[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 73 (Thursday, April 15, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19943-19946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8581]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[VA001-1001a; FRL-7648-4]


Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; Equivalency by Permit Provisions; National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper 
Industry; Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a request from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for authority to 
implement and enforce state permit terms and conditions in place of 
those of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) for the Pulp and Paper Industry, with respect to the 
operations of International Paper Company's Franklin Mill, located in 
Franklin, Virginia. Thus, the EPA is hereby granting the Virginia DEQ 
the authority to implement and enforce alternative requirements in the 
form of Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V permit terms and conditions after 
EPA has approved the State's alternative requirements. The EPA is 
approving this request because it has found that the Virginia DEQ has 
satisfied the requirements for approval set forth at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, entitled, ``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of 
Federal Authorities.''

DATES: This rule is effective on June 14, 2004 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 6, 2004. If EPA 
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by VA001-1001, by one of 
the following methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: [email protected].
    C. Mail: David J. Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment 
Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. VA001-1001. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and 
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information 
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Copies of all comments should also be sent to the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality. Copies of written comments should 
be sent to John M. Daniel, Jr., Director, Air Division, Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, Virginia 
23240. Copies of electronic comments should be sent to jmdaniel@ 
deq.state.va.us. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, 
Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Chalmers, (215) 814-2061, or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates NESHAP for various 
categories of air pollution sources. On April 15, 1998, EPA promulgated 
a NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Industry, as codified at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart S, Sec. Sec.  63.440 through 63.459. (See, 63 FR 18504.) 
International Paper Company operates a pulp and paper mill called the 
Franklin Mill, located in Franklin, Virginia, which is subject to the 
requirements of this NESHAP.
    Under section 112(l) of the CAA, EPA may approve State or local 
rules or programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain 
otherwise applicable Federally promulgated CAA section 112 rules, 
emission standards, or requirements. EPA's approval of State and local 
rules or programs under section 112(l) is governed by regulations found 
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. (See, 65 FR 55810, dated September 14, 
2000). Under the provisions of subpart E found at 40 CFR 63.94, a State 
or local air pollution control agency may seek approval, for affected 
sources permitted by the State or local agency under a CAA Title V 
permitting program developed pursuant to the EPA regulations found at 
40 CFR part 70, of State or local CAA Title V permit terms and 
conditions to be implemented and enforced in lieu of specified existing 
and future Federal CAA section 112 rules, emissions standards, or 
requirements. This option is referred to as the equivalency by permit 
(EBP) option. To receive EPA approval using this option, the State or 
local agency must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.94.
    Approval of alternative requirements under the EBP process 
comprises three steps. The first step is EPA granting ``up-front 
approval'' of a State's EBP program. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(a) and (b).) 
The second step is EPA review and approval of the State's proposed 
alternative CAA section 112 requirements in the form of pre-draft 
permit terms and conditions. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(c) and (d).) The third 
step is incorporation of the approved pre-draft permit terms and 
conditions into a specific CAA Title V permit and the CAA Title V 
permit issuance process itself. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(e).)
    The first step, obtaining EPA's ``up-front approval'' of a State's 
EBP program, enables EPA to ensure that: (1) A State meets the criteria 
at 40 CFR 63.91(d) for up-front approval common to all approval 
options; (2) a legal

[[Page 19944]]

foundation exists for a State to replace the otherwise applicable 
Federal section 112 requirements with alternative, Federally 
enforceable requirements that will be reflected in final CAA Title V 
permit terms and conditions; and, (3) the specific source(s) and 
Federal emission standard(s) for which a State will be accepting 
delegation under the EBP program are clearly specified.
    The second step, having EPA review and approve the State's 
alternative CAA section 112 requirements, provides EPA with an 
opportunity to ensure that the State's proposed pre-draft CAA Title V 
permit terms and conditions reflect all of the requirements of the 
otherwise applicable Federal requirements and are equivalent to those 
requirements. The approval criteria used by EPA are set forth at 40 CFR 
63.94(d). If the EPA finds that the pre-draft CAA Title V permit terms 
and conditions submitted by the State meet the criteria of paragraph 
(d), EPA approves the State's alternative requirements (by approving 
the pre-draft permit terms and conditions) and notifies the State in 
writing of the approval.
    The third step, requiring incorporation of the approved pre-draft 
permit terms and conditions into a specific CAA Title V permit and the 
CAA Title V permit issuance process itself, serves to make the 
requirements legally effective. EPA's final approval of the State's 
proposed alternative requirements that substitute for the Federal 
standard does not occur until the completion of step three.
    On November 21, 2003 the Virginia DEQ requested delegation of 
authority to implement and enforce State CAA Title V permit terms and 
requirements for International Paper Company's Franklin Mill as an 
alternative to those of the NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Industry 
found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. The Virginia DEQ states in its 
request that it intends for the submittal to fulfill only the 
requirements of step one of the EBP process, pertaining to obtaining 
``up-front approval'' of its program. The Virginia DEQ explains that it 
will later fulfill steps two and three of the EBP process by submitting 
substitute CAA Title V operating permit terms and conditions for EPA 
review and approval, and then proceeding with the CAA Title V permit 
issuance process. The Virginia DEQ sought this authority pursuant to 
the provisions of 40 CFR 63.94 and 63.91, and the Virginia DEQ 
submitted information addressing the requirements of those sections.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Virginia DEQ's submittal and has concluded 
that the Virginia DEQ meets the requirements for ``up-front approval'' 
of its EBP program which are specified at 40 CFR 63.94(b) and 63.91(d). 
The requirements a State or local agency must meet can be summarized as 
follows: (1) Identify the source(s) for which the State seeks authority 
to implement and enforce alternative requirements; (2) request 
delegation (or have delegation) for any remaining sources required to 
be permitted by the State under 40 CFR part 70 that are in the same 
category as the source(s) for which it wishes to establish alternative 
requirements; (3) identify all existing and future CAA section 112 
emission standards for which the State is seeking authority to 
implement and enforce alternative requirements; (4) demonstrate that 
the State has an approved CAA Title V operating permits program that 
permits the affected sources; and, (5) demonstrate that the State meets 
the general approval criteria set forth at 40 CFR 63.91(d).
    EPA lists each requirement below and after each requirement 
explains its reasons for concluding that the Virginia DEQ meets the 
requirement:

A. Identify the Source(s) for Which the State Is Seeking Authority To 
Implement and Enforce Alternative Requirements

    The Virginia DEQ identified International Paper Company's Franklin 
Mill, a pulp and paper mill located in Franklin, Virginia, as the 
source for which it is seeking authority to implement and enforce 
alternative requirements. According to the Virginia DEQ, International 
Paper Company's Franklin Mill is one of four operating pulp and paper 
mills in Virginia subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. The Virginia 
DEQ reports that none of the other companies operating pulp and paper 
mills in Virginia have contacted the State regarding an interest in the 
EBP process.

B. Request or Have Delegation for Any Remaining Sources Required To Be 
Issued CAA Title V Permits by the State and That Are in the Same 
Category as the Source(s) for Which It Seeks To Establish Alternative 
Requirements

    The Virginia DEQ is currently delegated the authority to implement 
and enforce the Federal requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart S for 
all pulp and paper mills. Subpart S applies to ``the owner or operator 
of processes that produce pulp, paper, or paperboard; that are located 
at a plant site that is a major source. * * *'' (See, 40 CFR 63.440.) 
On January 26, 1999, EPA announced in the Federal Register that it had 
delegated to the Virginia DEQ the authority to implement and enforce 
EPA's NESHAP standards for all affected sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs), as defined in 40 CFR part 63, for all source 
categories which are located at major sources. (See, 64 FR 3938.) EPA 
also delegated to the Virginia DEQ the authority to implement and 
enforce all future EPA NESHAP standards applicable to such sources, on 
the condition that the Virginia DEQ legally adopt such new standards 
with only approved wording changes and that the Virginia DEQ provide 
notice to EPA of such adoption. The Virginia DEQ subsequently adopted 
additional standards, and notified EPA that it had adopted these 
additional standards. The additional standards that the State adopted 
included 40 CFR part 63, subpart S.

C. Identify All Existing and Future Federal Section 112 Rules for Which 
the State Is Seeking Authority To Implement and Enforce Alternative 
Requirements

    In its November 21, 2003 submittal, the Virginia DEQ requested only 
the authority to implement and enforce State permit requirements for 
International Paper Company's Franklin Mill as alternatives to the 
Federal requirements applicable to that Mill found at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart S. The Virginia DEQ confirmed that there are no other existing 
and future Federal CAA section 112 rules for which the State is seeking 
authority to implement and enforce alternative requirements.

D. Demonstrate That the State Has an Approved CAA Title V Permits 
Program and That the Program Permits the Affected Source(s)

    EPA granted final full approval to Virginia's CAA Title V operating 
permits program on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62961), and under this 
approved program the Virginia DEQ has the authority to issue CAA Title 
V permits to all major stationary sources. In its November 21, 2003 
submittal, the Virginia DEQ confirmed that International Paper 
Company's Franklin Mill is a CAA Title V source and that it is subject 
to the State's CAA Title V permits program. The Virginia DEQ noted the 
International Paper Company had submitted a CAA Title V permit 
application, and that the Virginia DEQ was reviewing this application.

[[Page 19945]]

E. Demonstrate That the State Meets the General Approval Criteria Found 
at 40 CFR Section 63.91(d)

    The provisions of 40 CFR 63.91(d) specify that ``Interim or final 
CAA Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria set forth in 
Sec.  63.91(d), up-front approval criteria.'' As discussed in item D. 
above, EPA has fully approved Virginia's CAA Title V operating permits 
program.

F. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information: (1) That are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that 
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *'' The opinion concludes 
that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other 
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these 
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information 
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal 
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1997 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
CAA Title V program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any 
event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and 
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any 
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 
its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions 
of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In 
addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is 
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity 
law.

III. Final Action

    EPA is granting the Virginia DEQ ``up-front'' approval of an EBP 
program under which the Virginia DEQ may establish and enforce 
alternative State requirements for International Paper Company's 
Franklin Mill in lieu of those of the NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper 
Industry found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. The Virginia DEQ may only 
establish alternative requirements for the Franklin Mill which are 
equivalent to and at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable 
Federal requirements. (See, 40 CFR 63.94(d).) The VA DEQ must, in order 
to establish alternative requirements for the Franklin Mill under its 
EPA approved EBP program: (1) Submit to EPA for review pre-draft CAA 
Title V permit terms specifying alternative requirements which are at 
least as stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal requirements, 
(2) obtain EPA's written approval of the alternative pre-draft CAA 
Title V permit requirements, and (3) issue a CAA Title V permit for the 
Franklin Mill which contains the approved alternative requirements. 
(See, 40 CFR 63.94(c) and (e).) Until EPA has approved the alternative 
permit terms and conditions and the Virginia DEQ has issued a final CAA 
Title V permit incorporating them, International Paper Company's 
Franklin Mill will remain subject to the Federal NESHAP requirements 
found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to approve if adverse comments are filed. This rule 
will be effective on June 14, 2004 without further notice unless EPA 
receives adverse comment by May 6, 2004. If EPA receives adverse 
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will 
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose

[[Page 19946]]

any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    EPA's role in reviewing this submittal is to approve a State 
request for authority to establish State permit terms and conditions to 
be implemented and enforced in lieu of specified existing and future 
Federal rules, emissions standards or requirements promulgated under 
CAA section 112, for those affected sources permitted by the State 
under a program meeting the requirements of CAA part 70, provided that 
the request meets the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the 
absence of a prior existing requirement for a State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State's 
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, in reviewing this submission, to use VCS in 
place of a State submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not 
apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. 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 affect 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 establishing source-
specific requirements for International Paper Company's Franklin Mill 
located in Franklin, Virginia.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 14, 2004. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action granting the Virginia DEQ ``up-front'' 
approval of an EBP program under which the Virginia DEQ may establish 
and enforce alternative State requirements for International Paper 
Company's Franklin Mill in lieu of those of the NESHAP for the Pulp and 
Paper Industry found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S may not be challenged 
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 
307(b)(2).)

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: April 6, 2004.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

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

0
2. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(46)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.99  Delegated Federal authorities.

    (a) * * *
    (46) Virginia
* * * * *
    (iii) EPA has granted the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality (DEQ) ``up-front'' approval to implement an Equivalency by 
Permit (EBP) program under which the Virginia DEQ may establish and 
enforce alternative State requirements for International Paper 
Company's Franklin Mill in lieu of those of the National Emissions 
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Pulp and Paper 
Industry found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. The Virginia DEQ may only 
establish alternative requirements for the Franklin Mill which are 
equivalent to and at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable 
Federal requirements. The VA DEQ must, in order to establish 
alternative requirements for the Franklin Mill under its EPA approved 
EBP program: (1) Submit to EPA for review pre-draft Clean Air Act (CAA) 
Title V permit terms specifying alternative requirements which are at 
least as stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal requirements, 
(2) obtain EPA's written approval of the alternative pre-draft CAA 
Title V permit requirements, and (3) issue a CAA Title V permit for the 
Franklin Mill which contains the approved alternative requirements. 
Until EPA has approved the alternative permit terms and conditions and 
the Virginia DEQ has issued a final CAA Title V permit incorporating 
them, International Paper Company's Franklin Mill will remain subject 
to the Federal NESHAP requirements found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-8581 Filed 4-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P