[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3180-3203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-65]



[[Page 3179]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 
Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 
Semichemical Pulp Mills; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 3180]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6919-9]
RIN 2060-AI34


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and 
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources used in 
chemical recovery processes at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are 
regulated by this final rule include gaseous organic HAP and HAP 
metals. The adverse health effects of exposure to these HAP can include 
cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, gastrointestinal 
effects, damage to the nervous system, and irritation to the eyes, 
skin, and respiratory system. Emissions of other pollutants from these 
sources include particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds 
(VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 
nitrogen oxides (NOX).
    This final rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) and is based on the Administrator's determination that chemical 
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills are major sources of HAP emissions. The final 
rule is intended to protect public health by requiring chemical 
recovery combustion sources to meet standards reflecting the 
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to 
control HAP emissions from these sources. Implementation of this rule 
will reduce emissions of HAP by approximately 2,500 megagrams per year 
(Mg/yr) (2,700 tons per year (tpy)) and emissions of other pollutants 
by approximately 107,900 Mg/yr (118,900 tpy).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-94-67, containing information considered by EPA 
in developing the promulgated standards, is available for public 
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket is located 
at the above address in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is 
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble. For information 
concerning the analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Mr. 
Jeff Telander, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-5427, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, 
electronic mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are 
those kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills 
with chemical recovery processes that involve the combustion of spent 
pulping liquor. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this 
action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Examples of regulated
              Category                      SIC code               NAICS code                  entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........................  2611, 2621, 2631......  32211, 32212, 32213...  Kraft, soda, sulfite, and
                                                                                      stand-alone semichemical
                                                                                      pulp mills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.860 of the 
final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA Regional 
Office representative listed below:

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

Judicial Review

    The NESHAP for chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, 
sulfite, and semichemical pulp mills was proposed on April 15, 1998 (63 
FR 18783). Today's action announces EPA's final decisions on the rule. 
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final rule 
is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 13, 2001. Only 
those objections to this rule which were raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during 
judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
that are the subject of today's final rule may not be challenged later 
in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.

[[Page 3181]]

World Wide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's final rule will also be available on the WWW through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's 
signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

    The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble 
to the final rule.

I. Background and Public Participation
II. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Standards
    C. Performance Test Requirements
    D. Monitoring Requirements
    E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Definitions
    C. Standards
    D. Performance Test Requirements
    E. Monitoring Requirements
    F. Reporting Requirements
    G. Delegation of Authority
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
V. Summary of Impacts
    A. Air Quality Impacts
    B. Cost Impacts
    C. Economic Impacts
    D. Benefits Analysis
    E. Non-Air Environmental Impacts
    F. Energy Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation 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 of 1995
    I. Congressional Review Act

I. Background and Public Participation

    Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major 
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 
9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any 
combination of HAP.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) 
(CAA section 112(d)(3)).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements (CAA section 112(d)(2)).
    On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), we published a list of source 
categories slated for regulation under section 112(c). That list 
included the pulp and paper production source category regulated by the 
standards being promulgated today. We proposed standards for chemical 
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills covered by this rule on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 
18783).
    As in the proposal, the final standards give existing sources 3 
years from the date of promulgation to comply. Sources that begin 
construction or reconstruction after April 15, 1998 must comply with 
the standards for new sources by March 13, 2001 or upon startup, 
whichever is later. We believe these standards to be achievable by 
affected sources within the time provided.
    Emissions limits, as well as monitoring, performance testing, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are included in the final 
rule. All of these components are necessary to ensure that sources 
comply with the standards both initially and over time. However, we 
have made every effort to simplify the requirements in the rule.
    The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for 
the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of 
proposal. The public comment period lasted from April 15, 1998 to June 
15, 1998. Industry representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental 
groups, and the general public were given the opportunity to comment on 
the proposed rule and to provide additional information during and 
after the public comment period. Although we offered at proposal the 
opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments 
concerning the proposed rule, no one requested a hearing, and a hearing 
was not held.
    We received a total of 35 letters containing comments on the 
proposed rule during and after the public comment period. Commenters 
included individual pulp and paper companies, an industry trade 
association, an environmental group, a local regulatory agency, an 
association of State and local regulatory agencies, and an association 
of air pollution control vendors. Today's final rule reflects our full 
consideration of all of the comments received. Major public comments on 
the proposed rule, along with our responses to those comments, are 
summarized in this preamble. See the Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses memorandum for a more detailed discussion of public comments 
and our responses (docket No. A-94-67).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

    The final rule applies to all existing and new kraft, soda, 
sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills with chemical recovery 
processes that involve the combustion of spent pulping liquor. 
Specifically, the affected sources that are regulated by today's final 
rule are each new nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnace 
and associated smelt dissolving tank (SDT) located at a kraft or soda 
pulp mill, each new direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace 
system and associated SDT located at a kraft or soda pulp mill, each 
new lime kiln located at a kraft or

[[Page 3182]]

soda pulp mill, each new or existing sulfite combustion unit located at 
a sulfite pulp mill, each new or existing semichemical combustion unit 
located at a stand-alone semichemical pulp mill, and each existing 
chemical recovery system located at a kraft or soda pulp mill. The 
chemical recovery system is defined as all existing DCE and NDCE 
recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    All existing kraft and soda pulp mills have chemical recovery 
processes that involve the combustion of spent pulping liquor. However, 
several existing sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills do not 
recover pulping chemicals by combusting spent liquor. Three of the 11 
sulfite mills use a calcium-based sulfite process and do not have 
chemical recovery combustion units and, thus, are not impacted by this 
final rule. One of the 13 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills burns 
spent liquor in a power boiler and does not have chemical recovery; 
therefore, that mill also is not impacted by this final rule.

B. Standards

    Today's final rule regulates HAP metals emissions and/or gaseous 
organic HAP emissions for chemical recovery combustion sources in the 
pulp and paper production source category. The promulgated standards 
are summarized in Table 1.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 3183]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 3184]]

    The standards for each subcategory are discussed in the following 
sections by the pollutant regulated.
1. HAP Metals Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    Today's rule promulgates PM emissions limits as a surrogate for HAP 
metals for new and existing recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns at 
kraft and soda pulp mills. The PM emissions limits are established at 
the MACT floor level. For existing kraft and soda recovery furnaces and 
SDT, the MACT floor level corresponds (coincidentally) to the 
promulgated PM emissions limits in the new source performance standards 
(NSPS) for kraft pulp mills (43 FR 7568, February 23, 1978). We believe 
this level best represents the level of performance achievable by the 
average of the best-performing 12 percent of sources, considering 
normal process and operating variability. For existing kraft and soda 
lime kilns, the MACT floor level is more stringent than the NSPS 
because data indicate that the average of the best-performing 12 
percent of sources can achieve a more stringent level.
    The final rule also allows the use of a ``bubble compliance 
alternative'' for determining compliance with the HAP metals standards 
for existing process units (i.e., recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime 
kilns) in the chemical recovery system at kraft and soda pulp mills. 
The bubble compliance alternative allows mills to set PM emissions 
limits for each existing process unit in the chemical recovery system 
at the mill such that, if these limits are met, the total emissions 
from all existing process units are less than or equal to a mill-
specific bubble limit. This mill-specific bubble limit is calculated 
based on the promulgated emissions standards (referred to in the rule 
as reference concentrations or reference emissions rates) for each 
process unit and mill-specific gas flow rates and process rates. 
Equation 1 in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) of the final rule will be used to 
calculate the bubble limit based on PM emissions.
    As in the proposed rule, the bubble compliance alternative is not 
applicable to new affected sources under this rulemaking. Thus, all new 
affected sources at kraft and soda pulp mills are required to meet the 
individual emissions limitations set for those sources. Also, owners or 
operators of existing process units subject to the NSPS for kraft pulp 
mills are required to continue to meet the PM emissions standards of 
that rule, regardless of which option they choose for complying with 
today's HAP metals standards (because that standard is a separate 
regulatory requirement which remains in place).
    Owners or operators that choose to comply with the HAP metals 
standards using the bubble compliance alternative are required to 
submit PM emissions limits to the Administrator for approval for each 
existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, SDT, and lime kiln at the 
mill. Before the PM emissions limits are approved, the owner or 
operator must submit documentation demonstrating that if the PM 
emissions limits for each emission source are met, the entire group of 
process units in the chemical recovery system are in compliance with 
the millwide allowable PM emission level. The allowable PM emission 
level is determined from the applicable bubble equation using the 
reference PM concentrations and reference PM emissions rates for each 
process unit and source-specific factors for exhaust gas flow rates and 
process rates. Once approved by the Administrator, the PM emissions 
limits are incorporated in the operating permit for the mill. 
Thereafter, the owner or operator of the kraft or soda pulp mill 
demonstrates compliance with the standards by demonstrating that each 
recovery furnace, SDT, and lime kiln emits less than or equal to the 
approved PM emission limit for that process unit. In addition, the PM 
emissions limits for any existing recovery furnace, SDT, or lime kiln 
subject to the 1978 NSPS for kraft pulp mills must be at least as 
stringent as the PM emissions limits established in the NSPS. An 
example of how the bubble compliance alternative can be used to 
establish PM emissions limits for process units in a chemical recovery 
system at an example mill is provided in the administrative record 
(Docket No. A-94-67).
    With one exception, owners or operators that choose to comply with 
the HAP metals standards using the bubble compliance alternative must 
include all existing process units in a chemical recovery system in the 
bubble. Any existing process unit that can be classified as a stand-by 
unit (i.e., a process unit that operates for less than 6,300 hours 
during any calendar year) cannot be included as part of a bubble. 
Owners or operators of stand-by units must accept the promulgated PM 
emissions limits shown in Table 1 for those units.
2. Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    Today's rule promulgates a gaseous organic HAP standard for new 
recovery furnaces using methanol as a surrogate for gaseous organic 
HAP. All new recovery furnaces at kraft and soda pulp mills must meet a 
gaseous organic HAP limit, as measured by methanol, of 0.012 kilogram 
per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.025 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of black liquor 
solids (BLS) fired. There are no gaseous organic HAP standards under 
today's rule for existing NDCE recovery furnaces or DCE recovery 
furnace systems.
3. HAP Metals Standards for Sulfite Pulp Mills
    Today's rule promulgates PM emissions limits as a surrogate for HAP 
metals for new and existing sulfite combustion units. Existing sulfite 
combustion units must meet a PM emission limit of 0.092 gram per dry 
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.040 grain per dry standard cubic foot 
(gr/dscf)) corrected to 8 percent oxygen. New sulfite combustion units 
must meet a PM emission limit of 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) corrected 
to 8 percent oxygen.
4. Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp 
Mills
    Today's rule promulgates gaseous organic HAP standards for existing 
and new semichemical combustion units using total hydrocarbon (THC) as 
a surrogate for gaseous organic HAP. All stand-alone semichemical pulp 
mills with existing or new chemical recovery combustion units must 
reduce gaseous organic HAP emissions (as measured by THC reported as 
carbon) from these units by 90 percent, or meet a gaseous organic HAP 
emission limit (as measured by THC reported as carbon) of 1.49 kg/Mg 
(2.97 lb/ton) of BLS fired.

C. Performance Test Requirements

    The following discussion identifies the test methods to be used for 
compliance determinations.
    Test Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions from 
Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)--in conjunction with 
a measurement of oxygen concentration in the stack gas using either 
Test Method 3A, ``Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide 
Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental 
Analyzer Procedure)'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) or Test Method 3B, 
``Gas Analysis for the Determination of Emission Rate Correction Factor 
or Excess Air'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)--is the test method for 
determining compliance with the PM emissions limits for new and 
existing kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns and for 
new and existing sulfite combustion units. Test Method 29, 
``Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR 
part

[[Page 3185]]

60, appendix A) may be used as an alternative to Test Method 5 for 
measuring PM emissions. Test Method 17, ``Determination of Particulate 
Emissions from Stationary Sources (In-Stack Filtration Method)'' (40 
CFR part 60, appendix A) may also be used as an alternative to Test 
Method 5 if a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added 
to the results of Test Method 17, and the stack temperature is no 
greater than 205 degrees Centigrade ( deg.C) (400 degrees Fahrenheit 
( deg.F)).
    Test Method 308, ``Procedure for Determination of Methanol 
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) is the 
test method for determining compliance with the gaseous organic HAP 
emission limit for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces that are 
not equipped with dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) systems and for 
DCE recovery furnace systems.
    Test Method 25A, ``Determination of Total Gaseous Organic 
Concentration using a Flame Ionization Analyzer'' (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) is the test method for determining compliance with the 
gaseous organic HAP emission limit for new and existing combustion 
units at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    Each owner or operator of an affected source or process unit must 
install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a continuous monitoring 
system for each affected source or process unit. The owner or operator 
also must establish a range of values for each operating parameter 
(associated with a process operation or with an emission control 
device) to be monitored based upon values recorded during the initial 
performance test or during qualifying previous performance tests using 
the required test methods. If values from previous performance tests 
are used to establish the operating parameter range, the owner or 
operator must certify that the control devices and processes had not 
been modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to 
establish the operating ranges were obtained. The owner or operator may 
conduct multiple performance tests to establish ranges of operating 
parameters. The owner or operator also may establish expanded or 
replacement ranges during subsequent performance tests. An exceedance 
of the operating parameters occurs when the measured operating 
parameter levels, averaged over a specified time period, are outside 
the established range for a predetermined duration. However, with the 
exception of opacity exceedances, no more than one exceedance would be 
attributed to an affected source or process unit during any given 24-
hour period. The following paragraphs describe the operating parameters 
to be monitored, the averaging periods and frequency with which these 
parameters should be monitored, when corrective action is required to 
return operating parameters to levels that are within the established 
range, and when operating parameter exceedances constitute a violation 
of the emissions standards.
    Owners or operators of existing kraft or soda recovery furnaces 
that are equipped with an ESP for PM control must install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). The 
COMS must perform at least one cycle of sampling and analysis for each 
successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each 
successive 6-minute period. If the average of ten consecutive 6-minute 
average values of opacity exceeds 20 percent, the owner or operator 
must initiate the corrective actions contained in the mill's startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan. A violation of the applicable 
emissions standards would occur when opacity is greater than 35 percent 
for 6 percent or more of the operating time during any quarterly 
period.
    Owners or operators of new kraft or soda recovery furnaces and new 
or existing kraft or soda lime kilns that are equipped with ESP for PM 
control must also install, calibrate, maintain, and operate COMS. The 
COMS must perform at least one cycle of sampling and analysis for each 
successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each 
successive 6-minute period. If the average of ten consecutive 6-minute 
average values of opacity exceeds 20 percent, the owner or operator 
must initiate the corrective actions contained in the facility's SSM 
plan. A violation of the applicable emissions standards would occur 
when opacity is greater than 20 percent for 6 percent or more of the 
operating time during any quarterly period.
    Owners or operators using wet scrubbers to meet the PM emissions 
limits for any kraft or soda recovery furnace, SDT, or lime kiln or any 
sulfite combustion unit must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 
a continuous monitoring system capable of determining and recording the 
pressure drop and scrubbing liquid flow rate at least once for each 
successive 15-minute period. If any 3-hour average of the pressure drop 
or scrubbing liquid flow rate falls outside the established range, the 
owner or operator must initiate the corrective actions included in the 
facility's SSM plan. A violation of the applicable emissions standards 
occurs when six or more 3-hour average values of either parameter are 
outside the established range during any 6-month reporting period.
    Owners or operators using regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) to 
comply with the gaseous organic HAP emission standard for chemical 
recovery combustion units at stand-alone semichemical mills must 
establish a minimum RTO operating temperature that indicates at least a 
90 percent reduction in HAP emissions (as measured by THC reported as 
carbon), or outlet HAP emissions (as measured by THC reported as 
carbon) of less than or equal to 1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of BLS fired. 
To ensure ongoing compliance, the owner or operator must install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring system to measure and 
record the RTO operating temperature for each successive 15-minute 
period. If any 1-hour average of the operating temperature falls below 
the minimum established temperature, the owner or operator must 
initiate the corrective actions contained in the facility's SSM plan. A 
violation of the applicable emissions standards occurs when any 3-hour 
average of the RTO operating temperature falls below the minimum 
established temperature.
    The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit that 
uses a wet scrubber, ESP, or RTO to comply with today's standards may 
monitor alternative operating parameters subject to prior written 
approval by the Administrator, as specified in Sec. 63.8(f).
    The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit that is 
complying with today's standards through operational changes or by a 
control device other than those described above must submit a plan 
proposing parameters to be monitored, parameter ranges, and monitoring 
frequencies to be used to determine ongoing compliance, subject to 
approval by the Administrator. If any 3-hour average value of a 
monitored parameter falls outside the established range, the owner or 
operator must initiate the corrective actions included in the 
facility's SSM plan. A violation of the emissions standards occurs when 
six or more 3-hour average values of a monitored parameter are outside 
the established range during any 6-month reporting period.
    Owners or operators complying with the gaseous organic HAP standard 
for new kraft and soda recovery furnaces through the use of an NDCE 
recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system are not required to 
perform any continuous parameter monitoring for

[[Page 3186]]

gaseous organic HAP. However, each owner or operator must maintain 
onsite a certification statement signed by a responsible mill official 
that an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system is in use.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    In addition to all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
outlined in Sec. 63.10, owners or operators of kraft, soda, sulfite, 
and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills must maintain the following 
records for each affected source or process unit: Records of the BLS 
firing rates for all recovery furnaces at kraft and soda pulp mills and 
spent liquor solids firing rates for all chemical recovery combustion 
units at sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills, records of 
the lime production rates (calculated as calcium oxide) for all kraft 
and soda lime kilns, records of all parameter monitoring data, records 
and documentation of supporting calculations for compliance 
determinations, records of the established monitoring parameter ranges 
for each affected source or process unit, and records of all 
certifications made in order to determine compliance with the gaseous 
organic HAP standards. Consistent with requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 and the operating 
permit program in 40 CFR part 70, all records must be maintained for a 
minimum of 5 years.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability

    At proposal, we defined affected source as each kraft and soda NDCE 
recovery furnace and associated SDT, each kraft and soda DCE recovery 
furnace and associated SDT, each kraft and soda lime kiln, each sulfite 
combustion unit, and each semichemical combustion unit. However, this 
definition would have prevented mills from averaging emissions of HAP 
metals or the PM surrogate for HAP metals across their existing 
recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns (a bubble compliance alternative 
which we proposed). To allow averaging across these existing emission 
points, we have revised the definition of affected source to include 
existing NDCE recovery furnaces, DCE recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime 
kilns as process units within a chemical recovery system affected 
source.
    As in the proposed rule, new sources are not eligible for the 
bubble compliance alternative under this rulemaking, given that state-
of-the-art equipment design and add-on controls can be integrated and 
installed most cost-effectively during construction of new sources. New 
sources can be designed and constructed with maximized compliance in 
mind. Also, sources classified as new by virtue of being reconstructed 
can be reconstructed with maximized compliance in mind. Therefore, we 
have not revised the definition of affected source for new sources. 
Each new kraft and soda recovery furnace and associated SDT, and each 
new kraft and soda lime kiln will continue to be defined as an affected 
source by itself.

B. Definitions

    Because of the changes in definition of affected source in the 
final rule, we have added definitions for ``chemical recovery system'' 
and ``process unit'' to Sec. 63.861 in the final rule. Chemical 
recovery system is defined as all existing DCE and NDCE recovery 
furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp mill. Process 
unit is defined as an existing DCE or NDCE recovery furnace, SDT, or 
lime kiln in a chemical recovery system at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    To take into account the development of gasification technology as 
a replacement for conventional recovery furnace systems, we have added 
a definition for ``black liquor gasification'' to Sec. 63.861 in the 
final rule. Black liquor gasification is defined as the thermochemical 
conversion of black liquor into a combustible gaseous product. For the 
same reason, we also have revised the definitions for ``recovery 
furnace,'' ``kraft recovery furnace,'' ``semichemical combustion 
unit,'' and ``soda recovery furnace'' to include black liquor 
gasification.
    In order to eliminate any confusion with the term ``PM,'' we have 
replaced the term ``PM HAP'' with ``HAP metals'' throughout the final 
rule. Therefore, the definition for ``HAP metals'' in Sec. 63.861 of 
today's rule replaces the definition for ``PM HAP.''

C. Standards

    In the proposed rule, we included a standard whereby existing kraft 
and soda lime kilns must ensure that the concentration of PM in the 
exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 
0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen. We have 
decided not to promulgate this PM standard because this proposed 
standard does not reflect the performance of MACT (i.e., the surrogate 
PM emissions levels achievable by the best-performing lime kilns, which 
are controlled by ESP). We have revised the PM standard for existing 
lime kilns in the final rule to be equivalent to the revised HAP metals 
MACT floor PM level of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 
percent oxygen. (There is also a bubble compliance alternative, 
whereby, as explained earlier, PM emissions from the recovery furnace, 
SDT, and lime kiln could in essence be summed so long as the summed 
emissions are no greater than the sum of the otherwise-applicable MACT 
emission standard for each unit.)
    The proposed rule included a compliance option whereby existing 
kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns could meet a 
standard for individual HAP metals, rather than for the PM surrogate 
for HAP metals (63 FR 18758, 18765, and 18769, April 15, 1998; proposed 
Sec. 63.862). We have decided not to promulgate this alternative HAP 
metals standard because this proposed standard does not reflect the 
performance of MACT (i.e., the HAP metals emissions levels achievable 
by the best-performing sources) and also because it would have other 
significant technical deficiencies. (See docket No. A-94-67.) 
(Necessarily, we also are not promulgating the bubble compliance 
alternative associated with this HAP metals option.)

D. Performance Test Requirements

    To correct an oversight in the proposed rule, we have added an 
oxygen correction equation for volumetric gas flow rates to the final 
rule under new Sec. 63.865(b)(4). The equation will be used to correct 
gas streams to the same oxygen content as the associated emission limit 
(e.g., 8 percent oxygen for recovery furnaces, 10 percent oxygen for 
lime kilns). For the same reason, we also revised the PM emission limit 
equations for the bubble compliance alternative in paragraphs (a)(1), 
(2)(i), and (2)(iii) of Sec. 63.865 for the final rule to reflect the 
oxygen correction for volumetric gas flow rates. Because SDT exhaust 
conditions already approximate ambient air conditions, we have removed 
the oxygen correction in the PM emission limit equation for SDT in 
Sec. 63.865(a)(2)(ii) from the final rule. We have also clarified the 
oxygen correction equation in Sec. 63.865(b)(2), which is used to 
correct PM concentrations, for the final rule.

E. Monitoring Requirements

    In order to account for any recovery furnaces that might use a wet 
scrubber, we have revised the wet scrubber monitoring provisions in 
Sec. 63.864(a)(2), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii) for the final rule

[[Page 3187]]

to include kraft or soda recovery furnaces. We have clarified the 
opacity corrective action provisions in Sec. 63.864(c)(1)(i) of the 
final rule to state that affected sources or process units are required 
to implement corrective action when the average of ten consecutive 6-
minute averages results in a measurement greater than 20 percent 
opacity. We also have revised the opacity violation provisions in 
Sec. 63.864(c)(2)(i) and (ii) to clarify in the final rule that a 
violation of the applicable emission standard would occur when the 
opacity is greater than the specified level for 6 percent or more of 
the operating time in any quarterly period.

F. Reporting Requirements

    We have revised the excess emissions reporting provisions of 
Sec. 63.867(c) for the final rule to clarify that reporting excess 
emissions below the violation thresholds of Sec. 63.864(c) does not 
constitute a violation of the applicable standard.

G. Delegation of Authority

    We have revised the delegation of authority provisions in 
Sec. 63.868 for the final rule to include the following authorities 
which will be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a 
State: Approval of alternatives to standards in Sec. 63.862 under 
Sec. 63.6(g), approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90, approval of 
major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and as defined in 
Sec. 63.90, and approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and 
reporting under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90. These 
authorities are retained because any requests by sources for 
alternative standards must be considered by EPA and acted upon in a 
notice and comment rulemaking. We cannot delegate authorities that may 
alter the stringency of the standard, that require Federal oversight 
for national consistency, or that may require Federal rulemaking. 
Requests to revise standards for the source category (or portions 
thereof) must be addressed through the subpart E rulemaking process for 
alternative standards.

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    This section summarizes the major comments we received on the 
proposed rule and our responses to those comments. A more comprehensive 
summary of comments and responses can be found in docket No. A-94-67.
    Comment: Commenters questioned the proposed MACT floor of ``no 
control'' for gaseous organic HAP emissions from existing NDCE recovery 
furnaces and stated that the performance of dry ESP systems should be 
the basis of the MACT floor for gaseous organic HAP emissions from 
existing NDCE recovery furnaces. One commenter provided a list of 13 
NDCE recovery furnaces equipped with dry ESP systems, which is a 
sufficient number of recovery furnaces to define the MACT floor. A 
commenter also noted that wet to dry ESP system conversion is a cost-
effective control option.
    Response: We are not basing the MACT floor for existing NDCE 
recovery furnaces on this technology for the following reasons. We have 
concluded that existing NDCE recovery furnaces do not represent the 
``best'' or ``maximum achievable'' technology. It is possible that 
black liquor gasification is a means of reducing gaseous organic HAP 
emissions from chemical recovery operations that provides environmental 
benefits (notably energy savings) which are superior to those provided 
by NDCE recovery furnaces (whether equipped with wet or dry ESP 
systems). Compared with NDCE recovery furnace performance, development 
of the proposed gasification technology promises reduced consumption of 
fossil fuel, increased efficiency in energy conversion and chemical 
recovery, elimination of the smelt-water explosion hazard (inherent to 
the operation of conventional recovery furnaces), reduced maintenance 
costs, and significantly lower environmental emissions of criteria 
pollutants (PM, SO2, NOX, VOC precursors to 
ozone, and CO) and greenhouse gases (63 FR 26607, May 8, 2000, Proposed 
Final Project Agreement for Georgia-Pacific XL Project).
    Because gasification systems do not require the use of an ESP, the 
costs that would be incurred by converting a wet ESP system to a dry 
ESP system are not recoverable if the NDCE recovery furnace is replaced 
with a gasification system. Therefore, if we require existing NDCE 
recovery furnaces with wet ESP systems by virtue of a MACT floor to 
retrofit to dry ESP systems, we would tend to eliminate the incentive 
for the industry to replace the NDCE recovery furnaces with 
gasification systems before the end of the useful life of the dry ESP 
systems. Thus, it is our view that a MACT floor requirement which 
results in retrofitting to dry ESP systems would create disincentives 
that would discourage possible conversion to the even more promising 
gasification technology, so that such a requirement need not be 
considered to be ``MACT.'' See Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 486 F.2d 
375, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 
F.2d 427, 439 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (in establishing technology-based 
standards, EPA must consider counter-productive effects of a control 
technology in determining whether it is a ``best'' technology).
    In a related matter, there is a further question as to whether 
existing DCE recovery furnaces should be subject to MACT floor or 
beyond-the-floor standards for gaseous organic HAP. We considered 
whether to require conversion of DCE recovery furnace systems to NDCE 
recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems as a beyond-the-floor standard. 
The capital costs of this retrofitting would be in the billions of 
dollars and would not be justified by the amount of HAP removed. 
Moreover, we do not view NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems as 
MACT for existing DCE recovery furnaces because it would create the 
same disincentives for conversion to gasification just discussed, 
including potentially foregoing significant energy-saving 
opportunities. (See CAA section 112(d)(2), which includes energy 
impacts as a relevant consideration in beyond-the-floor 
determinations.) Consequently, we are not adopting a beyond-the-floor 
standard for DCE recovery furnaces.
    It would also be highly anomalous to adopt a MACT floor based on 
the performance of NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems, for the 
following reason. As explained above, we are not adopting a beyond-the-
floor standard for existing DCE recovery furnaces, and the MACT floor 
for existing DCE recovery furnaces is ``no control.'' This would yield 
the result that a MACT floor determination would apply only to NDCE 
recovery furnaces--the better-performing furnace type. Hence the 
anomaly--the only type of existing recovery furnace to incur regulatory 
costs would be the better-performing NDCE recovery furnaces. Although, 
as also explained above, we currently do not view gaseous organic HAP 
control of existing NDCE or DCE recovery furnaces as MACT in order to 
preserve incentives for conversion of the furnaces to gasification 
systems, in determining that there should be no further control of 
these units under CAA section 112(d) at the present time, we are also 
swayed by avoiding the anomaly of controlling only NDCE recovery 
furnaces.
    We also note that the new source standard for recovery furnaces 
reflects the performance of NDCE recovery furnaces equipped with dry 
ESP systems. We could not base the standard

[[Page 3188]]

on the performance of gasification at this time because accurate data 
documenting performance on pulp and paper combustion sources do not yet 
exist. Obtaining accurate performance data on gasification systems is 
one of the purposes of the proposed Final Project Agreement for the 
Georgia-Pacific XL Project (63 FR 26607, May 8, 2000). In any case, we 
also do not believe that this standard poses the same potential to 
discourage use of gasification. First, we expect that sources using 
gasification technology will be able to meet the standard. Second, we 
are prepared to exercise flexibility as to compliance dates for any new 
source basing its compliance on use of gasification technology, 
consistent with the statute (63 FR 26607, May 8, 2000).
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed beyond-the-
floor MACT standard for gaseous organic HAP emissions from existing 
semichemical combustion units that are not fluidized-bed reactors. 
Commenters also claimed that the proposed emission limit is not 
supportable for some types of chemical recovery combustion units, such 
as recovery furnaces.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. Based on available 
emissions data and our RTO cost estimates, RTO represent a cost-
effective control strategy for meeting the proposed gaseous organic HAP 
emissions limits. (See docket No. A-94-67.)
    Comment: A commenter provided data for kraft and soda recovery 
furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns which the commenter believes show a lack 
of correlation between outlet emissions of PM and outlet emissions of 
HAP metals. According to the commenter, variations in raw materials and 
processes have a greater effect on uncontrolled HAP metals emissions, 
and, therefore, controlled emissions, than the type of control device 
used. According to the commenter, there is not a straight correlation 
between reducing PM and reducing HAP metals.
    Response: Regarding the commenter's suggestion that there is a lack 
of statistical correlation between HAP metals emissions and PM 
emissions, we agree that the ratio of the mass of HAP metals to the 
total mass of PM emitted varies from source to source. Additionally, 
the amount of HAP metals in PM at each source varies. We do not agree 
with the commenters' assertion that PM is an inappropriate surrogate 
for particulate HAP metals emissions. Hazardous air pollutant metals 
are a component of PM, and control devices designed for PM removal also 
remove particulate HAP metals at a similar rate. Therefore, emission 
control efficiencies, determined by measuring emissions at both the 
inlet and the outlet of the control device, are similar for both PM and 
particulate HAP metals. Outlet PM emissions are a good indicator of the 
performance of the control device, and there is no doubt that PM is an 
appropriate surrogate for particulate HAP metals.
    Also, after reviewing available HAP metals emissions data, we 
conclude that there are insufficient data to establish numerical HAP 
metals emissions limits that reflect MACT. Consequently, we have chosen 
not to promulgate the proposed numerical HAP metals emissions limits 
and the associated HAP metals bubble compliance alternative.
    Comment: A number of commenters objected to the proposed emissions 
limits for PM (as a surrogate for HAP metals) for existing sources. 
Commenters suggested that the PM emissions limits be recalculated using 
additional PM emissions data because they believe that many units 
operate well below the emissions levels selected for the proposed MACT 
floors. Commenters also took issue with our using the PM standards in 
the NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills as the basis for the HAP metals MACT 
floors for existing kraft and soda combustion sources and noted that we 
failed to account for the fact that the technology reflected in the 
NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills is an old technology and that numerous 
sources are achieving emissions reductions well beyond the NSPS.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters regarding their 
objections to the proposed PM emissions limits for existing kraft and 
soda recovery furnaces and SDT. We believe that the MACT floor PM 
emissions limits for recovery furnaces and SDT are justified due to the 
variability in PM emissions from these sources and the uncertainties 
about why the same types of control equipment perform at different 
levels under comparable circumstances. Therefore, we believe that the 
standards in the final rule reasonably reflect the level of performance 
achievable in practice by the average of the best-performing 12 percent 
of sources.
    For existing lime kilns, the control devices that we thought were 
representative of the HAP metals MACT floor were ESP, high-efficiency 
venturi scrubbers, and ESP and scrubbers in combination. However, lime 
kilns equipped with ESP consistently show lower PM emissions than lime 
kilns equipped with scrubbers, and it is apparent that there are a 
sufficient number of lime kilns equipped with ESP to be representative 
of the HAP metals MACT floor. (That is, sufficient numbers of sources 
are equipped with ESP such that the level of performance of a lime kiln 
equipped with an ESP represents the level of performance achievable by 
the average of the best-performing 12 percent of existing kraft and 
soda lime kilns.) Therefore, today's action corrects that error and 
recalculates the PM emission limitation achievable by the technology 
that represents the MACT floor for existing lime kilns based on the 
performance of a lime kiln equipped with a properly designed and 
operated ESP.
    Based on available data from monthly and annual compliance tests, 
lime kilns equipped with ESP can achieve PM emissions as low as 0.0023 
g/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf) and as high as 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/dscf) at 10 
percent oxygen. To account for this variability in PM emissions from 
lime kiln ESP, we are setting the HAP metals MACT floor for existing 
lime kilns at 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/dscf) at 10 percent oxygen, which 
is slightly less than the proposed HAP metals MACT floor of 0.15 g/dscm 
(0.067 gr/dscf) at 10 percent oxygen.
    The best-performing lime kiln ESP (which represents MACT for HAP 
metals for new lime kilns) is more than twice the size (i.e., has twice 
the specific collecting area) of typical lime kiln ESP, and its 
performance remains the basis for the new source MACT standard. 
Therefore, today's action does not differ from the proposed standard 
for HAP metals for new lime kilns.

V. Summary of Impacts

A. Air Quality Impacts

    At the current level of control, emissions of HAP (HAP metals and 
gaseous organic HAP) are approximately 20,400 Mg/yr (22,500 tpy), and 
emissions of other pollutants (PM, VOC, CO, SO2, 
NOX) are approximately 507,100 Mg/yr (559,000 tpy). 
Implementation of today's final rule is expected to reduce emissions of 
HAP, PM, VOC, CO, and SO2, and slightly increase emissions 
of NOX. The EPA estimates that emissions of HAP will be 
reduced by approximately 2,500 Mg/yr (2,700 tpy) and emissions of other 
pollutants by approximately 107,900 Mg/yr (118,900 tpy).

B. Cost Impacts

    The estimated capital cost of control for today's final rule is 
$241 million (1997$) and includes the cost to purchase and install both 
the control equipment and monitoring equipment. Most (89 percent) of 
the capital cost can be attributed to the PM controls for

[[Page 3189]]

kraft, soda, and sulfite combustion units.
    The estimated annual cost of the rule is $32.2 million/yr (1997$) 
and accounts for the year-to-year operating expenses associated with 
the control equipment and the monitoring equipment, in addition to the 
capital recovery expense associated with the equipment purchases. Most 
(79 percent) of the annual cost can be attributed to the PM controls 
for kraft, soda, and sulfite combustion units.
    The total average costs for annual recordkeeping and reporting 
activities required by the final rule are estimated to be $962,600/yr 
(1997$) through the third year after the effective date and $5.4 
million/yr (1997$) through the third year after the compliance date.
    These capital and annualized cost estimates are intended to 
represent the maximum expected costs of the NESHAP and do not account 
for the potential cost savings achieved by mills that will successfully 
use the bubble compliance alternative.

C. Economic Impacts

    This section presents a summary of EPA's evaluation of the economic 
impacts of today's final rule. A more detailed analysis of the economic 
impacts of this rule, as well as the recently promulgated NESHAP for 
noncombustion pulp and paper sources (i.e., MACT I and MACT III) and 
promulgated effluent limitation guidelines, is discussed in the 
Economic Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category--Phase 1 
(DCN 14649; hereafter, the Economic Analysis, or EA). The EPA estimates 
that the pulp and paper industry will incur total capital costs of $240 
million (1997$) under the final rule. Overall, EPA projects total 
annualized compliance expenditures of $30 million (1997$).
    Price increases of less than 0.5 percent are anticipated for 
bleached papergrade kraft and soda, dissolving kraft, dissolving 
sulfite, papergrade sulfite, and semichemical pulps and products. A 
price increase of 1.4 percent is expected for unbleached kraft pulps. 
Based on our economic modeling of the impacts of such changes, we do 
not anticipate any facility closures nor firm failures as a result of 
compliance with this final rule. In addition, we expect that production 
decreases, employment changes, and impacts on international trade will 
be minimal.

D. Benefits Analysis

    Implementation of today's final rule is expected to reduce 
emissions of HAP, PM, VOC, CO, and SO2, while it is expected 
to slightly increase emissions of NOX. Such pollutants can 
potentially cause adverse health effects and can have welfare effects, 
such as impaired visibility and reduced crop yields. In the benefits 
analysis, we have not conducted detailed air quality modeling to 
evaluate the magnitude and extent of the potential impacts from 
individual pulp and paper facilities. Nevertheless, to the extent that 
emissions from these facilities cause adverse effects, this final rule 
would mitigate such impacts.
1. Qualitative Description of Pollutant Effects
    This final rule is designed to reduce the emissions of HAP, as 
defined in section 112 of the CAA. Several of these HAP are classified 
as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens. They have also been 
shown to cause other adverse health effects, such as damage to the eye, 
central nervous system, liver, kidney, and respiratory system depending 
upon the exposures to these emissions. The types of studies in which 
these various effects have been reported include: (1) Epidemiological 
studies of health effects occurring in human populations (e.g., the 
general population, or workers exposed in the workplace), (2) case 
reports that document human exposure incidents (e.g., accidental 
releases or poisonings), (3) carefully controlled laboratory exposures 
of volunteer human subjects, and (4) laboratory studies on animals.
    Emissions of VOC and NOX interact in the presence of 
sunlight to create ground-level ozone. Recent scientific evidence shows 
an association between elevated ozone concentrations and increases in 
hospital admissions for a variety of respiratory illnesses and 
indicates that ground-level ozone not only affects people with impaired 
respiratory systems (such as asthmatics), but healthy adults and 
children as well. Adverse welfare effects of ozone exposure include 
damage to crops, tree seedlings, ornamentals (shrubs, grass, etc.), and 
forested ecosystems.
    The reactions between VOC and NOX to form ozone depend 
on the balance in concentrations of each pollutant found in the ambient 
air. For example, when the concentration of NOX is high 
relative to the concentration of VOC, VOC reductions are effective in 
limiting ozone formation, while NOX reductions in that 
situation are ineffective. This rule is expected to increase 
NOX emissions slightly, but also decrease VOC emissions. The 
increase in NOX under this rule is not expected to cause 
significant adverse health or welfare impacts because the magnitude of 
the NOX increase (less than 500 Mg/yr) is very small 
relative to the total NOX inventory.
    The VOC emission reductions from this rule occur primarily in rural 
attainment areas. These areas tend to be NOX limited; 
therefore, VOC reductions are not expected to affect ozone 
concentrations. The low-end estimate of VOC benefits relates to 
emissions reductions (3,400 Mg/yr) occurring in ozone nonattainment 
areas. Since ozone nonattainment areas are typically urban areas that 
are VOC limited, these emissions reductions are likely to be effective 
in limiting ozone formation. The high-end of the range of VOC benefits 
includes all VOC emissions reductions (31,000 Mg/yr) expected to occur 
for this rule. This estimate is included to account for the uncertainty 
as to whether specific rural areas are NOX limited.
    Exposure to PM has been associated with the following adverse human 
health effects: Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and increased 
respiratory symptoms, alterations in lung tissue and structure, and 
altered respiratory tract defense mechanisms. In general, exposed 
populations at greater risk from these effects are the following: 
individuals with respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease, 
individuals with infectious disease, elderly individuals, asthmatic 
individuals, and children. Reduced welfare is associated with elevated 
concentrations of fine particles, which reduce visibility, damage 
materials, and cause soiling. The reductions in PM emissions under this 
rule (approximately 21,000 Mg/yr) are intended to decrease the adverse 
effects of PM, to the extent that populations or scenic destinations 
are located within pollutant transport distance of pulp and paper 
facilities.
    Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is toxic to 
mammals. When inhaled, it combines with hemoglobin, which reduces the 
oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and results in less oxygen being 
transported to vital organs of the body. This can have detrimental 
effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. There are 
numerous studies that support the association between ambient CO levels 
and adverse health effects which have been cited in the Air Quality 
Criteria Document for Carbon Monoxide (EPA Document No. 600/P-99/001F, 
June 2000). The reduction of

[[Page 3190]]

CO emissions under this rule is intended to diminish these potential 
effects.
    Sulfur dioxide oxidizes in water to form both sulfurous and 
sulfuric acids. When SO2 dissolves in the atmosphere in 
rain, fog, or snow, the acidity of the deposition can corrode various 
materials and cause damage to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 
Sulfur dioxide can also transform into PM2.5, (i.e., 
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 
2.5 micrometers). Emissions of SO2 are reduced slightly (20 
Mg/yr) under this rule.
2. Monetized Air Quality Benefits
    We used a benefit transfer method to value a subset of the 
emissions reductions for the MACT II rule. Monetized benefit values are 
estimated for only VOC, SO2, and PM emissions reductions 
expected to result from this rule. This method relies on a benefits 
analysis conducted for the Ozone and PM national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS). The benefits analysis conducted for the NAAQS 
involves the same pollutants that are impacted by this pulp and paper 
rulemaking, and we assume the values from the NAAQS analysis are 
applicable to this final rule. The NAAQS analysis valued the national-
level benefits achieved from a single, ``representative'' year under a 
new set of standards. The benefits (in dollars) per ton of reduction of 
each pollutant were then applied to the projected reductions of the 
same pollutants under this final rule.
    We assume that the relationship of emission changes with the health 
and welfare effects associated with the NAAQS-estimated ozone and PM 
concentrations correspond to the projected changes in emissions from 
pulp and paper mills. No air quality modeling was conducted to evaluate 
potential changes in human exposure under the rule, so the actual 
magnitude and timing of human health benefits are unknown.
    In some cases, we did consider the location of mills when applying 
the NAAQS benefits per ton figures. For VOC monetized benefits, a low-
end estimate included emissions only in ozone nonattainment areas, 
which was compared to a high-end estimate that used all VOC emissions. 
For SO2, the benefit transfer values differed between mills 
located in the eastern and western portions of the United States. Some 
benefit categories were not monetized at all, due to a lack of 
sufficient data. Nevertheless, the largest monetized benefits are 
derived from PM reductions, for which we used nationwide emission 
estimates and assume that the distributions of exposed populations from 
the ozone and PM studies are similar to those exposed to pulp and paper 
mill emissions.
    The EPA estimates that the rule would reduce HAP emissions by 
approximately 2,500 Mg/yr; VOC emissions by approximately 31,000 Mg/yr 
(3,400 Mg/yr in ozone nonattainment areas); CO emissions by 56,000 Mg/
yr; PM emissions by approximately 21,000 Mg/yr; and SO2 
emissions by 20 Mg/yr; and increase NOX emissions by 
approximately 500 Mg/yr. Based upon the previously discussed emissions 
reductions, we estimate that the monetary benefits of the rule range 
between $280 million and $370 million (1997$) for a representative 
year.
    This rule is expected to result in reductions in PM emissions for 
particles of varying sizes. We expect most PM reductions to be in the 
size range of PM10 and below. This assumption is based upon 
the fact that existing chemical recovery process sources typically have 
PM controls in place which have removed most of the large particles 
associated with uncontrolled emissions. However, it is likely that a 
small fraction of emissions reductions will be for particles above 
PM10. Reductions in emissions of particle sizes greater than 
10 micrometers may not result in the same benefits as particles of 
sizes less than 10 micrometers. As such, PM-related benefits reported 
for this rule represent an upper-bound estimate on the applicable PM 
emissions reductions.
    These figures suggest that the benefits of today's final rule may 
be significantly greater than the projected costs. Chapter 4 of the EA 
presents a detailed description of the methodology used to monetize the 
benefits of the rule.

E. Non-Air Environmental Impacts

    The quantity of PM collected will increase when recovery furnace PM 
control devices are upgraded or replaced to comply with today's final 
HAP metals standards. However, no increases in solid waste disposal are 
expected because existing mills have sufficient capacity within the 
chemical recovery process to recycle the additional PM collected.
    If owners or operators choose to replace wet scrubbers with ESP to 
comply with the HAP metals standard for lime kilns, the generation of 
wastewater will be reduced. The significance of the reduction in 
wastewater will depend on whether the scrubber discharge had previously 
been recycled and reused. If wet scrubbers are replaced by ESP (and 
there was no prior recycle or reuse of scrubber discharge), EPA 
estimates that wastewater discharge will decrease nationwide by about 
35 billion liters per year (9.3 billion gallons per year) following 
implementation of the rule.

F. Energy Impacts

    The overall energy demand (i.e., electricity plus natural gas) is 
expected to decrease by about 13,700 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) 
nationwide under today's final rule. Electricity requirements are 
expected to decrease by about 17,800 MWh/yr under the final rule. This 
net decrease in electricity requirements includes an expected increase 
of about 39,600 MWh/yr when PM control devices on kraft and soda 
recovery furnaces and SDT and sulfite combustion units are upgraded or 
replaced, an expected increase of 18,400 MWh/yr when gaseous organic 
HAP controls (i.e., RTO) are added to semichemical combustion units, 
and an expected decrease of about 75,900 MWh/yr if wet scrubbers are 
replaced by ESP to provide increased control of PM emissions from kraft 
and soda lime kilns. Natural gas requirements are expected to increase 
by about 4,100 MWh/yr when gaseous organic HAP controls are added to 
semichemical combustion units. This estimate is based on an increase of 
0.4 million cubic meters per year (14 million cubic feet per year) of 
natural gas, assuming 1,024 British thermal units per cubic foot of 
natural gas.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51736, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the 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 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, 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

[[Page 3191]]

    (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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it 
will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA 
responses are available in the docket (see ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble).

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, 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 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults with State 
and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, 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 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 does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal 
governments own or operate kraft, soda, sulfite, or stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) 
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

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 EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
    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 rule. This final rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and 
not on health or safety risks.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by 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 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule (in conjunction with the MACT 
I and MACT III rules and the effluent guidelines recently promulgated 
for the pulp and paper industry) contains a Federal mandate that may 
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector in any 1 year. According, EPA has prepared under section 202 of 
the UMRA a written statement, which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
    The statutory authority for this rulemaking is section 112 of the 
CAA.

[[Page 3192]]

Title III of the CAA Amendments was enacted to reduce the amount of 
nationwide air toxic emissions. Section 112(b) lists the 189 chemicals, 
compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by Congress to be HAP. These 
toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by NESHAP. Hazardous air 
pollutant emissions from the pulp and paper production source category 
are being regulated under section 112(d) of the CAA. The NESHAP 
requires existing and new major sources to control emissions of HAP 
using MACT.
    The pulp and paper production source category includes all mills 
that produce pulp and/or paper. The NESHAP for the source category are 
being developed in phases. This final NESHAP, referred to as MACT II, 
regulates chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, 
and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The final NESHAP for 
noncombustion sources (i.e., MACT I and MACT III) regulates 
noncombustion processes at mills that (1) chemically pulp wood fiber 
(using kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical methods) (MACT I), and 
(2) mechanically pulp wood fiber (e.g., groundwood, thermomechanical, 
pressurized), pulp secondary fibers (deinked and nondeinked), and pulp 
nonwood (MACT III).
    Regarding EPA's compliance with section 205(a), EPA did identify 
and consider a reasonable number of alternatives. A summary of these 
alternatives and their costs and environmental impacts is provided in 
the preamble to the proposed rule (63 FR 18773, April 15, 1998). 
Additional information on the costs and environmental impacts of the 
regulatory alternatives is presented in the Revised Nationwide Costs, 
Environmental Impacts, and Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory 
Alternatives for Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Semichemical Combustion 
Sources Memo (docket No. A-94-67).
    The chosen alternative represents the MACT floor for chemical 
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp mills and 
is the least costly and least burdensome alternative for those sources. 
The chosen alternative also includes an option more stringent than the 
MACT floor for chemical recovery combustion sources at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills. However, EPA considers the cost effectiveness 
of the more stringent option for semichemical chemical recovery 
combustion sources (less than $2,900/Mg of HAP reduced) acceptable, 
especially when measured against the environmental benefits of reducing 
emissions of both HAP and non-HAP. Therefore, EPA concludes that the 
chosen alternative is the least costly and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of section 112, as called for in section 
205(a).
2. Social Costs and Benefits
    The regulatory impact analysis prepared for MACT I, including the 
EPA's assessment of costs and environmental benefits, is detailed in 
the ``Regulatory Impacts Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines and 
NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry,'' (EPA-821/R-93-
020). The regulatory impacts assessment document was updated for the 
final rule for MACT I and III and the proposed rule for MACT II and is 
referred to as the Economic Analysis Document (docket No. A-94-67).
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The EPA does not believe that there will be any disproportionate 
budgetary effects of the rule on any particular areas of the country, 
particular governments or types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or 
particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
    The estimated direct cost to the pulp and paper industry of 
compliance with this rule is approximately $30 million (1997$) 
annually. Indirect costs of the rule to industries other than the pulp 
and paper industry, governments, tribes, and other affected entities 
are expected to be minor. The estimated annual cost of this rule is 
minimal when compared to the nominal gross domestic product of $8,318.4 
billion reported for the Nation in 1997. This rule is expected to have 
little impact on domestic productivity, economic growth, full 
employment, creation of productive jobs, and on the international 
competitiveness of the U.S. goods and services.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
    Although this rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal 
governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air pollution 
control officials. The EPA also has held numerous meetings on the 
proposed integrated rules with many of the stakeholders from the pulp 
and paper industry, including the AF&PA, the National Council of the 
Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, numerous individual 
companies, vendors, and other interested parties. The EPA has added 
materials to the docket to document these meetings.

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 prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has 
fewer than 750 employees for NAICS codes 32211, 32212, and 32213 (pulp, 
paper, and paperboard mills), (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000, and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, it has been determined that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The EPA has determined that three companies met the definition of small 
entity at the time of proposal. These three companies own only three of 
the 136 mills subject to today's final rule. The small business 
analysis reported in the EA shows that the affected mills have costs as 
a percentage of sales ratios of less than 1 percent, that these mills 
are not expected to close, nor are the owning companies expected to 
encounter financial distress as a result of this rule. An analysis of 
mergers and acquisitions subsequent to the baseline year of the 
analysis indicates that these three companies no longer meet the 
definition of small business.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule will be 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1805.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by electronic mail at

[[Page 3193]]

[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in the final rule include mandatory 
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions. These information requirements are needed to confirm the 
compliance status of major sources, to identify any non-major sources 
not subject to the standard and any new or reconstructed sources 
subject to the standards, to confirm that emission control devices are 
being properly operated and maintained, and to ensure that the 
standards are being achieved. Based on the recorded and reported 
information, EPA can decide which facilities, records, or processes 
should be inspected. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized under section 114 of the CAA. All information 
submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to EPA's policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual public recordkeeping and reporting burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of this rule) is estimated to total 21,500 labor hours 
per year, at a total annual cost of $958,300 (1997$). This estimate 
includes initial notifications, one-time performance test and report 
(with repeat tests where needed), one-time purchase and installation of 
monitoring system, one-time preparation of a startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan with immediate reports for any event when the 
procedures in the plan were not followed, compliance reports, and 
recordkeeping. Total capital costs associated with these requirements 
over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $14,700, with 
annualized capital costs of $1,600 (1997$). Total operation and 
maintenance costs associated with these requirements are estimated at 
$2,700 (1997$).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and 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 directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does 
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves the following technical standards: EPA 
Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 17, 25A, 29, and 308 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A; 40 CFR part 61, appendix B; 40 CFR part 63, appendix A). 
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary 
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. For EPA Methods 
3B and 308, no applicable voluntary consensus standards have been found 
at this time. The search and review results have been documented and 
are placed in the docket for this rule (Docket No. A-94-67).
    The search for emissions testing procedures identified 19 voluntary 
consensus standards. The EPA determined that 15 of these 19 standards 
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to 
emissions limits in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 
equivalency, detail, and/or quality assurance/quality control 
requirements. Therefore, we did not use these voluntary consensus 
standards in this rulemaking. Four of the 19 consensus standards 
identified are under development or under EPA review. Therefore, we did 
not use these voluntary consensus standards in this rulemaking.
    Section 63.865 of the rule lists the EPA test methods included in 
the rule. Most of these methods have been used by States and industry 
for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 
(f), the rule also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for 
permission to use an alternative method in place of any of the EPA test 
methods listed in Sec. 63.865.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective March 13, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 15, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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


    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart MM to read as follows:

Subpart MM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, 
Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

Sec.
63.860  Applicability and designation of affected source.
63.861  Definitions.
63.862  Standards.
63.863  Compliance dates.
63.864  Monitoring requirements.

[[Page 3194]]

63.865  Performance test requirements and test methods.
63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.
63.867  Reporting requirements.
63.868  Delegation of authority.
Table 1 to Subpart MM--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart 
MM


Sec. 63.860  Applicability and designation of affected source.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator 
of each kraft, soda, sulfite, or stand-alone semichemical pulp mill 
that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions as 
defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (b) Affected sources. The requirements of this subpart apply to 
each new or existing affected source listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (6) of this section:
    (1) Each existing chemical recovery system (as defined in 
Sec. 63.861) located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    (2) Each new nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnace 
and associated smelt dissolving tank(s) located at a kraft or soda pulp 
mill.
    (3) Each new direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace 
system (as defined in Sec. 63.861) and associated smelt dissolving 
tank(s) located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    (4) Each new lime kiln located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    (5) Each new or existing sulfite combustion unit located at a 
sulfite pulp mill.
    (6) Each new or existing semichemical combustion unit located at a 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mill.
    (c) The requirements of the General Provisions in subpart A of this 
part that apply to the owner or operator subject to the requirements of 
this subpart are identified in Table 1 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.861  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
subpart A of this part, or in this section. For the purposes of this 
subpart, if the same term is defined in subpart A or any other subpart 
of this part and in this section, it must have the meaning given in 
this section.
    Black liquor means spent cooking liquor that has been separated 
from the pulp produced by the kraft, soda, or semichemical pulping 
process.
    Black liquor gasification means the thermochemical conversion of 
black liquor into a combustible gaseous product.
    Black liquor oxidation (BLO) system means the vessels used to 
oxidize the black liquor, with air or oxygen, and the associated 
storage tank(s).
    Black liquor solids (BLS) means the dry weight of the solids in the 
black liquor that enters the recovery furnace or semichemical 
combustion unit.
    Black liquor solids firing rate means the rate at which black 
liquor solids are fed to the recovery furnace or the semichemical 
combustion unit.
    Chemical recovery combustion source means any source in the 
chemical recovery area of a kraft, soda, sulfite or stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mill that is an NDCE recovery furnace, a DCE recovery 
furnace system, a smelt dissolving tank, a lime kiln, a sulfite 
combustion unit, or a semichemical combustion unit.
    Chemical recovery system means all existing DCE and NDCE recovery 
furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, and lime kilns at a kraft or soda 
pulp mill. Each existing recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or 
lime kiln is considered a process unit within a chemical recovery 
system.
    Direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace means a kraft or 
soda recovery furnace equipped with a direct contact evaporator that 
concentrates strong black liquor by direct contact between the hot 
recovery furnace exhaust gases and the strong black liquor.
    Direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace system means a 
direct contact evaporator recovery furnace and any black liquor 
oxidation system, if present, at the pulp mill.
    Dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) system means an electrostatic 
precipitator with a dry bottom (i.e., no black liquor, water, or other 
fluid is used in the ESP bottom) and a dry particulate matter return 
system (i.e., no black liquor, water, or other fluid is used to 
transport the collected PM to the mix tank).
    Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) metals means the sum of all 
emissions of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by EPA 
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) and with all nondetect data 
treated as one-half of the method detection limit.
    Kraft pulp mill means any stationary source that produces pulp from 
wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solution of sodium 
hydroxide and sodium sulfide. The recovery process used to regenerate 
cooking chemicals is also considered part of the kraft pulp mill.
    Kraft recovery furnace means a recovery furnace that is used to 
burn black liquor produced by the kraft pulping process, as well as any 
recovery furnace that burns black liquor produced from both the kraft 
and semichemical pulping processes, and includes the direct contact 
evaporator, if applicable. Includes black liquor gasification.
    Lime kiln means the combustion unit (e.g., rotary lime kiln or 
fluidized-bed calciner) used at a kraft or soda pulp mill to calcine 
lime mud, which consists primarily of calcium carbonate, into 
quicklime, which is calcium oxide (CaO).
    Lime production rate means the rate at which dry lime, measured as 
CaO, is produced in the lime kiln.
    Method detection limit means the minimum concentration of an 
analyte that can be determined with 99 percent confidence that the true 
value is greater than zero.
    Modification means, for the purposes of 
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(E)(1), any physical change (excluding any routine 
part replacement or maintenance) or operational change (excluding any 
operational change that occurs during a start-up, shutdown, or 
malfunction) that is made to the air pollution control device that 
could result in an increase in PM emissions.
    Nondetect data means, for the purposes of this subpart, any value 
that is below the method detection limit.
    Nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnace means a kraft 
or soda recovery furnace that burns black liquor that has been 
concentrated by indirect contact with steam.
    Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter as measured 
by EPA Method 5, EPA Method 17 (Sec. 63.865(b)(1)), or EPA Method 29 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    Process unit means an existing DCE or NDCE recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank, or lime kiln in a chemical recovery system at a kraft 
or soda mill.
    Recovery furnace means an enclosed combustion device where 
concentrated black liquor produced by the kraft or soda pulping process 
is burned to recover pulping chemicals and produce steam. Includes 
black liquor gasification.
    Regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) means a thermal oxidizer that 
transfers heat from the exhaust gas stream to the inlet gas stream by 
passing the exhaust stream through a bed of ceramic stoneware or other 
heat-absorbing medium before releasing it to the atmosphere, then 
reversing the gas flow so the inlet gas stream passes through the 
heated bed, raising the temperature of the inlet stream close to or at 
its ignition temperature.
    Semichemical combustion unit means any equipment used to combust or 
pyrolyze black liquor at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills for the 
purpose

[[Page 3195]]

of chemical recovery. Includes black liquor gasification.
    Similar process units means all existing DCE and NDCE recovery 
furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, or lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp 
mill.
    Smelt dissolving tanks (SDT) means vessels used for dissolving the 
smelt collected from a kraft or soda recovery furnace.
    Soda pulp mill means any stationary source that produces pulp from 
wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a sodium hydroxide solution. 
The recovery process used to regenerate cooking chemicals is also 
considered part of the soda pulp mill.
    Soda recovery furnace means a recovery furnace used to burn black 
liquor produced by the soda pulping process and includes the direct 
contact evaporator, if applicable. Includes black liquor gasification.
    Stand-alone semichemical pulp mill means any stationary source that 
produces pulp from wood by partially digesting wood chips in a chemical 
solution followed by mechanical defibrating (grinding), and has an 
onsite chemical recovery process that is not integrated with a kraft 
pulp mill.
    Sulfite combustion unit means a combustion device, such as a 
recovery furnace or fluidized-bed reactor, where spent liquor from the 
sulfite pulping process (i.e., red liquor) is burned to recover pulping 
chemicals.
    Sulfite pulp mill means any stationary source that produces pulp 
from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solution of sulfurous 
acid and bisulfite ions. The recovery process used to regenerate 
cooking chemicals is also considered part of the sulfite pulp mill.
    Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the sum of organic compounds 
measured as carbon using EPA Method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).


Sec. 63.862  Standards.

    (a) Standards for HAP metals: existing sources. (1) Each owner or 
operator of an existing kraft or soda pulp mill must comply with the 
requirements of either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) Each owner or operator of a kraft or soda pulp mill must comply 
with the PM emissions limits in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of 
this section.
    (A) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases 
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.10 gram per dry 
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.044 grain per dry standard cubic foot 
(gr/dscf)) corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    (B) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda smelt 
dissolving tank must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust 
gases discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.10 kg/Mg 
(0.20 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
    (C) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda lime kiln 
must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases 
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.15 g/dscm 
(0.064 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
    (ii) As an alternative to meeting the requirements of 
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(i), each owner or operator of a kraft or soda pulp 
mill may establish PM emissions limits for each existing kraft or soda 
recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln that operates 
6,300 hours per year or more by:
    (A) Establishing an overall PM emission limit for each existing 
process unit in the chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp 
mill using the methods in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) and (2).
    (B) The emissions limits for each kraft recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank, and lime kiln that are used to establish the overall 
PM limit in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must not be less 
stringent than the emissions limitations required by Sec. 60.282 of 
part 60 of this chapter for any kraft recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank, or lime kiln that is subject to the requirements of 
Sec. 60.282.
    (C) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln must ensure that the PM 
emissions discharged to the atmosphere from each of these sources are 
less than or equal to the applicable PM emissions limits, established 
using the methods in Sec. 63.865(a)(1), that are used to establish the 
overall PM emissions limits in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (D) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln must reestablish the 
emissions limits determined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section 
if either of the actions in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(D)(1) and (2) of this 
section are taken:
    (1) The air pollution control system for any existing kraft or soda 
recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln for which an 
emission limit was established in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this 
section is modified (as defined in Sec. 63.861) or replaced; or
    (2) Any kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or 
lime kiln for which an emission limit was established in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section is shut down for more than 60 consecutive 
days.
    (iii) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln that operates less than 
6,300 hours per year must comply with the applicable PM emissions 
limits for that process unit provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (2) The owner or operator of each existing sulfite combustion unit 
must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases 
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.092 g/dscm 
(0.040 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    (b) Standards for HAP metals: new sources. (1) The owner or 
operator of any new kraft or soda recovery furnace must ensure that the 
concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere 
is less than or equal to 0.034 g/dscm gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen.
    (2) The owner or operator of any new kraft or soda smelt dissolving 
tank must ensure that the the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases 
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
    (3) The owner or operator of any new kraft or soda lime kiln must 
ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to 
the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
    (4) The owner or operator of any new sulfite combustion unit must 
ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to 
the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.046 g/dscm (O.020 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    (c) Standards for gaseous organic HAP. (1) The owner or operator of 
any new recovery furnace at a kraft or soda pulp mill must ensure that 
the concentration or gaseous organic HAP, as meauared by methanol, 
discharged to the atmosphere is no greater than 0.012 kg/Mg (0.025 lb/
ton) of black liquor solids fired.
    (2) The owner or operator of each existing or new semichemical 
combustion unit must ensure that:
    (i) The concentration of gaseous organic HAP, as measured by total 
hydrocarbons reported as carbon, discharged to the atmosphere is less 
than or equal to 1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired; 
or
    (ii) The gaseous organic HAP emissions, as measured by total 
hydrocarbons reported as carbon, are reduced by at least 90 percent 
prior to

[[Page 3196]]

discharge of the gases to the atmosphere.


Sec. 63.863  Compliance dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source or process 
unit must comply with the requirements in this subpart no later than 
January 12, 2004.
    (b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that has an 
initial startup date after January 12, 2001, must comply with the 
requirements in this subpart immediately upon startup of the affected 
source, expect as specified in Sec. 63.6(b).


Sec. 63.864  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) General. (1) The owner or operator of each affected kraft or 
soda recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped with as ESP must install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system 
that can be used to determine opacity at least once every successive 
10-second period and calculate and record each successive 6-minute 
average opacity using the procedures in Secs. 63.6(h) and 63.8.
    (2) The owner or operator of each affected kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, kraft or soda lime kiln, sulfite combustion unit, or kraft or 
soda smelt dissolving tank equipped with a wet scrubber must install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous monitoring system that 
can be used to determine and record the pressure drop across the 
scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate at least once every 
successive 15-minute period using the procedures in Sec. 63.8(c), as 
well as the procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section:
    (i) The monitoring device used for the continuous measurement of 
the pressure drop of the gas stream across the scrubber must be 
certified by the manufacturer to the accurate to within a gage pressure 
of 500 pascals (2 inches of water gage 
pressure); and
    (ii) The monitoring device used for continuous measurement of the 
scrubbing liquid flow rate must be certified by the manufacturer to be 
accurate within 5 percent of the design scrubbing liquid 
flow rate.
    (3) The owner or operator of each affected semichemical combustion 
unit equipped with an RTO must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a continuous monitoring system that can be used to determine 
and record the operating temperature of the RTO at least once every 
successive 15-minute period using the procedures in Sec. 63.8(c). The 
monitor must compute and record the operating temperature at the point 
of incineration of effluent gases that are emitted using a temperature 
monitor accurate to within 1 percent of the temperature 
being measured.
    (4) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
that uses a control device listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of 
this section may monitor alternative control device operating 
parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator.
    (5) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
that uses an air pollution control system other than those listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section must monitor the 
parameters as approved by the Administrator using the methods and 
procedures in Sec. 63.865(f).
    (6) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
complying with the gaseous organic HAP emissions limitations of 
Sec. 63.862(c)(1) through the use of an NDCE recovery furnace equipped 
with a dry ESP system is not required to conduct any performance 
testing or any continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the 
gaseous organic HAP emission limitation.
    (b) Initial compliance determination. (1) The owner or operator of 
each affected source or process unit subject to the requirements of 
this subpart is required to conduct an initial performance test using 
the test methods and procedures listed in Secs. 63.7 and 63.865, except 
as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (2) Determination of operating ranges. (i) During the initial 
performance test required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
owner or operator of any affected source or process unit must establish 
operating ranges for the monitoring parameters in paragraphs (a)(2) 
through (5) of this section, as appropriate; or
    (ii) The owner or operator may base operating ranges on values 
recorded during previous performance tests or conduct additional 
performance tests for the specific purpose of establishing operating 
ranges, provided that test data used to establish the operating ranges 
are or have been obtained using the test methods required in this 
subpart. The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit 
must certify that all control techniques and processes have not been 
modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to 
establish the operating parameter ranges were obtained.
    (iii) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit 
may establish expanded or replacement operating ranges for the 
monitoring parameter values listed in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of 
this section and established in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 
section during subsequent performance tests using the test methods in 
Sec. 63.865.
    (3) An initial performance test is not required to be conducted in 
order to determine compliance with the emissions limitations of 
Sec. 63.862(c)(1) if the affected source or process unit includes an 
NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system.
    (4) After the Administrator has approved the PM emissions limits 
for each kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and 
lime kiln, the owner or operator complying with an overall PM emission 
limit established in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) must demonstrate compliance 
with the HAP metals standard by demonstrating compliance with the 
approved PM emissions limits for each affected kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln, using the test methods 
and procedures in Sec. 63.865(b).
    (c) On-going compliance provisions. (1) Following the compliance 
date, owners or operators of all affected sources or process units are 
required to implement corrective action, as specified in the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan prepared under Sec. 63.866(a) if the 
monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this 
section occur:
    (i) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime 
kiln equipped with an ESP, when the average of ten consecutive 6-minute 
averages result in a measurement greater than 20 percent opacity;
    (ii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft or 
soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite 
combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when any 3-hour average 
parameter value is outside the range of values established in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section.
    (iii) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped 
with an RTO, when any 1-hour average temperature falls below the 
temperature established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
    (iv) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an 
alternative emission control system approved by the Administrator, when 
any 3-hour average value is outside the range of parameter values 
established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
    (v) For an affected source or process unit that is monitoring 
alternative operating parameters established in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section, when any 3-hour average value is outside the range of 
parameter values established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

[[Page 3197]]

    (2) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of all 
affected sources or process units are in violation of the standards of 
Sec. 63.862 if the monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 
through (vi) of this section occur:
    (i) For an existing kraft or soda recovery furnace equipped with an 
ESP, when opacity is greater than 35 percent for 6 percent or more of 
the operating time within any quarterly period;
    (ii) For a new kraft or soda recovery furnace or a new or existing 
lime kiln equipped with an ESP, when opacity is greater than 20 percent 
for 6 percent or more of the operating time within any quarterly 
period;
    (iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft 
or soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite 
combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when six or more 3-hour 
average parameter values within any 6-month reporting period are 
outside the range of values established in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section;
    (iv) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped 
with an RTO, when any 3-hour average temperature falls below the 
temperature established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
    (v) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an 
alternative air pollution control system approved by the Administrator, 
when six or more 3-hour average values within any 6-month reporting 
period are outside the range of parameter values established in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
    (vi) For an affected source or process unit that is monitoring 
alternative operating parameters established in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section, when six or more 3-hour average values within any 6-month 
reporting period are outside the range of parameter values established 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (3) For purposes of determining the number of nonopacity monitoring 
exceedances, no more than one exceedance will be attributed in any 
given 24-hour period.


Sec. 63.865  Performance test requirements and test methods.

    (a) The owner or operator of a process unit seeking to comply with 
a PM emission limit under Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(A) must use the 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) Determine the overall PM emission limit for the chemical 
recovery system at the mill using Equation 1 of this section as 
follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.001


Where:
ELPM=overall PM emission limit for all existing process 
units in the chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp 
mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
Cref, RF=reference concentration of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 
gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda 
recovery furnaces.
QRFtot=sum of the average volumetric gas flow rates 
measured during the performance test and corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen for all existing recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery 
system at the kraft or soda pulp mill, dry standard cubic meters per 
minute (dscm/min) (dry standard cubic feet per minute [dscf/min]).
Cref, LK=reference concentration of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 
gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda 
lime kilns.
QLKtot=sum of the average volumetric gas flow rates 
measured during the performance test and corrected to 10 percent 
oxygen for all existing lime kilns in the chemical recovery system 
at the kraft or soda pulp mill, dscm/min (dscf/min).
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minutes;kilogram/daygram 
(minkg/dg) (0.206 minutespound/
daygrain [minlb/dgr]).
BLStot=sum of the average black liquor solids firing 
rates of all existing recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery 
system at the kraft or soda pulp mill measured during the 
performance test, megagrams per day (Mg/d) (tons per day [tons/d]) 
of black liquor solids fired.
ER1ref, SDT=reference emission rate of 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or soda 
smelt dissolving tanks.

    (2) Establish an emission limit for each kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln; and, using these 
emissions limits, determine the overall PM emission rate for the 
chemical recovery system at the mill using the procedures in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section, such that the overall PM 
emission rate calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section is less 
than or equal to the overall PM emission limit determined in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, as appropriate.
    (i) The PM emission rate from each affected recovery furnace must 
be determined using Equation 2 of this section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.002

Where:
ERRF=emission rate from each recovery furnace, kg/Mg (lb/
ton) of black liquor solids.
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minkg/dg (0.206 
min/dgr).
CEL, RF=PM emission limit proposed by owner or operator 
for the recovery furnace, g/dscm (gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen.
QRF=average volumetric gas flow rate from the recovery 
furnace measured during the performance test and corrected to 8 
percent oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
BLS=average black liquor solids firing rate of the recovery furnace 
measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of black liquor 
solids.

    (ii) The PM emission rate from each affected smelt dissolving tank 
must be determined using Equation 3 of this section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.003


[[Page 3198]]


Where:
ERSDT=emission rate from each SDT, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of 
black liquor solids fired.
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minkg/dg (0.206 
minlb/dgr).
CEL, SDT=PM emission limit proposed by owner or operator 
for the smelt dissolving tank, g/dscm (gr/dscf).
QSDT=average volumetric gas flow rate from the smelt 
dissolving tank measured during the performance test, dscm/min 
(dscf/min).
BLS=average black liquor solids firing rate of the associated 
recovery furnace measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) 
of black liquorsolids fired. If more than one SDT is used to 
dissolve the smelt from a given recovery furnace, then the black 
liquor solids firing rate of the furnace must be proportioned 
according to the size of the SDT.

    (iii) The PM emission rate from each affected lime kiln must be 
determined using Equation 4 of this section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.004

Where:
ERLK=emission rate from each lime kiln, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of 
black liquor solids.
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minkg/dg (0.206 
minlb/dgr).
CEL,LK=PM emission limit proposed by owner or operator 
for the lime kiln, g/dscm (gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
QLK=average volumetric gas flow rate from the lime kiln 
measured during the performance test and corrected to 10 percent 
oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
CaOLK=lime production rate of the lime kiln, measured as 
CaO during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of CaO.
CaOtot=sum of the average lime production rates for all 
existing lime kilns in the chemical recovery system at the mill 
measured as CaO during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d).
BLStot=sum of the average black liquor solids firing 
rates of all recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery system at 
the mill measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of black 
liquor solids.

    (iv) If more than one similar process unit is operated in the 
chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp mill, Equation 5 of 
this section must be used to calculate the overall PM emission rate 
from all similar process units in the chemical recovery system at the 
mill and must be used in determining the overall PM emission rate for 
the chemical recovery system at the mill:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.005

Where:
ERPUtot=overall PM emission rate from all similar process 
units, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERPU1=PM emission rate from process unit No. 1, kg/Mg 
(lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired, calculated using Equation 2, 
3, or 4 in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
PRPU1=black liquor solids firing rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for 
process unit No. 1, if process unit is a recovery furnace or SDT. 
The CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for process unit No. 1, if 
process unit is a lime kiln.
PRtot=total black liquor solids firing rate in Mg/d (ton/
d) for all recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery system at the 
kraft or soda pulp mill if the similar process units are recovery 
furnaces or SDT, or the total CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d) 
for all lime kilns in the chemical recovery system at the mill if 
the similar process units are lime kilns.
ERPUi=PM emission rate from process unit No. i, kg/Mg 
(lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
PRPUi=black liquor solids firing rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for 
process unit No. i, if process unit is a recovery furnace or SDT. 
The CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for process unit No. i, if 
process unit is a lime kiln.
i=number of similar process units located in the chemical recovery 
system at the kraft or soda pulp mill.

    (v) The overall PM emission rate for the chemical recovery system 
at the mill must be determined using Equation 6 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.006

Where:
ERtot=overall PM emission rate for the chemical recovery 
system at the mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERRFtot=PM emission rate from all kraft or soda recovery 
furnaces, calculated using Equation 2 or 5 in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
and (iv) of this section, where applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black 
liquor solids fired.
ERSDTtot=PM emission rate from all smelt dissolving 
tanks, calculated using Equation 3 or 5 in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and 
(iv) of this section, where applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black 
liquor solids fired.
ERLKtot=PM emission rate from all lime kilns, calculated 
using Equation 4 or 5 in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this 
section, where applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired.

    (3) For purposes of determining the volumetric gas flow rate used 
in this section for each kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank, and lime kiln, Methods 1 through 4 in appendix A of 40 
CFR part 60 must be used.
    (4) Process data measured during the performance test must be used 
to determine the black liquor solids firing rate on a dry basis and the 
CaO production rate.
    (b) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with 
Sec. 63.862(a) must use the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section.
    (1) For purposes of determining the concentration of PM emitted 
from each kraft or soda recovery furnace, sulfite combustion unit, 
smelt dissolving tank or lime kiln, Method 5 or 29 in appendix A of 40 
CFR part 60 must be used, except that Method 17 in appendix A of 40 CFR 
part 60 may be used in lieu of Method 5 or Method 29 if a constant 
value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method 
17, and the stack temperature is no greater than 205 deg.C (400 deg.F). 
The sampling time and sample volume for each run must be at least 60 
minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf). Water must be used as the cleanup 
solvent instead of acetone in the sample recovery procedure.
    (2) For sources complying with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of 
Sec. 63.862, the PM concentration must be corrected to the appropriate 
oxygen concentration using Equation 7 of this section as follows:


[[Page 3199]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.007

Where:
Ccorr=the measured concentration corrected for oxygen, g/
dscm (gr/dscf).
Cmeas=the measured concentration uncorrected for oxygen, 
g/dscm (gr/dscf).
X=the corrected volumetric oxygen concentration (8 percent for kraft 
or soda recovery furnaces and sulfite combustion units and 10 
percent for kraft or soda lime kilns).
Y=the measured average volumetric oxygen concentration.

    (3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 
determine the oxygen concentration. The gas sample must be taken at the 
same time and at the same traverse points as the particulate sample.
    (4) For purposes of complying with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of 
Sec. 63.862, the volumetric gas flow rate must be corrected to the 
appropriate oxygen concentration using Equation 8 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.008


Where:
Qcorr = the measured volumetric gas flow rate corrected 
for oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
Qmeas = the measured volumetric gas flow rate uncorrected 
for oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
X = the corrected volumetric oxygen concentration (8 percent for 
kraft or soda recovery furnaces and sulfite combustion units and 10 
percent for kraft or soda lime kilns).
Y = the measured average volumetric oxygen concentration.

    (c) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the 
gaseous organic HAP standard in Sec. 63.862(c)(1) without using an NDCE 
recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system must use Method 308 in 
appendix A of this part. The sampling time and sample volume for each 
run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.014 dscm (0.50 dscf), 
respectively.
    (1) The emission rate from any new NDCE recovery furnace must be 
determined using Equation 9 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.009


Where:
ERNDCE = methanol emission rate from the NDCE recovery 
furnace, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
MRmeas = measured methanol mass emission rate from the 
NDCE recovery furnace, kg/hr (lb/hr).
BLS = average black liquor solids firing rate of the NDCE recovery 
furnace, Mg/hr (ton/hr); determined using process data measured 
during the performance test.

    (2) The emission rate from any new DCE recovery furnace system must 
be determined using Equation 10 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.010


Where:
ERDCE = methanol emission rate from each DCE recovery 
furnace system, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
MRmeas,RF = average measured methanol mass emission rate 
from each DCE recovery furnace, kg/hr (lb/hr).
MRmeas,BLO = average measured methanol mass emission rate 
from the black liquor oxidation system, kg/hr (lb/hr).
BLSRF = average black liquor solids firing rate for each 
DCE recovery furnace, Mg/hr (ton/hr); determined using process data 
measured during the performance test.

BLSBLO = the average mass rate of black liquor solids 
treated in the black liquor oxidation system, Mg/hr (ton/hr); 
determined using process data measured during the performance test.
    (d) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the 
gaseous organic HAP standards in Sec. 63.862(c)(2) for semichemical 
combustion units must use Method 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. 
The sampling time must be at least 60 minutes.
    (1) The emission rate from any new or existing semichemical 
combustion unit must be determined using Equation 11 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.011



Where:
ERSCCU = THC emission rate from each semichemical 
combustion unit, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
THCmeas = measured THC mass emission rate, kg/hr (lb/hr).
BLS = average black liquor solids firing rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr); 
determined using process data measured during the performance test.

    (2) If the owner or operator of the semichemical combustion unit 
has selected the percentage reduction standards for THC, under 
Sec. 63.862(c)(2)(ii), the percentage reduction in THC emissions is 
computed using Equation 12 of this section as follows, provided that Ei 
and Eo are measured simultaneously:

[[Page 3200]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.012


Where:
%RTHC = percentage reduction of total hydrocarbons 
emissions achieved.
Ei = measured THC mass emission rate at the THC control 
device inlet, kg/hr (lb/hr).
Eo = measured THC mass emission rate at the THC control 
device outlet, kg/hr (lb/hr).

    (e) The owner or operator seeking to comply with the continuous 
parameter monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.864(b)(2) must 
continuously monitor each parameter and determine the arithmetic 
average value of each parameter during each 3-run performance test. 
Multiple 3-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a range 
of parameter values.
    (f) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit 
seeking to demonstrate compliance with the standards in Sec. 63.862 
using a control technique other than those listed in Sec. 63.864(a)(1) 
through (3) must provide to the Administrator a monitoring plan that 
includes a description of the control device, test results verifying 
the performance of the control device, the appropriate operating 
parameters that will be monitored, and the frequency of measuring and 
recording to establish continuous compliance with the standards. The 
monitoring plan is subject to the Administrator's approval. The owner 
or operator of the affected source or process unit must install, 
calibrate, operate, and maintain the monitor(s) in accordance with the 
monitoring plan approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator 
must include in the information submitted to the Administrator proposed 
performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for the 
monitors. The Administrator may request further information and will 
approve acceptable test methods and procedures.


Sec. 63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The owner or operator 
must develop and implement a written plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for 
operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of corrective action 
for malfunctioning process and control systems used to comply with the 
standards. In addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6(e), the 
plan must include the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Procedures for responding to any process parameter level that 
is inconsistent with the level(s) established under Sec. 63.864(b)(2), 
including the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section:
    (i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of an operating 
parameter exceedance and the time the exceedance began and ended; and
    (ii) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of an operating 
parameter exceedance, including procedures for recording the actions 
taken to correct the exceedance.
    (2) The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan also must include 
the schedules listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) A maintenance schedule for each control technique that is 
consistent with, but not limited to, the manufacturer's instructions 
and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance; and
    (ii) An inspection schedule for each continuous monitoring system 
required under Sec. 63.864 to ensure, at least once in each 24-hour 
period, that each continuous monitoring system is properly functioning.
    (b) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit 
must maintain records of any occurrence when corrective action is 
required under Sec. 63.864(c)(1), and when a violation is noted under 
Sec. 63.864(c)(2).
    (c) In addition to the general records required by 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2), the owner or operator must maintain records of the 
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (1) Records of black liquor solids firing rates in units of 
megagrams/day or tons/day for all recovery furnaces and semichemical 
combustion units;
    (2) Records of CaO production rates in units of megagrams/day or 
tons/day for all lime kilns;
    (3) Records of parameter monitoring data required under 
Sec. 63.864, including any period when the operating parameter levels 
were inconsistent with the levels established during the initial 
performance test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the 
deviation, the time the deviation occurred, the time corrective action 
was initiated and completed, and the corrective action taken;
    (4) Records and documentation of supporting calculations for 
compliance determinations made under Secs. 63.865(a) through (e);
    (5) Records of monitoring parameter ranges established for each 
affected source or process unit;
    (6) Records certifying that an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with 
a dry ESP system is used to comply with the gaseous organic HAP 
standard in Sec. 63.862(c)(1).


Sec. 63.867  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Notifications. The owner or operator of any affected source or 
process unit must submit the applicable notifications from subpart A of 
this part, as specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (b) Additional reporting requirements for HAP metals standards. (1) 
Any owner or operator of a group of process units in a chemical 
recovery system at a mill complying with the PM emissions limits in 
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) must submit the PM emissions limits determined in 
Sec. 63.865(a) for each affected kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank, and lime kiln to the Administrator for approval. The 
emissions limits must be submitted as part of the notification of 
compliance status required under subpart A of this part.
    (2) Any owner or operator of a group of process units in a chemical 
recovery system at a mill complying with the PM emissions limits in 
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) must submit the calculations and supporting 
documentation used in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) and (2) to the Administrator as 
part of the notification of compliance status required under subpart A 
of this part.
    (3) After the Administrator has approved the emissions limits for 
any process unit, the owner or operator of a process unit must notify 
the Administrator before any of the actions in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 
through (iv) of this section are taken:
    (i) The air pollution control system for any process unit is 
modified or replaced;
    (ii) Any kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or 
lime kiln in a chemical recovery system at a kraft or soda pulp mill 
complying with the PM emissions limits in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) is shut 
down for more than 60 consecutive days;
    (iii) A continuous monitoring parameter or the value or range of 
values of a continuous monitoring parameter for any process unit is 
changed; or
    (iv) The black liquor solids firing rate for any kraft or soda 
recovery furnace during any 24-hour averaging period is

[[Page 3201]]

increased by more than 10 percent above the level measured during the 
most recent performance test.
    (4) An owner or operator of a group of process units in a chemical 
recovery system at a mill complying with the PM emissions limits in 
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) and seeking to perform the actions in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section must recalculate the overall PM 
emissions limit for the group of process units and resubmit the 
documentation required in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to the 
Administrator. All modified PM emissions limits are subject to approval 
by the Administrator.
    (c) Excess emissions report. The owner or operator must report 
quarterly if measured parameters meet any of the conditions specified 
in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of Sec. 63.864. This report must contain the 
information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of this part as well as the 
number and duration of occurrences when the source met or exceeded the 
conditions in Sec. 63.864(c)(1), and the number and duration of 
occurrences when the source met or exceeded the conditions in 
Sec. 63.864(c)(2). Reporting excess emissions below the violation 
thresholds of Sec. 63.864(c) does not constitute a violation of the 
applicable standard.
    (1) When no exceedances of parameters have occurred, the owner or 
operator must submit a semiannual report stating that no excess 
emissions occurred during the reporting period.
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit 
subject to the requirements of this subpart and subpart S of this part 
may combine excess emissions and/or summary reports for the mill.


Sec. 63.868  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, the authorities 
contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the 
Administrator and not transferred to a State.
    (b) The authorities which will not be delegated to States are 
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to standards in Sec. 63.862 under 
Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

                      Table 1 to Subpart MM--General Provisions Applicability To Subpart MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Summary of
  General provisions reference         requirements            Applies to supbart MM            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)......................  General applicability  Yes.............................  Additional terms
                                   of the General                                           defined in Sec.
                                   Provisions.                                              63.861; when overlap
                                                                                            between subparts A
                                                                                            and MM of this part,
                                                                                            subpart MM takes
                                                                                            precedence.
63.1(a)(2)-(14).................  General applicability  Yes.............................
                                   of the General
                                   Provisions.
63.1(b)(1)......................  Initial applicability  No..............................  Subpart MM specifies
                                   determination..                                          the applicability in
                                                                                            Sec.  63.860.
63.1(b)(2)......................  Title V operating      Yes.............................  All major affected
                                   permit--see 40 CFR                                       sources are required
                                   part 70.                                                 to obtain a title V
                                                                                            permit.
63.1(b)(3)......................  Record of the          No..............................  All affected sources
                                   applicability                                            are subject to
                                   determination.                                           subpart MM according
                                                                                            to the applicability
                                                                                            definition of
                                                                                            subpart MM.
63.1(c)(1)......................  Applicability of       Yes.............................  Subpart MM clarifies
                                   subpart A of this                                        the applicability of
                                   part after a                                             each paragraph of
                                   relevant standard                                        subpart A of this
                                   has been set.                                            part to sources
                                                                                            subject to subpart
                                                                                            MM.
63.1(c)(2)......................  Title V permit         Yes.............................  All major affected
                                   requirement.                                             sources are required
                                                                                            to obtain a title V
                                                                                            permit. There are no
                                                                                            area sources in the
                                                                                            pulp and paper mill
                                                                                            source category.
63.1(c)(3)......................  [Reserved]...........  NA..............................
63.1(c)(4)......................  Requirements for       Yes.............................
                                   existing source that
                                   obtains an extension
                                   of compliance.
63.1(c)(5)......................  Notification           Yes.............................
                                   requirements for an
                                   area source that
                                   increases HAP
                                   emissions to major
                                   source levels.
63.1(d).........................  [Reserved]...........  NA..............................
63.1(e).........................  Applicability of       Yes.............................
                                   permit program
                                   before a relevant
                                   standard has been
                                   set.
63.2............................  Definitions..........  Yes.............................  Additional terms
                                                                                            defined in Sec.
                                                                                            63.861; when overlap
                                                                                            between subparts A
                                                                                            and MM of this part
                                                                                            occurs, subpart MM
                                                                                            takes precedence.
63.3............................  Units and              Yes.............................
                                   abbreviations.
63.4............................  Prohibited activities  Yes.............................
                                   and circumvention.
63.5(a).........................  Construction and       Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction--appl
                                   icability.
63.5(b)(1)......................  Upon construction,     Yes.............................
                                   relevant standards
                                   for new sources.
63.5(b)(2)......................  [Reserved]...........  NA..............................
63.5(b)(3)......................  New construction/      Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction.
63.5(b)(4)......................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   notification.
63.5(b)(5)......................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   compliance.
63.5(b)(6)......................  Equipment addition or  Yes.............................
                                   process change.
63.5(c).........................  [Reserved]...........  NA..............................
63.5(d).........................  Application for        Yes.............................
                                   approval of
                                   construction/
                                   reconstruction.
63.5(e).........................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   approval.

[[Page 3202]]

 
63.5(f).........................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   approval based on
                                   prior State
                                   preconstruction
                                   review.
63.6(a)(1)......................  Compliance with        Yes.............................
                                   standards and
                                   maintenance
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability.
63.6(a)(2)......................  Requirements for area  Yes.............................
                                   source that
                                   increases emissions
                                   to become major.
63.6(b).........................  Compliance dates for   Yes.............................
                                   new and
                                   reconstructed
                                   sources.
63.6(c).........................  Compliance dates for   Yes.............................  Subpart MM
                                   existing sources.                                        specifically
                                                                                            stipulates the
                                                                                            compliance schedule
                                                                                            for existing
                                                                                            sources.
63.6(d).........................  [Reserved]...........  NA..............................
63.6(e).........................  Operation and          Yes.............................
                                   maintenance
                                   requirements.
63.6(f).........................  Compliance with        Yes.............................
                                   nonopacity emissions
                                   standards.
63.6(g).........................  Compliance with        Yes.............................
                                   alternative
                                   nonopacity emissions
                                   standards.
63.6(h).........................  Compliance with        Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   opacity and visible                                      contain any opacity
                                   emissions (VE)                                           or VE standards;
                                   standards.                                               however, Sec.
                                                                                            63.864 specifies
                                                                                            opacity monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.6(i).........................  Extension of           Yes.............................
                                   compliance with
                                   emissions standards.
63.6(j).........................  Exemption from         Yes.............................
                                   compliance with
                                   emissions standards.
63.7(a)(1)......................  Performance testing    Yes.............................  Sec.  63.864(a)(6)
                                   requirements--applic                                     specifies the only
                                   ability.                                                 exemption from
                                                                                            performance testing
                                                                                            allowed under
                                                                                            subpart MM.
63.7(a)(2)......................  Performance test       Yes.............................
                                   dates.
63.7(a)(3)......................  Performance test       Yes.............................
                                   requests by
                                   Administrator under
                                   CAA section 114.
63.7(b)(1)......................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   performance test.
63.7(b)(2)......................  Notification of delay  Yes.............................
                                   in conducting a
                                   scheduled
                                   performance test.
63.7(c).........................  Quality assurance      Yes.............................
                                   program.
63.7(d).........................  Performance testing    Yes.............................
                                   facilities.
63.7(e).........................  Conduct of             Yes.............................
                                   performance tests.
63.7(f).........................  Use of an alternative  Yes.............................
                                   test method.
63.7(g).........................  Data analysis,         Yes.............................
                                   recordkeeping, and
                                   reporting.
63.7(h).........................  Waiver of performance  Yes.............................  Sec.  63.864(a)(6)
                                   tests.                                                   specifies the only
                                                                                            exemption from
                                                                                            performance testing
                                                                                            allowed under
                                                                                            subpart MM.
63.8(a).........................  Monitoring             Yes.............................  See Sec.  63.864.
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability.
63.8(b).........................  Conduct of monitoring  Yes.............................  See Sec.  63.864.
63.8(c).........................  Operation and          Yes.............................  See Sec.  63.864.
                                   maintenance of CMS.
63.8(d).........................  Quality control        Yes.............................  See Sec.  63.864.
                                   program.
63.8(e)(1)......................  Performance            Yes.............................
                                   evaluation of CMS.
63.8(e)(2)......................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   performance
                                   evaluation.
63.8(e)(3)......................  Submission of site-    Yes.............................
                                   specific performance
                                   evaluation test plan.
63.8(e)(4)......................  Conduct of             Yes.............................
                                   performance
                                   evaluation and
                                   performance
                                   evaluation dates.
63.8(e)(5)......................  Reporting performance  Yes.............................
                                   evaluation results.
63.8(f).........................  Use of an alternative  Yes.............................
                                   monitoring method.
63.8(g).........................  Reduction of           Yes.............................
                                   monitoring data.
63.9(a).........................  Notification           Yes.............................
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability and general
                                   information.
63.9(b).........................  Initial notifications  Yes.............................
63.9(c).........................  Request for extension  Yes.............................
                                   of compliance.
63.9(d).........................  Notification that      Yes.............................
                                   source subject to
                                   special compliance
                                   requirements.
63.9(e).........................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   performance test.
63.9(f).........................  Notification of        Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   opacity and VE                                           contain any opacity
                                   observations.                                            or VE standards;
                                                                                            however, Sec.
                                                                                            63.864 specifies
                                                                                            opacity monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.9(g)(1)......................  Additional             Yes.............................
                                   notification
                                   requirements for
                                   sources with CMS.
63.9(g)(2)......................  Notification of        Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   compliance with                                          contain any opacity
                                   opacity emissions                                        or VE emissions
                                   standard.                                                standards; however,
                                                                                            Sec.  63.864
                                                                                            specifies opacity
                                                                                            monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.9(g)(3)......................  Notification that      Yes.............................
                                   criterion to
                                   continue use of
                                   alternative to
                                   relative accuracy
                                   testing has been
                                   exceeded.

[[Page 3203]]

 
63.9(h).........................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   compliance status.
63.9(i).........................  Adjustment to time     Yes.............................
                                   periods or postmark
                                   deadlines for
                                   submittal and review
                                   of required
                                   communications.
63.9(j).........................  Change in information  Yes.............................
                                   already provided.
63.10(a)........................  Recordkeeping          Yes.............................  See Sec.  63.866.
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability and general
                                   information.
63.10(b)(1).....................  Records retention....  Yes.............................
63.10(b)(2).....................  Information and        Yes.............................
                                   documentation to
                                   support
                                   notifications and
                                   demonstrate
                                   compliance.
63.10(b)(3).....................  Records retention for  Yes.............................  Applicability
                                   sources not subject                                      requirements are
                                   to relevant standard.                                    given in Sec.
                                                                                            63.860.
63.10(c)........................  Additional             Yes.............................
                                   recordkeeping
                                   requirements for
                                   sources with CMS..
63.10(d)(1).....................  General reporting      Yes.............................
                                   requirements.
63.10(d)(2).....................  Reporting results of   Yes.............................
                                   performance tests.
63.10(d)(3).....................  Reporting results of   Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   opacity or VE                                            include any opacity
                                   observations.                                            or VE standards;
                                                                                            however, Sec.
                                                                                            63.864 specifies
                                                                                            opacity monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.10(d)(4).....................  Progress reports.....  Yes.............................
63.10(d)(5).....................  Periodic and           Yes.............................
                                   immediate startup,
                                   shutdown, and
                                   malfunction reports.
63.10(e)........................  Additional reporting   Yes.............................
                                   requirements for
                                   sources with CMS.
63.10(f)........................  Waiver of              Yes.............................
                                   recordkeeping and
                                   reporting
                                   requirements.
63.11...........................  Control device         No..............................  The use of flares to
                                   requirements for                                         meet the standards
                                   flares.                                                  in subpart MM is not
                                                                                            anticipated.
63.12...........................  State authority and    Yes.............................
                                   delegations.
63.13...........................  Addresses of State     Yes.............................
                                   air pollution
                                   control agencies and
                                   EPA Regional Offices.
63.14...........................  Incorporations by      Yes.............................
                                   reference.
63.15...........................  Availability of        Yes.............................
                                   information and
                                   confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 01-65 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P