, we inserted a new test procedure into the middle of a list 
of other procedures. One of those other procedures is cross referenced 
in another section of the rule, and we did not change the cross 
reference text. In today's final rule amendments, we are correcting 
that error by changing the cross referenced procedure text in 
Sec. 63.458(b)(4), from Sec. 63.457(c)(3)(ii) to its new location in 
Sec. 63.457(c)(3)(iii). Additionally, commenters identified a drafting 
error in the original rule text published on April 15, 1998. We are 
correcting the error by changing the cross referenced text in the 
standards for condensate closed collection systems (Sec. 63.446(d)(1)), 
from Sec. 63.962(b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii) to its correct location in 
Sec. 63.962(b)(5)(iii).
    In the January 25, 2000 proposed amendments notice, we proposed 
several amendments to the standards (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)), monitoring 
requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)), and test methods and procedures 
(Sec. 63.457(l)) used for biological treatment system. These proposed 
amendments allow you to comply with a percent reduction or mass removal 
standard using individual HAP or using methanol under certain 
conditions. In these proposed amendments, the following drafting errors 
and corrections were identified by commenters:
     The quarterly testing requirements in Sec. 63.453(j)(3(i) 
contain incorrect language from the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP and 
references to the condensate standards,
     An incorrect variable was used in the proposed amendments 
(Sec. 63.457(l)) to the test methods and procedures section, and
     The definition of ``r'' (the ratio of nonmethanol HAP to 
methanol) and the equation to determine ``r'' was not included in the 
proposed amendments (Sec. 63.457(l)(3) and
    (4) to the test methods and procedures section. We agree with each 
of the drafting errors identified by the commenters, and we are 
revising the rule accordingly.
    Control device downtime due to scheduled maintenance. In today's 
final rule amendments, we are clarifying that downtime associated with 
routine maintenance of control devices used to reduce emissions of HAP 
from pulping process vents is included in the excess emissions 
allowances. Following promulgation of the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP, 
we received comments stating that routine maintenance of control 
devices should be included in the excess emission allowances, since 
this category of outages is not covered under the startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction provisions.
    In the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP, the excess emission allowances 
include periods when the control device is inoperable and when the 
operating parameter values established during the initial performance 
test cannot be maintained at the appropriate level. However, in the 
promulgation preamble (63 FR 18529-18530), we specifically stated that 
excess emission allowances did not include scheduled maintenance 
activities. When the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP was promulgated, the 
EPA was considering revisions to the NESHAP general provisions that 
would address downtime associated with scheduled maintenance. Those 
revisions have not been made. Therefore, in today's final rule 
amendments, we are clarifying that excess emission allowances for 
pulping vent control devices (Sec. 63.443(e)) can include downtime due 
to scheduled maintenance activities.

IV. Information Collection Request (ICR)

    This final rule amends the table of currently approved ICR control 
numbers issued by OMB. This final rule updates the table to list those 
1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP information requirements promulgated in 
1998. We will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated 
table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's 
regulations and in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The 
table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the 
OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR 
satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The ICR itself was subject 
to public notice and comment prior to OMB's approval of the ICR. 
Further, because amendment of the table in part 9 is technical in 
nature, we believe that another notice and comment period for this 
amendment is unnecessary. For these reasons, we believe that there is 
good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b) to 
amend this table without prior notice and comment.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51375, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to lead 
to 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, completion, jobs, the environment, public health 
or safety, or 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 entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or 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.
    The 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP was considered a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA 
prepared a regulatory impact analysis. These final rule amendments make 
technical revisions and correct inadvertent drafting errors. The OMB 
evaluated this action and determined it to be nonsignificant; thus, it 
did not require OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the 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 13132, the EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has 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

[[Page 80760]]

costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The 
FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of 
their concerns and the EPA's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to 
Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the 
agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements 
of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
    These final amendments to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP 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. While the 1998 Pulp and Paper 
NESHAP do not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, 
EPA involved State and local air pollution control agencies in its 
development. Today's action does not create a mandate upon State, 
local, or tribal governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultations and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or if EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified 
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of 
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal 
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive 
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    Today's final rule amendments do not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. The 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP do not create mandates upon tribal governments. These 
amendments do not create a mandate on tribal governments. Accordingly, 
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (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 the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the rule on children and explain why the planned regulation 
is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The 1998 Pulp and Paper 
NESHAP fall into that category only in part: the minimum rule 
stringency is set according to a congressionally mandated, technology-
based lower limit called the ``floor,'' while a decision to increase 
the stringency beyond this floor can be partly based on risk 
considerations.
    No children's risk analysis was performed for the 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP rulemaking because no alternative technologies exist that 
would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost, and, therefore, 
the results of any such analysis would have no impact on the stringency 
decision. Today's final rule amendments are not subject to Executive 
Order 13045 because they do not involve decisions on environmental 
health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect 
children.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, the 
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 1 year.
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, 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 the 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 of why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before the 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.
    The EPA has determined that today's final rule amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. These amendments 
provide additional flexibility to the

[[Page 80761]]

1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP and reduce compliance costs. Therefore, 
these amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct 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 organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    The EPA determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with today's final rule amendments. 
These amendments will not result in increased impacts to small 
entities, but will provide additional flexibility to the 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP by adding equivalent treatment alternatives.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The EPA submitted the information requirements of the 1998 Pulp and 
Paper NESHAP for approval to the OMB on April 27, 1998 under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA prepared an ICR 
document (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy 
Farmer at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection 
Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also request a copy by 
e-mail at: [email protected] or from the Office of Policy website 
at: http://www.epa.gov/icr. The ICR has been approved by OMB (OMB No. 
2060-0387.)
    These amendments to the 1998 Pulp and Paper NESHAP will have no 
impact on the information collection burden estimates made previously. 
Consequently, EPA has not revised the ICR.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, all Federal 
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 
their regulatory procurement 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, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual 
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not to use 
available and applicable VCS.
    Today's final rule amendments do not establish new or modify 
existing technical standards. Therefore, consideration of VCS is not 
relevant to this action.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
SBREFA, 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. The EPA will submit a report 
containing this final 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). These amendments will be effective 
February 20, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 7, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 
9 and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table in 
numerical order to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  40 CFR citation                      OMB control no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 *                *                 *                 *                *
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                               Categories
 
 *                *                 *                 *                *
63.450, 63.453-63.455, and 63.457.................             2060-0387
 
 *                *                 *                 *                *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*                *                 *                 *                *
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
  applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
  which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

[[Page 80762]]

Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from the Pulp and Paper Industry

    4. Amend Sec. 63.443 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.443  Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-
chemical processes.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Reduce total HAP emissions using one of the following:
    (i) A boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace by introducing the HAP 
emission stream with the primary fuel or into the flame zone; or
    (ii) A boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input capacity 
greater than or equal to 44 megawatts (150 million British thermal 
units per hour) by introducing the HAP emission stream with the 
combustion air.
* * * * *

    5. Amend Sec. 63.446 by revising paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(2) and (i) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 63.446  Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain 
system requirements specified in Secs. 63.960, 63.961, and 63.962 of 
subpart RR of this part, except for closed vent systems and control 
devices shall be designed and operated in accordance with 
Secs. 63.443(d) and 63.450, instead of in accordance with Sec. 63.693 
as specified in Sec. 63.962 (a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(5)(iii); 
and
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Discharge the pulping process condensate below the liquid 
surface of a biological treatment system and treat the pulping process 
condensates to meet the requirements specified in paragraph (e)(3), 
(4), or (5) of this section, and total HAP shall be measured as 
specified in Sec. 63.457(g); or
* * * * *
    (i) For the purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraph 
(c)(2) or (3) or paragraph (e)(4) or (5) of this section at mills 
producing both bleached and unbleached pulp products, owners and 
operators may meet a prorated mass standard that is calculated by 
prorating the applicable mass standards (kilograms of total HAP per 
megagram of ODP) for bleached and unbleached mills specified in 
paragraph (c)(2) or (3) or paragraph (e)(4) or (5) of this section by 
the ratio of annual megagrams of bleached and unbleached ODP.

    6. Amend Sec. 63.453 by revising paragraphs (j), (n), and (p) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.453  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) Each owner or operator using an open biological treatment 
system to comply with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the daily 
monitoring procedures specified in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of 
this section and shall conduct a performance test each quarter using 
the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
    (1) Comply with the monitoring and sampling requirements specified 
in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) On a daily basis, monitor the following parameters for each 
open biological treatment unit:
    (A) Composite daily sample of outlet soluble BOD5 
concentration to monitor for maximum daily and maximum monthly average;
    (B) Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids;
    (C) Horsepower of aerator unit(s);
    (D) Inlet liquid flow; and
    (E) Liquid temperature.
    (ii) If the Inlet and Outlet Concentration Measurement Procedure 
(Procedure 3) in appendix C of this part is used to determine the 
fraction of HAP compounds degraded in the biological treatment system 
as specified in Sec. 63.457(l), conduct the sampling and archival 
requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (A) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid grab samples from each 
biological treatment unit to have HAP data available to perform 
quarterly performance tests specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this 
section and the compliance tests specified in paragraph (p) of this 
section.
    (B) Store the samples as specified in Sec. 63.457(n) until after 
the results of the soluble BOD5 test required in paragraph 
(j)(1)(i)(A) of this section are obtained. The storage requirement is 
needed since the soluble BOD5 test requires 5 days or more 
to obtain results. If the results of the soluble BOD5 test 
are outside of the range established during the initial performance 
test, then the archive sample shall be used to perform the mass removal 
or percent reduction determinations.
    (2) As an alternative to the monitoring requirements of paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, conduct daily monitoring of the site-specific 
parameters established according to the procedures specified in 
paragraph (n) of this section.
    (3) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.457(l) 
within 45 days after the beginning of each quarter and meet the 
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
    (i) The performance test conducted in the first quarter (annually) 
shall be performed for total HAP as specified in Sec. 63.457(g) and 
meet the percent reduction or mass removal emission limit specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
    (ii) The remaining quarterly performance tests shall be performed 
as specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section except owners or 
operators may use the applicable methanol procedure in 
Sec. 63.457(l)(1) or (2) and the value of r determined during the first 
quarter test instead of measuring the additional HAP to determine a new 
value of r.
* * * * *
    (n) To establish or reestablish the value for each operating 
parameter required to be monitored under paragraphs (b) through (j), 
(l), and (m) of this section or to establish appropriate parameters for 
paragraphs (f), (i), (j)(2), and (m) of this section, each owner or 
operator shall use the following procedures:
* * * * *
    (p) The procedures of this paragraph apply to each owner or 
operator of an open biological treatment system complying with 
paragraph (j) of this section whenever a monitoring parameter excursion 
occurs, and the owner or operator chooses to conduct a performance test 
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit. A 
monitoring parameter excursion occurs whenever the monitoring 
parameters specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this 
section or any of the monitoring parameters specified in paragraph 
(j)(2) of this section are below minimum operating parameter values or 
above maximum operating parameter values established in paragraph (n) 
of this section.
    (1) As soon as practical after the beginning of the monitoring 
parameter excursion, the following requirements shall be met:
    (i) Before the steps in paragraph (p)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this 
section are performed, all sampling and measurements necessary to meet 
the requirements in paragraph (p)(2) of this section shall be 
conducted.
    (ii) Steps shall be taken to repair or adjust the operation of the 
process to end the parameter excursion period.
    (iii) Steps shall be taken to minimize total HAP emissions to the 
atmosphere during the parameter excursion period.
    (2) A parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable 
emission standard if the results of the

[[Page 80763]]

performance test conducted using the procedures in this paragraph 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
    (i) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.457 using 
the monitoring data specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this 
section that coincides with the time of the parameter excursion. No 
maintenance or changes shall be made to the open biological treatment 
system after the beginning of a parameter excursion that would 
influence the results of the performance test.
    (ii) If the results of the performance test specified in paragraph 
(p)(2)(i) of this section demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2), then the parameter excursion is 
not a violation of the applicable emission limit.
    (iii) If the results of the performance test specified in paragraph 
(p)(2)(i) of this section do not demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) because the total HAP 
mass entering the open biological treatment system is below the level 
needed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2), then the owner or operator shall perform the 
following comparisons:
    (A) If the value of fbio (MeOH) determined during the 
performance test specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i) of this section is 
within the range of values established during the initial and 
subsequent performance tests approved by the Administrator, then the 
parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable standard.
    (B) If the value of fbio (MeOH) determined during the 
performance test specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i) of this section is 
not within the range of values established during the initial and 
subsequent performance tests approved by the Administrator, then the 
parameter excursion is a violation of the applicable standard.
    (iv) The results of the performance test specified in paragraph 
(p)(2)(i) of this section shall be recorded as specified in 
Sec. 63.454(f).
    (3) If an owner or operator determines that performing the required 
procedures under paragraph (p)(2) of this section for a nonthoroughly 
mixed open biological system would expose a worker to dangerous, 
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions, all of the following 
procedures shall be performed:
    (i) Calculate the mass removal or percent reduction value using the 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) except the value for 
fbio (MeOH) shall be determined using the procedures in 
appendix E to this part.
    (ii) Repeat the procedures in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section 
for every day until the unsafe conditions have passed.
    (iii) A parameter excursion is a violation of the standard if the 
percent reduction or mass removal determined in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of 
this section is less than the percent reduction or mass removal 
standards specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2), as appropriate, unless the 
value of fbio (MeOH) determined using the procedures in 
appendix E of this section, as specified in paragraph (p)(3)(i), is 
within the range of fbio (MeOH) values established during 
the initial and subsequent performance tests previously approved by the 
Administrator.
    (iv) The determination that there is a condition that exposes a 
worker to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions shall be 
documented according to requirements in Sec. 63.454(e) and reporting in 
Sec. 63.455(f).
    (v) The requirements of paragraphs (p)(1) and (2) of this section 
shall be performed and met as soon as practical but no later than 24 
hours after the conditions have passed that exposed a worker to 
dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions.

    7. Amend Sec. 63.454 by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.454  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of each affected source subject to the 
requirements of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec. 63.10, as shown in table 1 of this subpart, and 
the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 
section for the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of an open nonthoroughly mixed biological 
treatment system complying with Sec. 63.453(p)(3) instead of 
Sec. 63.453(p)(2) shall prepare a written record identifying the 
specific conditions that would expose a worker to dangerous, hazardous, 
or otherwise unsafe conditions. The record must include a written 
explanation of the specific reason(s) why a worker would not be able to 
perform the sampling and test procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l).
    (f) The owner or operator of an open biological treatment system 
complying with Sec. 63.453(p) shall prepare a written record specifying 
the results of the performance test specified in Sec. 63.453(p)(2).

    8. Amend Sec. 63.455 by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.455  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) If the owner or operator uses the results of the performance 
test required in Sec. 63.453(p)(2) to revise the approved values or 
ranges of the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(1) or 
(2), the owner or operator shall submit an initial notification of the 
subsequent performance test to the Administrator as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 15 days, before the performance test 
required in Sec. 63.453(p)(2) is scheduled to be conducted. The owner 
or operator shall notify the Administrator as soon as practicable, but 
no later than 24 hours, before the performance test is scheduled to be 
conducted to confirm the exact date and time of the performance test.
    (f) To comply with the open biological treatment system monitoring 
provisions of Sec. 63.453(p)(3), the owner or operator shall notify the 
Administrator as soon as practicable of the onset of the dangerous, 
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions that did not allow a 
compliance determination to be conducted using the sampling and test 
procedures in Sec. 63.457(l). The notification shall occur no later 
than 24 hours after the onset of the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise 
unsafe conditions and shall include the specific reason(s) that the 
sampling and test procedures in Sec. 63.457(l) could not be performed.

    9. Section 63.457 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory text;
    c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
    d. Adding paragraph (c)(6);
    e. Revising paragraph (g);
    f. Revising paragraph (l) introductory text;
    g. Revising paragraph (m)(1) introductory text;
    h. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(iii);
    i. Revising paragraph (m)(2) introductory text
    j. Revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii) introductory text;
    k. Revising paragraph (n).
    The revisions and additions to read as follows:


Sec. 63.457  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Samples shall be collected using the sampling procedures of the 
test method listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section selected to 
determine liquid stream HAP concentrations;
* * * * *

[[Page 80764]]

    (4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the effluent stream 
from an open biological treatment unit used to comply with 
Secs. 63.446(e)(2) and 63.453(j), the owner or operator shall use 
Method 405.1 of part 136 of this chapter with the following 
modifications:
* * * * *
    (5) If the test method used to determine HAP concentration 
indicates that a specific HAP is not detectable, the value determined 
as the minimum measurement level (MML) of the selected test method for 
the specific HAP shall be used in the compliance demonstration 
calculations. To determine the MML for a specific HAP using one of the 
test methods specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, one of the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section 
shall be performed. The MML for a particular HAP must be determined 
only if the HAP is not detected in the normal working range of the 
method.
    (i) To determine the MML for a specific HAP, the following 
procedures shall be performed each time the method is set up. Set up is 
defined as the first time the analytical apparatus is placed in 
operation, after any shut down of 6 months or more, or any time a major 
component of the analytical apparatus is replaced.
    (A) Select a concentration value for the specific HAP in question 
to represent the MML. The value of the MML selected shall not be below 
the calibration standard of the selected test method.
    (B) Measure the concentration of the specific HAP in a minimum of 
three replicate samples using the selected test method. All replicate 
samples shall be run through the entire analytical procedure. The 
samples must contain the specific HAP at the selected MML concentration 
and should be representative of the liquid streams to be analyzed in 
the compliance demonstration. Spiking of the liquid samples with a 
known concentration of the target HAP may be necessary to ensure that 
the HAP concentration in the three replicate samples is at the selected 
MML. The concentration of the HAP in the spiked sample must be within 
50 percent of the proposed MML for the demonstration to be valid. As an 
alternative to spiking, a field sample above the MML may be diluted to 
produce a HAP concentration at the MML. To be a valid demonstration, 
the diluted sample must have a HAP concentration within 20 percent of 
the proposed MML, and the field sample must not be diluted by more than 
a factor of five.
    (C) Calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) and the upper 
confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level using the measured 
HAP concentrations determined in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this 
section. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30 
percent, then the selected MML is acceptable. If the upper confidence 
limit of the RSD is greater than or equal to 30 percent, then the 
selected MML is too low, and the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section must be repeated.
    (ii) Provide for the Administrator's approval the selected value of 
the MML for a specific HAP and the rationale for selecting the MML 
including all data and calculations used to determine the MML. The 
approved MML must be used in all applicable compliance demonstration 
calculations.
    (6) When using the MML determined using the procedures in paragraph 
(c)(5)(ii) of this section or when using the MML determined using the 
procedures in paragraph (c)(5)(i), except during set up, the analytical 
laboratory conducting the analysis must perform and meet the following 
quality assurance procedures each time a set of samples is analyzed to 
determine compliance.
    (i) Using the selected test method, analyze in triplicate the 
concentration of the specific HAP in a representative sample. The 
sample must contain the specific HAP at a concentration that is within 
a factor of two of the MML. If there are no samples in the set being 
analyzed that contain the specific HAP at an appropriate concentration, 
then a sample below the MML may be spiked to produce the appropriate 
concentration, or a sample at a higher level may be diluted. After 
spiking, the sample must contain the specific HAP within 50 percent of 
the MML. If dilution is used instead, the diluted sample must contain 
the specific HAP within 20 percent of the MML and must not be diluted 
by more than a factor of five.
    (ii) Calculate the RSD using the measured HAP concentrations 
determined in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section. If the RSD is less 
than 20 percent, then the laboratory is performing acceptably.
* * * * *
    (g) Condensate HAP concentration measurement. For purposes of 
complying with the kraft pulping condensate requirements in 
Sec. 63.446, the owner or operator shall measure the total HAP 
concentration as methanol. For biological treatment systems complying 
with Sec. 63.446(e)(2), the owner or operator shall measure total HAP 
as acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde and 
follow the procedures in Sec. 63.457(l)(1) or (2).
* * * * *
    (l) Biological treatment system percent reduction and mass removal 
calculations. To demonstrate compliance with the condensate treatment 
standards specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and the monitoring 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(3) using a biological 
treatment system, the owner or operator shall use one of the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section. Owners or 
operators using a nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment system 
shall also comply with paragraph (l)(3) of this section.
    (1) Percent reduction methanol procedure. For the purposes of 
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i), the methanol percent reduction shall be 
calculated using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.039

Where:

R=percent destruction.
fbio(MeOH)=the fraction of methanol removed in the 
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants shall 
be determined using the appropriate procedures specified in appendix C 
of this part.
r=ratio of the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and 
propionaldehyde mass to methanol mass.
F(nonmethanol)=the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, 
and propionaldehyde mass flow rates (kg/Mg ODP) entering the biological 
treatment system determined using the procedures in paragraph (j)(2) of 
this section.
F(methanol)=the mass flow rate (kg/Mg ODP) of methanol 
entering the system determined using the procedures in paragraph (j)(2) 
of this section.

    (2) Mass removal methanol procedure. For the purposes of complying 
with the condensate treatment requirements specified in

[[Page 80765]]

Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(ii) or (iii), the methanol mass removal shall be 
calculated using the following equation:

F=Fb * (f bio(MeOH)/(1 + 1.087(r)))

Where:

F=methanol mass removal (kg/Mg ODP).
Fb=inlet mass flow rate of methanol (kg/Mg ODP) determined 
using the procedures in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
fbio(MeOH)=the fraction of methanol removed in the 
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants shall 
be determined using the appropriate procedures specified in appendix C 
of this part.
r=ratio of the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and 
propionaldehyde mass to methanol mass determined using the procedures 
in paragraph (1) of this section.
    (3) The owner or operator of a nonthoroughly mixed open biological 
treatment system using the monitoring requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.453(p)(3) shall follow the procedures specified in section 
III.B.1 of appendix E of this part to determine the borate constant, 
Ks, and characterize the open biological treatment system during the 
initial and any subsequent performance tests.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (1) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements 
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2), the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(m)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section shall be performed.
* * * * *
    (iii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) is demonstrated if the condensate stream or streams 
from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(1) through (3) 
being treated as specified in Sec. 63.446(e) contain at least as much 
total HAP mass as the target total HAP mass determined in paragraph 
(m)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements 
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(3), the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(m)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section shall be performed.
* * * * *
    (ii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(c)(3) is demonstrated if the total HAP mass determined in 
paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section is equal to or greater than the 
appropriate mass requirements specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(3).
    (n) Open biological treatment system monitoring sampling storage. 
The inlet and outlet grab samples required to be collected in 
Sec. 63.453(j)(1)(ii) shall be stored at 4 deg.C (40 deg.F) to minimize 
the biodegradation of the organic compounds in the samples.
* * * * *
    10. Amend Sec. 63.458 by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding 
paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.458  Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Section 63.457(c)(3)(iii)--Use of an alternative test method 
for total HAP or methanol in wastewater.
    (5) Section 63.457(c)(5)(ii)--Determination of the minimum 
measurement level in liquid streams for a specific HAP using the 
selected test method.
    11. Add appendix E to this part to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 63--Monitoring Procedure for Nonthoroughly Mixed 
Open Biological Treatment Systems at Kraft Pulp Mills Under Unsafe 
Sampling Conditions

I. Purpose

    This procedure is required to be performed in subpart S of this 
part, entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry. Subpart S requires this 
procedure in Sec. 63.453(p)(3) to be followed during unsafe sampling 
conditions when it is not practicable to obtain representative 
samples of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) concentrations from an 
open biological treatment unit. It is assumed that inlet and outlet 
HAP concentrations from the open biological treatment unit may be 
obtained during the unsafe sampling conditions. The purpose of this 
procedure is to estimate the concentration of HAP within the open 
biological treatment unit based on information obtained at inlet and 
outlet sampling locations in units that are not thoroughly mixed 
and, therefore, have different concentrations of HAP at different 
locations within the unit.

II. Definitions

    Biological treatment unit = wastewater treatment unit designed 
and operated to promote the growth of bacteria to destroy organic 
materials in wastewater.

fbio =The fraction of organic compounds in the wastewater 
biodegraded in a biological treatment unit.
Fe=The fraction of applicable organic compounds emitted from the 
wastewater to the atmosphere.
K1=First-order biodegradation rate constant, L/g mixed liquor 
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)-hr
KL=Liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
Ks=Monod biorate constant at half the maximum rate, g/m3

III. Test Procedure for Determination of fbio for 
Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment Units Under Unsafe 
Sampling Conditions

    This test procedure is used under unsafe sampling conditions 
that do not permit practicable sampling of open biological treatment 
units within the unit itself, but rather relies on sampling at the 
inlet and outlet locations of the unit. This procedure may be used 
only under unsafe sampling conditions to estimate fbio. 
Once the unsafe conditions have passed, then the formal compliance 
demonstration procedures of fbio based upon measurements 
within the open biological treatment unit must be completed.

A. Overview of Estimation Procedure

    The steps in the estimation procedure include data collection, 
the estimation of concentrations within the unit, and the use of 
Form 1 to estimate fbio. The data collection procedure 
consists of two separate components. The first data collection 
component demonstrates that the open biological treatment unit can 
be represented by Monod kinetics and characterizes the effectiveness 
of the open biological treatment unit as part of the initial 
performance test, and the second data collection component is used 
when there are unsafe sampling conditions. These two data collection 
components are used together in a data calculation procedure based 
on a Monod kinetic model to estimate the concentrations in each zone 
of the open biological treatment unit. After the first two 
components of data collection are completed, the calculation 
procedures are used to back estimate the zone concentrations, 
starting with the last zone in the series and ending with the first 
zone.

B. Data Collection Requirements

    This method is based upon modeling the nonthoroughly mixed open 
biological treatment unit as a series of well-mixed zones with 
internal recycling between the units and assuming that two Monod 
biological kinetic parameters can be used to characterize the 
biological removal rates in each unit. The data collection procedure 
consists of two separate components. The first data collection 
component is part of the initial performance test, and the second 
data collection component is used during unsafe sampling conditions.

1. Initial Performance Test

    The objective of the first data collection component is to 
demonstrate that the open biological treatment unit can be 
represented by Monod kinetics and to characterize the performance of 
the open biological treatment unit. An appropriate value of the 
biorate constant, Ks, is determined using actual sampling data from 
the open biological treatment unit. This is done during the initial 
performance test when the open biological treatment unit is 
operating under normal conditions. This specific Ks value obtained 
during the initial performance test is used in the calculation 
procedure to characterize the open biological treatment unit during 
unsafe sampling conditions. The following open biological treatment 
unit characterization

[[Page 80766]]

information is obtained from the first component of the data 
collection procedure:
    (1) The value of the biorate constant, Ks;
    (2) The number and characteristics of each zone in the open 
biological treatment unit (depth, area, characterization parameters 
for surface aeration, submerged aeration rates, biomass 
concentration, concentrations of organic compounds, dissolved oxygen 
(DO), dissolved solids, temperature, and other relevant variables); 
and
    (3) The recycle ratio of internal recirculation between the 
zones. The number of zones and the above characterization of the 
zones are also used to determine the performance of the unit under 
the unsafe sampling conditions of concern.

2. Data Collected Under Unsafe Sampling Conditions

    In the second data collection component obtained under unsafe 
sampling conditions, the measured inlet and outlet HAP 
concentrations and the biomass concentration are obtained for the 
open biological treatment unit. After the site specific data 
collection is completed on the day a parameter excursion occurs, the 
inlet and outlet concentrations are used with the prior open 
biological treatment unit characterization to estimate the 
concentrations of HAP in each zone. The following information on the 
open biological treatment unit must be available in the second data 
collection component:
    (1) Basic unit variables such as inlet and recycle wastewater 
flow rates, type of agitation, and operating conditions;
    (2) The value of the inlet and outlet HAP concentrations; and
    (3) The biomass concentration in the open biological treatment 
unit.

C. One Time Determination of a Single Value of Ks (Initial Performance 
Test)

    A single value of Ks is calculated using Form 3 for each data 
set that is collected during the initial performance test. A single 
composite value of Ks, deemed to be representative of the biological 
unit, is subsequently selected so that the fbio values 
calculated by the procedures in this appendix (using this single 
value of Ks) for the data sets collected during the initial 
performance test are within 10 percent of the fbio value 
determined by using Form 1 with these same data sets. The value of 
Ks meeting these criteria is obtained by the following steps:
    (1) Determine the median of the Ks values calculated for each 
data set;
    (2) Estimate fbio for each data set using the 
selected Ks value (Form 1 and Form 2);
    (3) Calculate fbio for each data set using Form 1; 
and
    (4) Compare the fbio values obtained in steps (2) and 
(3); if the fbio value calculated using step (2) differs 
from that calculated using step (3) by more than 10 percent, adjust 
Ks (decrease Ks if the fbio value is lower than that 
calculated by Form 1 and vice versa) and repeat this procedure 
starting at step (2). If a negative value is obtained for the values 
of Ks, then this negative kinetic constant may not be used with the 
Monod model. If a negative value of Ks is obtained, this test 
procedure cannot be used for evaluating the performance of the open 
biological treatment unit.

D. Confirmation of Monod Kinetics (Initial Performance Test)

    (1) Confirmation that the unit can be represented by Monod 
kinetics is made by identifying the following two items:
    (i) The zone methanol concentrations measured during the initial 
performance test; and
    (ii) The zone methanol concentrations estimated by the Multiple 
Zone Concentrations Calculations Procedure based on inlet and outlet 
concentrations (Column A of Form 2). For each zone, the 
concentration in item 1 is compared to the concentration in item 2.
    (2) For each zone, the estimated value of item 2 must be:
    (i) Within 25 percent of item 1 when item 1 exceeds 8 mg/L; or
    (ii) Within 2 mg/L of item 1 when item 1 is 8 mg/L or less.
    (3) Successful demonstration that the calculated zone 
concentrations meet these criteria must be achieved for 80 percent 
of the performance test data sets.
    (4) If negative values are obtained for the values of K1 and Ks, 
then these negative kinetic constants may not be used with the Monod 
model, even if the criteria are met. If negative values are 
obtained, this test procedure cannot be used for evaluating the 
performance of the open biological treatment unit.

E. Determination of KL for Each Zone (Unsafe Sampling Conditions)

    (1) A site-specific liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient (KL) 
must be obtained for each zone during the unsafe sampling 
conditions. Do not use a default value for KL. The KL value for each 
zone must be based on the site-specific parameters of the specific 
unit. The first step in using this procedure is to calculate KL for 
each zone in the unit using Form 4. Form 4 outlines the procedure to 
follow for using mass transfer equations to determine KL. Form 4 
identifies the appropriate form to use for providing the detailed 
calculations to support the estimate of the value of KL. Forms 5 and 
6 are used to provide individual compound estimates of KL for 
quiescent and aerated impoundments, respectively. A computer model 
may be used to perform the calculations. If the WATER8 model or the 
most recent update to this model is used, then report the computer 
model input parameters that you used as an attachment to Form 4. In 
addition, the Bay Area Sewage Toxics Emission (BASTE) model, version 
3.0, or equivalent upgrade and the TOXCHEM (Environment Canada's 
Wastewater Technology Centre and Environmega, Ltd.) model, version 
1.10, or equivalent upgrade may also be used to determine KL for the 
open biological treatment unit with the following stipulations:
    (i) The programs must be altered to output a KL value that is 
based on the site-specific parameters of the unit modeled; and
    (ii) The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 must be substituted 
for the existing Henry's law values in the models.
    (2) The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 may be obtained from 
the following sources:
    (i) Values listed by EPA with temperature adjustment if needed;
    (ii) Measured values for the system of concern with temperature 
adjustment; or
    (iii) Literature values of Henry's law values for methanol, 
adjusted for temperature if needed.
    (3) Input values used in the model and corresponding output 
values shall become part of the documentation of the fbio 
determination. The owner or operator should be aware that these 
models may not provide equivalent KL values for some types of units. 
To obtain an equivalent KL value in this situation, the owner or 
operator shall either use the appropriate procedure on Form 4 or 
adjust the KL value from the model to the equivalent KL value as 
described on Form 4.
    (4) Report the input parameters that you used in the computer 
model on Forms 5, 6, and 7 as an attachment to Form 4. If you have 
submerged air flow in your unit, you must add the value of KL 
estimated on Form 7 to the value of KL obtained with Forms 5 and 6 
before using the value of KL with Form 2.

F. Estimation of Zone Concentrations (Unsafe Sampling Conditions)

    Form 2 is used to estimate the zone concentrations of HAP based 
on the inlet and outlet data. The value of Ks entered on the form is 
that single composite value of Ks discussed in section III.C of this 
appendix. This value of Ks is calculated during the Initial 
Performance Test (and subsequently updated, if necessary). A unique 
value of the biorate K1 is entered on line 5 of Form 2, and the 
inlet concentration is estimated in Column A of Form 2. The inlet 
concentration is located in the row of Form 2 corresponding to zone 
0. If there are three zones in the system, n-3 equals 0 for the 
inlet concentration row. These estimated zone concentrations are 
then used in Form 1 to estimate f bio for the treatment unit.

G. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC)

    A QA/QC plan outlining the procedures used to determine the 
measured inlet and outlet concentrations during unsafe conditions 
and how the zone characterization data were obtained during the 
initial performance test shall be prepared and submitted with the 
initial performance test report. The plan should include, but may 
not be limited to:
    (1) A description of each of the sampling methods that were used 
(method, procedures, time, method to avoid losses during sampling 
and holding, and sampling procedures) including simplified schematic 
drawings;
    (2) A description of how that biomass was sampled from the 
biotreatment unit, including methods, locations, and times;
    (3) A description of what conditions (DO, temperature, etc.) are 
important, what the target values are in the zones, how the factors 
were controlled, and how they were monitored. These conditions are 
primarily used to establish that the conditions of the initial 
performance test correspond to the conditions of the day in 
question;
    (4) A description of how each analytical measurement was 
conducted, including

[[Page 80767]]

preparation of solutions, dilution procedures, sampling procedures, 
monitoring of conditions, etc;
    (5) A description of the analytical instrumentation used, how 
the instruments were calibrated, and a summary of the accuracy and 
precision for each instrument;
    (6) A description of the test methods used to determine HAP 
concentrations and other measurements. Section 63.457(c)(3) 
specifies the test methods that must be used to determine HAP 
concentrations. During unsafe sampling conditions, you do not have 
to sample over an extended period of time or obtain more than one 
sample at each sample point.
    (7) A description of how data are captured, recorded, and 
stored; and
    (8) A description of the equations used and their solutions for 
sampling and analysis, including a reference to any software used 
for calculations and/or curve-fitting.

IV. Calculation of Individual fbio (Unsafe Sampling 
Conditions)

    Use Form 1 with your zone concentration information to estimate 
the value of f bio under unsafe sampling conditions. Form 1 uses 
measured concentrations of HAP in the unit inlet and outlet, and 
Form 1 also uses the estimated concentrations in each zone of the 
unit obtained from Form 2. This procedure may be used on an open 
biological treatment unit that has defined zones within the unit. 
Use Form 1 to determine fbio for each open biological 
treatment unit as it exists under subpart S of part 63. The first 
step in using Form 1 is to calculate KL for each zone in the unit 
using Form 4. Form 7 must also be used if submerged aeration is 
used. After KL is determined using field data, obtain the 
concentrations of the HAP in each zone. In this alternative 
procedure for unsafe sampling conditions, the actual measured 
concentrations of the HAP in each zone are replaced with the zone 
concentrations that are estimated with Form 2. After KL and the zone 
concentrations are determined, Form 1 is used to estimate the 
overall unit Fe and fbio for methanol.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

[[Page 80768]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.040


[[Page 80769]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.041


[[Page 80770]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.042


[[Page 80771]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.043


[[Page 80772]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.044


[[Page 80773]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.045


[[Page 80774]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.046


[[Page 80775]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.048


[[Page 80776]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE00.049

[FR Doc. 00-32028 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C