[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58990-58998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23741]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 430

[FRL-7379-4]
RIN 2040-AD23


Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Bleached 
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and 
Paperboard Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates an amendment to the effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards under the Clean Water Act for the 
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category (also known as the 
``Cluster Rules''). The amendment allows new and existing, direct and 
indirect discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda 
Subcategory (Subpart B) to demonstrate compliance with applicable 
chloroform limitations and standards at a fiber line in lieu of certain 
monitoring requirements by performing initial monitoring to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable chloroform limitations or standards; 
certifying that the fiber line is not using elemental chlorine or 
hypochlorite as bleaching agents; and maintaining certain process and 
operating conditions identified during the compliance demonstration 
period. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is 
also promulgating a technical

[[Page 58991]]

amendment that amends the table that lists the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under the PRA for the Bleached 
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories of 
the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category published April 
15, 1998.

DATES: The technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9, is effective September 
19, 2002. The amendments to 40 CFR 430.02(f), are effective October 21, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: The public record (excluding confidential business 
information) for this rulemaking is available for review at the EPA's 
Water Docket, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, 
between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The Water Docket is located 
at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room B135, Washington, DC 
20004. Please call the Water Docket at (202) 566-2426 for an 
appointment before you come in.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, 
Engineering and Analysis Division (Mail Code 4303T), EPA West, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; call (202) 566-1044 or e-
mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble describes the legal authority 
of this final rule, background information on the development of the 
rule, and the rationale for the chloroform certification provisions.

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those new and 
existing, direct and indirect discharging mills that chemically pulp 
wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade 
pulp and/or bleached paper or paperboard. Regulated categories and 
entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Examples of regulated
              Category                      SIC code               NAICS code                  entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........................  2611, 2621............  33211, 322121.........  New and existing, direct
                                                                                      and indirect discharging
                                                                                      mills regulated under the
                                                                                      Bleached Papergrade Kraft
                                                                                      and Soda Subcategory
                                                                                      (Subpart B).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by today's 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by today's action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by today's action, you should 
carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  430.20 of Title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

    In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule will be considered 
promulgated for the purposes of judicial review at 1 pm Eastern Time on 
October 3, 2002. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 
judicial review of today's amendment to 40 CFR part 430 is available in 
the United States Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review 
within 120 days from the date of promulgation of this rule. Under 
section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the requirements in this rule may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

Compliance Dates

    This amendment offers new and existing, direct and indirect 
discharging Subpart B mills an alternative to the minimum monitoring 
requirements for chloroform codified at 40 CFR 430.02. Direct 
discharging mills choosing the certification alternative will be 
required to comply when the chloroform certification provisions are 
added to the discharger's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permit. Indirect discharging mills choosing the 
certification alternative will be required to comply when chloroform 
certification provisions are added to the discharger's pretreatment 
control agreement.

I. Legal Authority

    This rule establishes requirements for certifying in lieu of 
monitoring as a basis for demonstrating compliance with certain 
chloroform limitations and standards. This amendment to 40 CFR part 430 
is promulgated under the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 
1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. The Rule Authorizing Certification in Lieu of Monitoring for 
Chloroform Amendment

A. Background on Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Chloroform 
Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards

    On April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504), EPA promulgated effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards to reduce the discharge of toxic, 
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in wastewaters and 
emission standards to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from 
the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. These integrated regulations 
were known as the ``Cluster Rules'' and included new regulations for 
mills with operations in Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) 
and Subpart E (Bleached Papergrade Sulfite). As part of the Cluster 
Rules, EPA required mills with operations in Subpart B to demonstrate 
compliance with promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic 
pollutants inside the discharger's facility at the point where the 
wastewater containing those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. EPA 
required a minimum monitoring frequency of once per month for dioxin, 
furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). 
For chloroform, EPA required a minimum monitoring frequency of once per 
week. Id. These minimum monitoring frequencies were selected because 
the data available at that time indicated that there can be 
considerable temporal variability of these pollutants in bleach plant 
wastewaters. See 63 FR 18571 (April 15, 1998).
    During the development of the 1998 Cluster Rules, EPA published a 
Notice of Data Availability on the effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards (61 FR 36835, July 15, 1996). Comments on that Notice urged 
EPA to allow for certification of process changes (specifically, 
elimination of elemental chlorine and hypochlorite) in lieu of 
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the effluent limitations and 
standards for chloroform and other parameters controlled at the bleach 
plant.
    EPA did not include a certification option in the final Cluster 
Rules because the information available at that time did not 
demonstrate that certification of elemental chlorine free (ECF) 
bleaching

[[Page 58992]]

and elimination of hypochlorite alone were sufficient to ensure 
compliance. EPA based this conclusion on its finding that pulping and 
bleaching processes and related factors also have an effect on the 
rates of generation of chlorinated pollutants, as measured in mill 
wastewaters. Although EPA did not promulgate the certification option, 
EPA separately proposed to allow new and existing, direct and indirect 
discharging mills in Subpart B to demonstrate compliance with 
chloroform effluent limitations and standards for a fiber line through 
a certification process. See 63 FR 18796 (April 15, 1998). The proposed 
certification would function as an alternative to minimum monitoring 
requirements in 40 CFR 430.02 to demonstrate compliance with chloroform 
effluent limitations or standards at a fiber line to which the effluent 
limitations or standards apply. At the same time, EPA solicited 
additional data to document and confirm the process and operating 
conditions that would be necessary to provide the basis for 
establishing certification. In particular, EPA requested additional 
data to document more completely the specific relationships among 
processes and related variables and chloroform generation rates in air 
emissions and wastewaters.

B. Summary of Comments and Data Received Since Proposal

    The American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) responded to 
EPA's solicitation for additional data to document relationships 
between process variables and chloroform generation rates. EPA received 
comments to extend its proposed certification program to all bleach 
plant parameters. EPA also received two study plans developed by the 
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). One of these 
plans dealt with chloroform; the other plan dealt with dioxin, furan, 
and the 12 chlorinated phenolic compounds regulated under Subpart B.
    AF&PA also provided EPA with a copy of the NCASI report 
``Chloroform Generation During Chlorine Dioxide Bleaching.'' The 
purpose of the study was to determine if certain process variables 
affect total chloroform generated during ECF bleaching. Pulp bleaching 
variables considered in NCASI's chloroform study included final pH of 
the first chlorine dioxide (D0) stage, kappa factor, pulp 
type, and chlorine content of the chlorine dioxide solution used for 
bleaching. NCASI concluded that among the variables considered, the 
final pH of the first bleaching stage had the greatest impact on 
chloroform generation, and that kappa factor also may be important. The 
chlorine content of the chlorine dioxide bleaching solution also had an 
impact on chloroform generation, though less than the D0 
stage final pH.
    EPA also received a comment that the proposed two-year monitoring 
demonstration period should be reduced to 12 months, because 52 weekly 
samples will provide an ample period to evaluate the range of operating 
variables influencing chloroform generation. This issue will be 
addressed in the following section.
    AF&PA also commented about the clarity of the language in the 
proposed amendment to the regulation concerning criteria by which a 
discharger would be deemed in compliance. As a result, EPA has slightly 
modified the language in the final amendment so that the criteria for 
compliance are clear.
    One commenter suggested that after a direct discharging mill has 
been allowed to demonstrate compliance through certification, renewal 
of an NPDES permit should include a new certification without a 
demonstration of compliance, unless bleach plant operations have 
changed. EPA believes this is unnecessary, because the minimum 
monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 430.02 apply to direct 
dischargers only for five years from the time they are first included 
in the discharger's NPDES permit, and the minimum monitoring 
requirements apply to indirect dischargers only until April 15, 2006. 
Once the minimum monitoring requirements cease to apply, the 
certification provisions cease to apply as well.
    Commenters also suggested that EPA extend the certification option 
to ammonium-based and specialty grade sulfite mills. EPA, however, has 
not yet established numerical effluent limitations guidelines or 
standards for the discharge of chloroform from ammonium-based and 
specialty grade sulfite mills. Thus, at present, these mills have no 
chloroform monitoring requirements specified under part 430.

C. Description of the Certification and Changes Since Proposal

    After careful consideration of all comments and additional 
analysis, EPA concludes that the following factors influence chloroform 
air emissions and mass loadings in wastewater: The pH of the first 
chlorine dioxide bleaching stage, the chlorine content of chlorine 
dioxide used on the bleach line, the kappa factor of the first chlorine 
dioxide bleaching stage, the total bleach line chlorine dioxide 
application rate, and the chlorine-containing compounds used for 
bleaching. EPA also concludes that a certification that accounts for 
these process and operating conditions is appropriate to allow mills to 
demonstrate compliance with chloroform limitations and standards. 
Therefore, EPA is promulgating new regulatory language at 40 CFR 
430.02(f) that provides a certification process to demonstrate 
compliance with chloroform limitations and standards for new and 
existing, direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills in lieu of 
the minimum monitoring requirements for chloroform at a fiber line to 
which the limitations or standards apply.
    With respect to other parameters, EPA did not receive any new data 
or information addressing the effects of process variables on the 
generation of dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic compounds. 
Thus, EPA has no new data with which to evaluate the commenters' 
suggestion that the certification proposal should be extended to all 
bleach plant parameters. Accordingly, EPA has limited the certification 
to chloroform.
    EPA did not receive any new information or data to support a 
shorter initial compliance demonstration period or fewer measurements. 
Therefore, EPA has not changed the duration of the initial compliance 
demonstration period, concluding that two years of sampling data (a 
minimum of 104 measurements) is necessary to adequately characterize 
the full range of process and operating conditions that may be used on 
the fiber line and influence variability of chloroform generation. One 
year may not be sufficient to establish an operating parameter range 
that reflects the full range of variability at the plant, especially 
considering the potential for a changing product mix over time. EPA 
also noted that it is in the facility's interest to base its 
certification on a broad enough range of operating parameters to fully 
capture any variability that is consistent with meeting the prescribed 
chloroform limitations. If the facility certifies based on too small a 
range, it risks detecting parameter values outside of the range and 
being subject to a resumption of routine monitoring and eventual 
recertification. This would entail additional burden on both the 
facility and the permitting authority. EPA has thus decided to retain 
the two-year basis for the certification.
    In order to be eligible to demonstrate compliance with the 
chloroform limitations and standards through certification, the 
discharger must first demonstrate, based on 104

[[Page 58993]]

measurements taken over a period of not less than two years of 
monitoring conducted weekly, that it is achieving the applicable 
limitations or standards for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(2)(i). 
Retrospective data (e.g., data collected by a discharger prior to a 
BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS compliance demonstration required by a permit or 
pretreatment control agreement) may be used in this demonstration, if 
the data were collected in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 
430.02(a). During this initial compliance demonstration period, the 
discharger must collect samples of its representative bleach plant 
effluent(s) on a weekly basis consistent with analytical method(s) 
approved under Part 136. If the discharger monitors for chloroform more 
frequently than weekly, then the discharger should use only one 
observation for any 24 hour period. The discharger is cautioned to 
carefully evaluate whether there is any possibility that the full range 
of chloroform variability as reflected in process operating parameters 
may not be captured if samples are collected more frequently than 
weekly. In order to justify certification authorized under 40 CFR 
430.02(f), all of the monitoring results during the initial compliance 
demonstration period must demonstrate compliance with the chloroform 
effluent limitations or standards. For each sample used to make the 
compliance demonstration described above, the discharger is required 
under 40 CFR 430.02(f)(2)(ii) to maintain records of the maximum values 
of the following bleach plant operating parameters:
    (a) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
    (b) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide 
(ClO2) used on the bleach line;
    (c) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; 
and
    (d) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate.
    In addition, the discharger is required under 40 CFR 
430.02(f)(2)(iii) to identify the chlorine-containing compounds used 
for bleaching (i.e., the bleach sequence) during the collection of 
samples used to make the compliance demonstration.
    When the discharger has completed its initial compliance 
demonstration, it may request that its permitting or pretreatment 
control authority modify its permit or pretreatment control agreement 
to discontinue weekly chloroform monitoring of bleach plant effluent. 
See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(1). At the time that it makes this request, 
today's regulation requires the discharger to:

    (a) Certify that the fiber line does not use either elemental 
chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents, see 40 CFR 
430.02(f)(2)(iv);
    (b) Provide records demonstrating that, based on 104 measurements 
collected weekly over a period not less than two years, the fiber line 
complies with applicable chloroform limitations or standards, see 40 
CFR 430.02(f)(2)(i); and
    (c) Certify that it will maintain records available for inspection 
which document the range of process and operating conditions that 
occurred during the collection of each sample used to demonstrate 
initial compliance. Specifically, the facility must document the 
maximum values, observed during sample collection, of:
    (i) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
    (ii) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide 
(ClO2) used on the bleach line;
    (iii) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching 
stage; and
    (iv) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate.

See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(2)(ii). The facility must also identify the 
chlorine-containing compounds used for bleaching (i.e., the bleach 
sequence). See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(2)(iii).
    Thereafter, at the same frequency that the discharger submits 
discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) to its permitting authority or 
periodic compliance reports (PCRs) to its pretreatment control 
authority, the discharger must certify that:
    (a) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage has not 
exceeded the maximum value of the pH measured during initial compliance 
demonstration sample collection;
    (b) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide 
(ClO2) used on the bleach line has not exceeded the maximum 
Cl2 content of ClO2 used during initial 
compliance demonstration sample collection;
    (c) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage 
has not exceeded the maximum kappa factor employed during initial 
compliance demonstration sample collection;
    (d) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate has not 
exceeded the maximum chlorine dioxide application rate employed during 
initial compliance demonstration sample collection; and
    (e) The chlorine-containing compounds used for bleaching are 
unchanged from those used during initial compliance demonstration 
sample collection.

See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(4). The discharger must also maintain on-site 
records for the fiber line of these process and operating conditions. 
See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(2)(ii). EPA does not anticipate that mills that 
voluntarily choose to certify in lieu of minimum monitoring for 
chloroform will be required to submit any confidential business 
information (CBI) or trade secrets as part of this program.
    The requirement to monitor process and operating conditions and to 
maintain records of these conditions places no new burden on the 
discharger. Mills continuously monitor bleach plant process and 
operating conditions in order to ensure the quality of their product 
and the efficiency of their operations. They also routinely maintain 
records of process and operating conditions. At many mills, constant 
monitoring of process and operating parameters is accomplished 
electronically by computerized distributed control systems.
    If for any reason (intentionally or due to process upset) the 
discharger fails to maintain process and operating conditions on the 
fiber line at or below the maximum values recorded for these parameters 
during the initial compliance demonstration period, the discharger must 
notify the NPDES or pretreatment authority within 30 days and must 
again demonstrate compliance with the applicable chloroform limitation 
or standard by immediately initiating monitoring of its bleach plant 
effluent for chloroform at a frequency similar to that required in 40 
CFR 430.02(a) and for a duration determined by the permit or 
pretreatment control authority. See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(6)(i). The 
discharger is in violation of its chloroform limitations or standards 
if, after failing to maintain the process and operating conditions, it 
does not comply with the notice and compliance demonstration 
requirements in section 430.02(f)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of the rule. Once 
the discharger certifies that the fiber line process and operating 
conditions do not exceed the maximum values documented during the 
initial compliance demonstration period, the discharger may discontinue 
chloroform compliance monitoring. See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(6)(ii). It 
should be noted that failure to maintain process and operating 
conditions on the fiber line at or below the maximum values recorded 
during the initial compliance demonstration period or any subsequent 
period of compliance monitoring for recertification is not a violation 
of the discharger's permit or pretreatment control agreement.

[[Page 58994]]

    If the discharger wishes to make a long-term change in the process 
and operating conditions on the fiber line, such that one or more 
exceeds the maximum value documented during the initial compliance 
demonstration, the discharger must re-certify the fiber line in order 
to continue to demonstrate compliance through certification in lieu of 
monitoring. See 40 CFR 430.02(f)(3). The re-certification is similar to 
the initial compliance demonstration, except rather than a 104 
measurement monitoring period, the re-certification compliance 
demonstration period will be determined by the permit writer or 
pretreatment control authority. The Agency anticipates that the likely 
circumstance for long-term changes in process and operating conditions 
will be to make the same or similar pulps with reduced chemical usage. 
In this circumstance, it would be reasonable to assume that generation 
and discharge of chloroform should decrease. Thus, only limited data 
should be necessary to confirm this assumption. If, however, process 
and operating conditions will change to make pulps with higher 
brightness or other more demanding pulp properties, it would be 
reasonable to assume that chloroform generation and discharge could 
increase. Thus, more extensive data would be appropriate to confirm 
that effluent quality and its variability will still comply with the 
bleach plant chloroform effluent limitations or standards.
    EPA notes that the minimum monitoring requirements specified in 40 
CFR 430.02 apply to direct dischargers for five years from the time 
they are first included in the discharger's NPDES permit and the 
minimum monitoring requirements apply to indirect dischargers only 
until April 15, 2006. In other words, the minimum monitoring 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 430.02 do not apply after the 
expiration of the applicable time periods. Thereafter, it is the 
responsibility of the permit writer or pretreatment control authority 
to determine the appropriate monitoring frequency in accordance with 40 
CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR part 403, as applicable. The permit writer or 
pretreatment control authority is authorized to decide if bleach plant 
chloroform monitoring will re-commence at the same minimum monitoring 
frequency specified at 40 CFR 430.02 or an alternative frequency.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, 
not subject to OMB review.

B. 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 employs 
no more than 750 workers; (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, I certify that today's action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because there are no small entities subject to this rule. At the time 
EPA published the Cluster Rules, EPA had determined that there were 
only three mills in Subpart B that were owned by small businesses 
(where small businesses are defined as firms employing no more than 750 
workers) (63 FR 18504, 18611-12 (April 15, 1998)). EPA has since 
determined that there are no longer any small businesses in Subpart B 
because these mills are no longer owned by firms with fewer than 750 
employees. The mills that were owned by small firms have been bought by 
larger firms or are owned by companies that have increased in size.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0242.
    As mentioned previously, EPA established minimum monitoring 
frequencies for chloroform for existing and new direct and indirect 
discharging mills subject to Subpart B under authority of the Clean 
Water Act (CWA) Section 308 to demonstrate compliance with existing 
effluent limitations and standards for chloroform (and other pollutant 
parameters) promulgated under 40 CFR part 430. EPA is today allowing 
applicable facilities to voluntarily demonstrate compliance with 
chloroform limitations or standards by certifying their fiber lines in 
lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02. EPA 
has determined that this voluntary certification option significantly 
reduces the overall compliance burden and costs associated with meeting 
and demonstrating compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and 
standards. EPA has also determined that an initial compliance 
demonstration is necessary for each participating mill to establish the 
range of normal variability in process and operating parameters that 
are consistent with compliance with the chloroform effluent 
limitations. Once this range is established for each participating 
fiber line, periodic certification reports are submitted to the NPDES 
permit or pretreatment control authority to confirm and certify that 
the fiber line continues to comply with the chloroform effluent 
limitations and standards. The Agency's authority to provide for this 
voluntary certification option in lieu of minimum monitoring is Section 
402(a)(2) of the CWA which directs EPA to prescribe permit conditions 
to assure compliance with requirements ``including conditions on data 
and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as 
[the Administrator] deems appropriate.''

[[Page 58995]]

    Certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring eliminates 
all sampling burden associated with the minimum monitoring requirements 
for chloroform. A total of 19,492 hours annually would be saved by the 
80 direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills that EPA anticipates 
will choose to certify their 127 fiber lines. At an hourly operator 
rate of $28.91 per hour for sampling activities, reduction in sampling 
costs associated with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum 
monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $572,760 
per year ($28.91 x 19,812). In addition, the elimination of chloroform 
sampling activities after certification results in an associated 
reduction in analytical costs for the outside lab analysis of 
chloroform samples. The total reduction in analytical costs associated 
with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 
40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $3,856,740 per year (127 fiber 
lines x 2 samples per fiber line x 52 weeks x $292 per analysis). An 
increase in reporting burden for the 80 mills would be 320 (480-160) 
hours annually, based on the submission of periodic certification 
reports in lieu of reporting chloroform compliance data in DMRs and 
PCRs. At an hourly technician rate of $56.91 for reporting activities, 
an increase in reporting costs associated with certifying fiber lines 
in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 
mills would be $18,210 per year ($56.91 x 320). Therefore, the overall 
reduction in the total burden and cost to demonstrate compliance with 
minimum monitoring requirements by certifying fiber lines in lieu of 
minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be 
$4,411,290 per year ($572,760 + $3,856,740-$18,210). This reduction in 
cost translates to approximately $55,140 annually per mill.
    The Agency does not estimate any change in burden for State 
authorized NPDES and pretreatment control authorities or EPA from the 
burden associated with minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for 
facilities ( i.e., permitees) wishing to certify their fiber lines in 
lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements.
    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. EPA is 
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR control 
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information 
requirements contained in this final rule.
    In addition to the information collection request (ICR) being 
approved as part of today's action, OMB previously approved an 
information collection request associated with the general minimum 
monitoring requirements in the Cluster Rules, codified at 40 CFR 
430.02, under the provisions of the PRA and assigned OMB control number 
2040-0243. Today's action includes a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 
9 to list the OMB approval number for those previously promulgated and 
approved requirements. There is no burden associated with today's 
technical amendment.
    The ICR for the general minimum monitoring requirements was subject 
to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval. Due to the 
technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and 
comment is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good 
cause'' under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to amend this table without prior notice and comment. 
For the same reason, there is also good cause to make this change 
effective upon publication.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most 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 the final rule with 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.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. This is due to the following two 
reasons: (1) the UMRA generally excludes from the definition of 
``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' duties that arise from 
participation in a voluntary federal program; and (2) the UMRA 
generally excludes from the definition of ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal 
program. These two reasons arise from the fact that participation in 
the certification program is entirely voluntary. Thus, today's rule is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that today's action contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This is because participation in the certification program 
is strictly voluntary. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of Section 203 of the UMRA.

[[Page 58996]]

E. 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, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's amendments are not subject to Executive 13045 because they 
are not economically significant, as defined under Executive Order 
12866.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
This is because the new certification provision is simply an 
alternative to minimum monitoring requirements codified in 1998 and 
does not effect any changes with tribal implications. In addition, 
Indian tribes will not incur any additional substantial direct costs as 
a result of this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    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. This is because the new 
certification provision is simply an alternative to minimum monitoring 
requirements codified in 1998 and does not effect any changes relevant 
to federalism. In addition, States will not incur any additional 
substantial direct costs as a result of this action. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. 104-113, Sec.  12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve 
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any 
voluntary consensus standards.

I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
effects. This rule merely allows the use of a new certification 
provision as an alternative to the minimum monitoring requirements 
codified in 1998.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
Section 804(2). This rule will be effective October 21, 2002.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 430

    Environmental protection, Paper and paper products industry, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, 
Water pollution control.

    Dated: September 12, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 9 and 430 are 
amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

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


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


    2. In Sec.  9.1 the table is amended by adding new entries in 
numerical order under the indicated heading to read as follows:

[[Page 58997]]

Sec.  9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
 
            Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category
430.02(a)-(e)..............................................    2040-0243
430.02(f)..................................................    2040-0242
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 430--THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 
1318, 1342, and 1361), and section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended, (42 U.S.C. 7412).


    2. Section 430.02 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.02  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) Certification in Lieu of Monitoring for Chloroform. (1) Under 
what circumstances may a discharger be exempt from the minimum 
monitoring requirements of this section for chloroform? A discharger 
subject to limitations or standards for chloroform under subpart B of 
this part is not subject to the minimum monitoring requirements 
specified in this section for chloroform at a fiber line to which the 
limitations or standards apply if the discharger meets the requirements 
of this section.
    (2) How do I qualify for the exemption? At the time you request an 
exemption from the minimum monitoring requirements of this section for 
chloroform from your permitting authority or pretreatment control 
authority for a fiber line, you must:
    (i) Demonstrate, based on 104 measurements taken over a period of 
not less than two years of monitoring conducted in accordance with 
paragraph (a) of this section, that you are complying with the 
applicable limitations or standards for chloroform;
    (ii) Certify that you will maintain a record of the maximum value 
for each of the following process and operating conditions for the 
fiber line that was recorded during the collection of each of the 
samples used to make the demonstration required under paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) of this section.
    (A) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
    (B) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide 
(ClO2) used on the bleach line;
    (C) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; 
and
    (D) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate;
    (iii) Identify the chlorine-containing compound used for bleaching 
during the collection of samples used to make the demonstration 
required under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section; and
    (iv) Certify that the fiber line does not use either elemental 
chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents.
    (3) What happens if I change the process and operating conditions 
on the fiber line so that one or more exceeds the maximum value 
recorded under paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section for that process 
and operating condition? If you wish to continue your exemption from 
the minimum monitoring requirements of this section for chloroform, you 
must:
    (i) Demonstrate, based on monitoring conducted at a frequency 
similar to that required in paragraph (a) of this section and for a 
duration determined by the permitting or pretreatment control 
authority, that you are complying with the applicable limitations or 
standards for chloroform;
    (ii) Certify that you will maintain a record of the maximum value 
for each of the following process and operating conditions for the 
fiber line that was recorded during the collection of each of the 
samples used to make the demonstration required under paragraph 
(f)(6)(i) of this section:
    (A) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
    (B) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide 
(ClO2) used on the bleach line;
    (C) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; 
and
    (D) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate;
    (iii) Identify the chlorine-containing compound used for bleaching 
during the collection of each sample used to make the demonstration 
required under paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section; and
    (iv) Certify that the fiber line does not use either elemental 
chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents.
    (4) What are my reporting obligations? You must certify in reports 
required under Sec.  122.41(l)(4) or Sec.  403.12(b) of this chapter, 
as appropriate, that the chlorine-containing compounds used for 
bleaching are unchanged from those identified under paragraph 
(f)(2)(iii) of this section and that the following process and 
operating conditions maintained on the fiber line during the reporting 
period have not exceeded the maximum value recorded for each such 
condition during the collection of the samples used to make the 
demonstration required under paragraphs (f)(2)(i) or (f)(3)(i) of this 
section:
    (i) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
    (ii) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide 
(ClO2) used on the bleach line;
    (iii) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching 
stage; and
    (iv) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate.
    (5) What happens if I fail to maintain the records described in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(3)(ii) of this section? You will be 
required to comply with the minimum monitoring requirements of this 
section for chloroform.
    (6) What happens if I exceed the maximum value recorded under 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) or (f)(3)(ii) of this section for any of the 
process and operating conditions identified in that section?
    (i) If for any reason (e.g., intentionally or due to process upset) 
you fail to maintain process and operating conditions at values equal 
to or less than the maximum value recorded under paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) 
or (f)(3)(ii) of this section for each such condition, you will be in 
violation of the applicable chloroform limitation or standard unless:
    (A) Within 30 days, you notify your permitting or pretreatment 
control authority in writing of the exceedance; and
    (B) You demonstrate compliance with the applicable chloroform 
limitation or standard by immediately monitoring the bleach plant 
effluent for chloroform at a frequency similar to that required in 
paragraph (a) of this section and for a duration determined by the 
permit or pretreatment control authority.
    (ii) In order to continue your exemption from the minimum 
monitoring requirements of this section for chloroform, you must meet 
the requirements of paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section and you must 
recertify that the fiber line process and operating conditions do not 
exceed the maximum value recorded under paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) or 
(f)(3)(ii) of this section for each of the parameters identified in 
those paragraphs.
    (7) Definitions:
    (i) Kappa factor--the ratio of available chlorine (total equivalent 
chlorine, as percent on oven dry pulp) to the kappa number of the pulp. 
Kappa number is the lignin content of pulp, as measured

[[Page 58998]]

by a modified permanganate test corrected to 50 percent consumption of 
the chemical.
    (ii) Total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate--mass of 
chlorine dioxide applied in all stages of the bleach line per mass of 
unbleached pulp (i.e., lb/ton or kg/kkg).
    (iii) Chlorine-containing compounds--compounds containing chlorine 
used in the bleach plant for bleaching, brightening, whitening, or 
viscosity control. These compounds include but are not limited to 
chlorine (Cl2), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), chlorine 
dioxide (ClO2) and chlorine monoxide (Cl2O).

[FR Doc. 02-23741 Filed 9-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P