[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55698-55715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20501]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544; FRL-9684-7]
RIN 2060-AQ41


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
conducted for the pulp and paper industry source category regulated 
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The EPA 
is required to conduct residual risk and technology reviews under the 
Clean Air Act. This action finalizes amendments to the national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants that include a 
requirement for 5-year repeat emissions testing for selected process 
equipment; revisions to provisions addressing periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction; a requirement for electronic reporting; 
additional test methods for measuring methanol emissions; and technical 
and editorial changes. The amendments are expected to ensure that 
control systems are properly maintained over time, ensure continuous 
compliance with standards and improve data accessibility; we estimate 
facilities nationwide will spend $2.1 million per year to comply.

DATES: This final action is effective on September 11, 2012. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 11, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or 
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room Number 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard 
Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. John Bradfield, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, (E143-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3062; 
fax number: (919) 541-3470; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding the risk 
modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental 
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of

[[Page 55699]]

Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: 
(919) 541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to a 
particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 to 
this preamble.

  Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           NESHAP for:             OECA  Contact \1\  OAQPS  Contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp and Paper..................  Sara Ayres, (202)   John Bradfield,
                                   564-5391,           (919) 541-3062,
                                   [email protected]   bradfield.john@ep
                                   v.                  a.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\2\ EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several acronyms and terms 
used to describe industrial processes, data inventories and risk 
modeling are included in this preamble. While this may not be an 
exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCA Clean Condensate Alternative
CDX EPA's Central Data Exchange
CEDRI EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
DC District of Columbia
DC Cir. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HVLC High Volume Low Concentration
IBR Incorporation by Reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km Kilometer
LVHC Low Volume High Concentration
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in 
a source category
MIR Maximum Individual Risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
NW Northwest
OAQPS EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODTP Oven-Dried Ton of Pulp
OECA EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ppmw Parts Per Million by Weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review
S. Ct. United States Supreme Court
SBA Small Business Administration
SISNOSE Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small 
Entities
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction the Court United State Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index
tpy Tons Per Year
TTN EPA's Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
WWW Worldwide Web
yr Year

    Background Information Document. On December 27, 2011 (76 FR 
81328), the EPA proposed revisions to the pulp and paper industry 
NESHAP based on evaluations performed by the EPA in order to conduct 
our RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for 
the rule. A summary of the public comments on the proposal and the 
EPA's responses to those comments is available in Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0544. Organization of this Document. The following outline 
is provided to aid in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What are the final rule amendments for the pulp and paper 
industry source category?
    B. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown 
and malfunction?
    C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed under CAA Section 
112(f)
    B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed under CAA Section 
112(d)(6)
    C. Other Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine for source 
categories subject to MACT standards, whether the MACT emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
This review, known as the residual risk review--is a one-time review 
that must occur within 8 years of issuance of the MACT standard. 
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review and revise 
section 112 emissions standards, as necessary, taking into account 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies, emission 
standards promulgated under section 112 no less often than every 8 
years. We issued the NESHAP for the pulp and paper industry (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart S) in 1998 and are due for review under CAA sections 
112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). In addition to conducting the RTR for subpart 
S, we are evaluating the SSM

[[Page 55700]]

provisions in the rule in light of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
decision in Sierra Club v.  EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As 
explained below, in the Sierra Club case, the D.C. Circuit vacated the 
SSM exemption provisions in the General Provisions for non-opacity and 
opacity standards.
    To address the RTR assessments and SSM exemptions, proposed 
amendments to subpart S were developed, signed by the EPA Administrator 
on December 15, 2011, and published in the Federal Register on December 
27, 2011. A 60-day period ending February 27, 2012, was provided for 
the public to submit comments on the proposal to the EPA. This action 
addresses the public comments on the proposal and finalizes the 
amendments to subpart S. The amendments are expected to ensure that 
control systems are properly maintained over time, ensure continuous 
compliance with standards and improve data accessibility.
2. Summary of Major Provisions
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, we are requiring repeat air emissions 
performance testing once every 5 years for facilities complying with 
the standards for kraft, soda and semi-chemical pulping vent gases; 
sulfite pulping processes; and bleaching systems. We are also 
finalizing changes to the subpart S NESHAP and the General Provisions 
applicability table to eliminate the SSM exemption. To increase the 
ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility, 
we are requiring mills to submit electronic copies of performance test 
reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. To allow mills greater 
flexibility in demonstrating compliance with emission limits for total 
HAP measured as methanol, we are including four additional test methods 
for measuring methanol emissions from pulp and paper processes, as 
alternatives to EPA Method 308. We are also making a number of 
technical and editorial changes, including clarifying the location in 
the CFR of applicable test methods, incorporating by reference several 
non-EPA test methods and revising the General Provisions applicability 
table to align with those sections of the General Provisions that have 
been amended or reserved over time.
3. Costs and Benefits
    Table 2 summarizes the costs and benefits of this action. See 
section V of this preamble for further discussion.

  Table 2--Summary of the Costs and Benefits of the Final Amendments to
               the NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Capital     Annual
               Requirement                   cost       cost       Net
                                          [million]  [million]   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeat emissions testing................       $5.4       $1.3       N/A
Incremental reporting/recordkeeping.....       0.50       0.74       N/A
                                         -------------------------------
  Total nationwide......................        5.9        2.1       N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 3 of this preamble.

 Table 3--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by this Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NAICS     MACT
             NESHAP and source category               Code \1\  Code \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp and Paper (Subpart S)..........................       322    1626-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

    Table 3 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. As defined in the 
Source Category Listing Report published by the EPA in 1992, the pulp 
and paper production source category includes any facility engaged in 
the production of pulp and/or paper.\1\ This category includes, but is 
not limited to, integrated mills (where pulp and paper or paperboard 
are manufactured on-site), non-integrated mills (where either pulp or 
paper/paperboard are manufactured on-site, but not both), and secondary 
fiber mills (where waste paper is used as the primary raw material). 
Examples of pulping methods include kraft, soda, sulfite, semi-chemical 
and mechanical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List--Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the WWW through the TTN. 
Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed and promulgated rules 
at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.html. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source 
category descriptions and detailed emissions and other data that were 
used as inputs to the risk assessments.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the Court 
by November 13, 2012. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law 
Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,

[[Page 55701]]

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one 
or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA section 112(d) 
calls for the EPA to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. ``Major 
sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tpy or 
more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these technology-based standards must reflect the 
maximum degree of emissions reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements and nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements 
and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). 
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 floors 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 five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer 
than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must also consider control 
options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 
112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, 
based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions 
reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 
energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems or techniques that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a 
process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; and/or are design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standards.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two 
different analyses, as required by the CAA. First, section 112(d)(6) of 
the CAA calls for us to review the technology-based standards and to 
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years. Second, within 8 years after promulgation of the 
MACT standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to 
public health remaining after application of the standards and to 
revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect. Under section 112(f)(2), the EPA may re-
adopt the existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that those 
standards are sufficiently protective. Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
    On December 27, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the pulp and paper industry NESHAP, 40 CFR part 
63, subpart S based on the RTR analyses that the EPA conducted under 
CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) (76 FR 81328). Today's action 
provides the EPA's final determinations and regulatory amendments 
pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112.
    In addition, several other aspects of the subpart S MACT rule were 
reviewed and considered for revision at proposal, and after review of 
the public comment received, we are taking the following actions:
     Finalizing the requirement for 5-year repeat emissions 
testing for selected process equipment.
     Revising the requirements in the NESHAP related to 
emissions during periods of SSM.
     Finalizing the requirement for electronic reporting of 
performance test data.
     Adding test methods for measuring methanol emissions.
     Finalizing changes to address technical and editorial 
corrections in the rule.

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What are the final rule amendments for the pulp and paper industry 
source category?

    The NESHAP for the pulp and paper industry was promulgated on April 
15, 1998 (63 FR 18504). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart S. The pulp and paper industry consists of facilities engaged 
in the production of pulp and/or paper/paperboard. This category 
includes, but is not limited to, integrated mills (where pulp and paper 
or paperboard are manufactured on-site), non-integrated mills (where 
paper/paperboard or pulp are manufactured, but not both), and secondary 
fiber mills (where waste paper is used as the primary raw material). 
The subpart S MACT standard applies to major sources of HAP emissions 
from the pulp production areas (e.g., pulping system vents, pulping 
process condensates) at chemical, mechanical, secondary fiber and non-
wood pulp mills; bleaching operations; and papermaking systems. A 
separate NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM) applicable to chemical 
recovery processes at kraft, soda, sulfite and stand-alone semi-
chemical pulp mills was promulgated on January 12, 2001 (66 FR 3180). 
Today's rule takes final action only with respect to the RTR for 
subpart S. The source category covered by subpart S includes 171 
facilities. As explained below, we are re-adopting the MACT standards 
pursuant to section 112(f)(2). We also conducted a section 112(d)(6) 
review and evaluated developments in practices, processes and control 
technologies applicable to all the emission sources subject to the pulp 
and paper MACT. After reviewing the comments provided at proposal, we 
have determined that our conclusion that there have been no 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies since the 
subpart S standard was originally promulgated was correct. Although we 
proposed revisions to the kraft pulping process condensate standards 
based on our conclusion at proposal that existing technologies were 
achieving greater than the 92 percent minimum level of control, we re-
analyzed the performance data and impacts of revising the kraft 
condensate standards in response to public comments and have decided 
not to promulgate amendments to those standards because we found that 
the costs and impacts associated with the HAP reduction were not 
reasonable. Consequently, we are not revising the MACT standards for 
subpart S pursuant to our 112(d)(6) review as explained further below.
    In addition, this section describes the other final rule amendments 
to the pulp and paper industry NESHAP. These revisions include the 
addition of repeat emissions testing for selected process equipment; 
changes to the requirements that apply during periods of SSM; the 
addition of electronic reporting requirements; and various minor 
changes to address technical and editorial corrections.

[[Page 55702]]

1. Repeat Emissions Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with the 
standard, we are adding 40 CFR 63.457(a)(2) to require repeat air 
emissions performance testing once every 5 years for facilities 
complying with the standards for kraft, soda and semi-chemical pulping 
vent gases (40 CFR 63.443(a)); sulfite processes (40 CFR 63.444); and 
bleaching systems (40 CFR 63.445). Repeat performance tests are already 
required by permitting authorities for some facilities.\2\ Requiring 
periodic repeat performance tests will help to ensure that control 
systems are maintained properly over time and a more rigorous testing 
requirement will better assure compliance with the standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Located in 11 states.
    \3\ For information on the cost associated with the repeat 
testing requirement, see the memorandum in the docket titled, Costs, 
Environmental, and Energy Impacts for the Promulgated Subpart S Risk 
and Technology Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, repeat air emissions testing will be required for 
mills complying with the kraft pulping process condensate standards in 
40 CFR 63.446 using a steam stripper since stripper off-gases are, by 
definition, part of the LVHC system. We are clarifying that repeat air 
emissions testing will not be required for: (1) Knotter or screen 
systems with HAP emission rates below the criteria specified in 40 CFR 
63.443(a)(1)(ii); or (2) decker systems using fresh water or paper 
machine white water, or decker systems using process water with a total 
HAP concentration less than 400 ppmw as specified in 40 CFR 
63.443(a)(1)(iv).
2. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
    We are also finalizing changes to the subpart S NESHAP to eliminate 
the SSM exemption, as discussed further in section III.B below. The 
changes include:
    (1) Revising 40 CFR 63.443(e), 63.446(g) and 63.459(b)(11)(ii) to 
eliminate reference to periods of SSM;
    (2) Revising 40 CFR 63.453(q) to incorporate the general duty from 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) to minimize emissions;
    (3) Adding 40 CFR 63.454(g), and 40 CFR 63.455(g) to require 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with periods of 
malfunction;
    (4) Adding 40 CFR 63.456 (formerly reserved) to include an 
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emissions 
limits caused by malfunctions that meet the criteria for establishing 
the affirmative defense;
    (5) Adding 40 CFR 63.457(o) to specify the conditions for 
performance tests; and
    (6) Revising Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(3), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and the last sentence of 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3); 40 
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v); 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11) and 
(15); and, 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply.
3. Electronic Reporting
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve 
data accessibility, we are requiring mills to submit electronic copies 
of performance test reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database, as discussed 
in section III.D below. The electronic reporting requirement is being 
added under 40 CFR 63.455(h).
4. Additional Test Methods for Measuring Methanol Emissions
    To allow mills greater flexibility in demonstrating compliance with 
emission limits for total HAP measured as methanol, we are revising 40 
CFR 63.457(b)(5)(i) to include four additional test methods for 
measuring methanol emissions from pulp and paper processes, as 
alternatives to EPA Method 308 of part 63, appendix A. The four 
additional test methods are:
    (1) Method 18 of part 60, appendix A-6;
    (2) Method 320 of part 63, appendix A;
    (3) ASTM D6420-99, determined to be an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 18; and
    (4) ASTM D6348-03, determined to be an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 320.
    We are also revising 40 CFR 63.14(b)(28) and (b)(54) to IBR ASTM 
D6420-99 and ASTM D6348-03, respectively.
5. Other
    We are also finalizing the following minor changes to the subpart S 
NESHAP and part 63 General Provisions to address technical and 
editorial corrections:
    (1) Revising 40 CFR 63.457(b)(1) to specify part 60, appendix A-1 
for Method 1 or 1A;
    (2) Revising 40 CFR 63.457(b)(3) to specify part 60, appendix A-1 
for Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D;
    (3) Revising 40 CFR 63.457(b)(5)(ii) to specify part 60, appendix 
A-8 for Method 26A;
    (4) Revising 40 CFR 63.457(d) to specify part 60, appendix A-7 for 
Method 21;
    (5) Revising 40 CFR 63.457(k)(1) to specify part 60, appendix A-2 
for Method 3A or 3B, and include ASME PTC 19.10--part 10 as an 
alternative to Method 3B;
    (6) Revising 40 CFR 63.457(c)(3)(ii) to replace NCASI Method DI/
MEOH-94.02 with the more recent version of this method, NCASI Method 
DI/MEOH-94.03;
    (7) Revising 40 CFR 63.14(f)(1) to incorporate by reference NCASI 
Method DI/MEOH-94.03;
    (8) Redesignating 40 CFR 63.14(f)(3) and (f)(4) as 40 CFR 
63.14(f)(4) and (f)(5) and adding 40 CFR 63.14(f)(3) to incorporate by 
reference NCASI Method DI/HAPS-99.01;
    (9) Revising 40 CFR 63.14(i)(1) to incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981; and
    (10) Revising Table 1 so it aligns more closely to the sections in 
subpart A which have been amended or reserved over time.

B. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction?

    In 2008, the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court 
vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 
63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the 
``General Provisions Rule,'' that the EPA promulgated under section 112 
of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for 
specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from 
the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 
112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM.
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we have eliminated the SSM 
exemption in this rule. We have also revised Table 1 (the General 
Provisions table) in several respects. For example, we have eliminated 
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop a SSM plan. 
We have also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
that related to the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that 
we have not included in the regulatory language any provisions that are 
inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption.
    In establishing the standards for startup and shutdown, we reviewed 
the information available to us from the 2011 pulp and paper ICR 
pertaining to equipment and control and compliance demonstration 
methods during startup and shutdown. Some commenters

[[Page 55703]]

suggested that we establish different standards for periods of startup 
and shutdown. However, the information available to us regarding 
startup and shutdown does not show that emissions are higher during 
startup or shutdown or indicate a need for alternate standards for 
these periods. Further, the commenters have not shown that sources 
cannot comply with the standards as proposed and have not provided 
information to support development of alternative standards that would 
apply during startup and shutdown periods.
    Our findings relative to startup and shutdown for the universe of 
pulp and paper processes regulated under subpart S (which offers a 
variety of compliance options) are discussed in detail in the response-
to-comments document and in a memorandum in the docket.\4\ Based upon 
these findings, and consistent with our proposal, the EPA has not 
established different standards for startup and shutdown periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Review of Pulp and Paper Information Collection Request 
(ICR) Responses Pertaining to Startup and Shutdown of Subpart S 
Equipment, in the docket for the subpart S rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA 
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods 
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 
standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must 
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled 
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best 
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the 
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent 
with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the 
agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 
uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in 
defining the level of stringency that section 112 performance standards 
must meet. Applying the concept of ``best controlled'' or ``best 
performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning presents significant 
difficulties as malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. 
Cir. 1999) (the EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the 
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally 
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to 
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general 
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of 
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' 
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a best 
controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to 
avoid malfunctions of the source and accounting for malfunctions could 
lead to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with section 112 and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify violations. The 
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the 
CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause a violation of the relevant emission standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on 
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore adding to the final 
rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 
emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.441 
(defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an 
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also have added other 
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to 
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set 
forth in 40 CFR 63.456. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that 
the affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes a 
violation of the emission standard meets certain criteria. For example, 
to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was ``caused by a 
sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control 
equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *.'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that 
steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.456 and to prevent future malfunctions. For 
example, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation 
occurred * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize 
the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the environment and 
human health * * *.'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the 
Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense 
and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 
requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be 
assessed

[[Page 55704]]

in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
    The EPA is including an affirmative defense in the final rule in an 
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, 
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that 
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be 
violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA 
must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or 
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' 
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation and emission 
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 
emissions standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for 
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where 
there is a malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable 
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' standards, on the one 
hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many 
situations, it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical 
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 
486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that 
in setting standards under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such 
as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and 
equipment malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness 
of the standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 
`never to be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, 
Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 
1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the 
CAA 1977 amendments call into question the relevance of these cases 
today, they support the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some 
level of flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply 
provides for a defense to civil penalties for violations that are 
proven to be beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an 
affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset 
events. In a CWA setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 
formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the 
permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th 
Cir. 1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012) (rejecting industry argument 
that reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, 
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 
(holding that an informal approach is adequate). The affirmative 
defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 
emission standards are ``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), 
and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of 
the standard as a whole.

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to subpart S being promulgated in this action are 
effective on September 11, 2012. The compliance date for the revisions 
we are finalizing today is September 11, 2012, with the exception of 
the following: (1) The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be 
conducted within 36 months of the effective date of the standards, by 
September 7, 2015, and thereafter within 60 months from the date of the 
previous performance test; and (2) the date to submit performance test 
data through ERT is within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test.

D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    As stated in the proposed rule preamble, the EPA is taking a step 
to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators 
of pulp and paper facilities to submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports.
    As mentioned in the proposed rule preamble, data will be collected 
through an electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. 
The ERT will generate an electronic report, which will be submitted to 
the EPA's CDX through the CEDRI. A description of the ERT can be found 
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and CEDRI can be 
accessed through the CDX Web site: (http://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the previously mentioned ERT Web 
site. Through this approach, industry is expected to save time in the 
performance test submittal process. Additionally this rulemaking 
benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the 
performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 
no longer required to be kept on-site.
    As mentioned in the proposed rule preamble, state, local and tribal 
agencies will benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of 
electronic data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE database. 
Additionally, performance test data will become available to the public 
through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available enhances 
transparency and accountability. The major advantages of electronic 
reporting are more fully explained in the proposed rule preamble (76 FR 
81348).
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort, while improving the quality of 
emissions inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 112(f)

    As noted at proposal (76 FR 81344), the risk analysis performed for 
the pulp and paper source category indicated that the cancer risks to 
the individual most exposed are no higher than 10 in 1 million due to 
actual or MACT-allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less 
than 100 in 1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of risk 
acceptability. The risk analysis also showed generally low cancer 
incidence (1 case every 100 years); no potential for adverse 
environmental effects or human health multipathway effects; no 
potential for chronic noncancer impacts; and, as explained in the 
proposal and further below, while a potential exists for some acute 
inhalation impacts, they are likely to be minimal because the potential 
impacts occur in uninhabited areas where terrain prevents ready access 
by the public. Also, we received comment on the risk assessment that is 
addressed in our comment response.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper 
Industry (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments Response to Public Comments on December 27, 
2011 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1 in 1 million or 
greater due to emissions from the source category was determined to be 
relatively low (76,000). The number of people exposed at the MIR cancer 
risk of 10 in 1 million or greater due to emissions

[[Page 55705]]

from the source category was significantly lower (40). Considering all 
of this health information and the uncertainties discussed in the 
proposal preamble (76 FR 81338-40), the risks from the pulp and paper 
source category were deemed to be acceptable. 76 FR 81344.
    Our analysis of facilitywide risks showed five mills with maximum 
chronic cancer risks between 10 and 30 in 1 million and four mills with 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI between 1 and 2. For the facility with 
the highest facilitywide risk (i.e., 30 in 1 million), emissions from 
the pulp and paper (subpart S) source category only contributed 27 
percent to the chronic cancer risk and 23 percent to the chronic 
noncancer risk.
    As directed by section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to 
determine if the standard provides an ample margin of safety analysis 
to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we 
first considered the health impacts for the source category. Then we 
analyzed the potential for emissions reductions within the source 
category by evaluating available control technologies and their 
capabilities for reduction of the residual risk remaining after the 
implementation of MACT controls. Then we evaluated the potential costs 
and energy impacts of these additional controls. \6\ Based on this 
analysis, we conclude that the current standard protects public health 
with an ample margin of safety. (76 FR 81344) We solicited comment on 
the proposal (76 FR 81349-51), asking for any additional data that may 
help to reduce the uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments and 
other analyses. We were specifically interested in receiving 
corrections to the mill-specific HAP emissions data used in the risk 
modeling. The mill-specific emissions data were available for download 
on the EPA's RTR web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. Commenters on the subpart S proposal were asked to 
determine whether any of the data were unrepresentative or inaccurate 
and to submit their comments on the data downloaded from the RTR web 
page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a full discussion of this analysis, see the memorandum 
in the docket titled, Ample Margin of Safety Analysis for Pulping 
and Papermaking Processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A total of 81 mills submitted specific revisions to their mill-
specific data. The EPA reviewed the data revisions to determine whether 
they would influence the outcome of the risk assessment results as 
proposed. Specifically, the mills submitted data revisions that remove 
pollutants, change emission release point type from fugitive to stack 
and change stack/fugitive emission parameters. Our review indicated 
that these changes would reduce emissions and/or impacts. Consequently, 
we have determined that the results of the revisions would most likely 
adjust the risk results for the subpart S source category downward 
(i.e., reduce risk) if we were to remodel the category. Therefore, we 
have decided not to remodel risk for purposes of promulgating the 
subpart S residual risk review because our conservative approach at 
proposal overstates existing risk and reinforces the conclusions from 
the risk modeling conducted at proposal. A memorandum for the docket 
was prepared that summarizes the data revisions received and supports 
the decision not to remodel risk.\7\ A separate document presents the 
results of the EPA's risk analysis.\8\ We conclude based on the 
Residual Risk Assessment cited here that the risks from the subpart S 
pulp and papermaking source category are acceptable and that the 
current standard protects the public health with an ample margin of 
safety. Consequently, we are re-adopting the MACT standards for subpart 
S pursuant to our 112(f)(2) review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Recommendations 
Concerning Residual Risk Remodeling for the Pulp and Paper Industry.
    \8\ See Residual Risk Assessment for the Pulp and Paper Source 
Category, in the docket for the subpart S rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 
112(d)(6)

    As a result of our initial technology review, we proposed on 
December 27, 2011, to strengthen the kraft pulping process condensate 
standards in 40 CFR 63.446 by increasing the HAP removal requirement 
from 92 to 94 percent (or an equivalent pound/ODTP or ppmw limit). 
Several commenters opposed the proposed revisions to the kraft pulping 
process condensate standards, for reasons including calculation 
methodology issues, data misinterpretation, undetermined impacts on 
mills utilizing the clean condensate compliance alternative and 
additional steam and energy impacts for rule compliance. A detailed 
discussion of these comments can be found in the Response to Comment 
Document.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper 
Industry (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments Response to Public Comments on December 27, 
2011, Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, we have: (1) Re-analyzed the 
condensate collection information provided in the ICR; (2) evaluated 
the design criteria (and energy impacts) of the steam strippers and 
biotreatment units typically used by facilities to assure compliance 
with 40 CFR 63.446; (3) reviewed additional cost and control 
information that supplements the data collected in the ICR; and (4) 
considered the effects of the proposed standards on CCA mills.
    In our re-analysis, we estimated the potential nationwide cost 
associated with increasing condensate treatment from 92 to 94 percent 
reduction would be $423 million (capital) and $85.1 million/yr. We 
estimated a HAP emissions reduction of 2,300 tpy, for a cost 
effectiveness of $37,000/ton of HAP. This estimate includes the costs 
associated with a repeat CCA demonstration and switching from CCA to 
HVLC pulping vent gas control at mills where the CCA approach would be 
adversely affected. Our revised cost estimates for a 94 percent 
reduction standard are significantly higher than the cost estimates 
that we developed at proposal for a 94 percent reduction standard 
because we determined that a greater number of mills would be affected 
after the potential impacts on CCA mills. Also, the cost-to-sales 
ratios for the three affected small businesses are also higher with one 
small business now estimated to have a ratio of 15 percent.\10\ For 
this reason alone, we would decline to revise the standard under (d)(6) 
because we find increasing the standard from 92 percent to 94 percent 
not cost effective. In addition, after review of the comments, we 
recognize that we failed to fully consider the energy and secondary air 
emissions impacts associated with the 94 percent reduction limit for 
these mills, due to increased steam demand for new and upgraded 
stripper systems. Upon review of the information in the record, we 
believe these factors also weigh against revising the MACT standards. 
In the proposal, we estimated energy and secondary emissions impacts 
based on increased electricity requirements for biological treatment. 
We did not assume there were any additional impacts from new and 
upgraded steam strippers because they were expected to be more energy 
efficient, however, commenters indicated that additional steam would be 
required for these facilities. We have

[[Page 55706]]

considered these energy and secondary air emissions impacts for steam 
strippers for the final rule as a result of the public comments.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For further information on the costs and impacts associated 
with the 93 and 94 percent reduction options considered for 
promulgation of the kraft pulping process condensate standards, see 
the memorandum in the docket titled, Costs, Environmental, and 
Energy Impacts for the Promulgated Subpart S Risk and Technology 
Review.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, we also analyzed the potential nationwide costs and 
impacts of increasing the 92 percent reduction standard to 93 percent 
reduction. For a 93 percent reduction standard, estimated capital costs 
would be $396 million and estimated annualized costs would be $74.4 
million/yr, with a HAP emission reduction of 989 tpy, or approximately 
$75,000/ton of HAP. Additionally, the cost-to-sales ratio is nearly 6 
percent for one of the three small businesses.\12\ For this reason 
alone, we would decline to revise the standard under (d)(6) because we 
find increasing the standard from 92 percent to 93 percent not cost 
effective. In addition, after review of the comments, we recognize that 
we failed to fully consider the energy and secondary air emissions 
impacts associated with the 93 percent reduction limit for these mills, 
due to increased steam demand for new and upgraded stripper systems. 
Upon review of the information in the record, we believe these factors 
also weigh against revising the MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this re-analysis, we do not consider the costs and impacts 
associated with the HAP reduction that would be achieved under either 
the 93 or 94 percent reduction options to be reasonable. Consequently 
we are not revising the MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6).

C. Other Changes Since Proposal

1. Repeat Emissions Testing
    In response to a comment, we have added language to clarify that 
the 5-year repeat testing is not required for: (1) Knotter or screen 
systems with HAP emission rates below the criteria specified in 40 CFR 
63.443(a)(1)(ii); or (2) decker systems using fresh water or paper 
machine white water or decker systems using process water with a total 
HAP concentration less than 400 ppm by weight as specified in 40 CFR 
63.443(a)(1)(iv).
2. Compliance Dates
    Commenters requested clarification of the electronic reporting 
effective date since the proposed rule stated that performance test 
data must be submitted ``[a]s of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days of 
completing each performance test * * *''. The commenters noted that the 
January 1, 2012, date would require submission of performance testing 
before the final rule was in effect. In response to this comment, we 
have deleted reference to January 1, 2012, from the final rule. 
Electronic reports would be submitted within 60 days after completing 
each performance test.
3. Excess Emissions Allowances
    Some commenters expressed concern regarding the EPA's request for 
comment in the preamble to the proposed rule (76 FR 81346) as to 
whether to remove or modify the excess emissions allowance provisions 
in 40 CFR 63.443(e), 63.446(g) and 63.459(b)(11)(ii). We are deferring 
final action on the excess emissions allowances until a later date in 
order to analyze more recent information on the allowances that we have 
obtained from industry. After we have completed our analysis of the 
data, we expect to publish a proposed rule describing the changes to 
the excess emissions allowance provisions that we believe are warranted 
and provide a further opportunity for public comment before taking 
final action with respect to the excess emissions allowance provisions.
4. Affirmative Defense
    We have made certain changes to 40 CFR 63.456 for the final rule to 
clarify the circumstances under which a source may assert an 
affirmative defense. The changes to 40 CFR 63.456 clarify that a source 
may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for 
violations of standards that are caused by malfunctions. A source can 
avail itself of the affirmative defense when there has been a violation 
of the emission standards due to an event that meets the definition of 
malfunction under 40 CFR 63.2 and qualifies for assertion of an 
affirmative defense under Sec.  63.456. In the proposal, we used terms 
such as ``exceedance'' or ``excess emissions'' in 40 CFR 63.456, which 
created unnecessary confusion as to when the affirmative defense could 
be used. In the final rule, we have eliminated those terms and used the 
word ``violation'' to make clear that the affirmative defense to civil 
penalties is available only where an event that causes a violation of 
the emissions standard meets the criteria for the assertion of an 
affirmative defense under Sec.  63.456.
    We have also eliminated the 2-day notification requirement that was 
included in 40 CFR 63.456(b) at proposal because we expect to receive 
sufficient notification of malfunction events that result in violations 
in other required compliance reports, such as the malfunction report 
required under 40 CFR 63.455(g). In addition, we have revised the 45-
day affirmative defense reporting requirement that was included in 40 
CFR 63.456(b) at proposal to require sources to include the report in 
the first compliance, deviation or excess emission report due after the 
initial occurrence of the violation, unless the compliance, deviation 
or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the violation. 
In that case, the affirmative defense report may be included in the 
second compliance, deviation or excess emission report due after the 
initial occurrence of the violation. Because the affirmative defense 
report is now included in a subsequent compliance, deviation or excess 
emission report, there is no longer a need for the proposed 30-day 
extension for submitting a stand-alone affirmative defense report. 
Consequently, we are not including this provision in the final rule.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are currently 171 major source pulp and paper mills operating 
in the United States. The affected source for kraft, soda, sulfite or 
semi-chemical pulping processes is the total of all HAP emission points 
in the pulping and bleaching systems. The affected source for 
mechanical, secondary or non-wood pulping processes is the total of all 
HAP emission points in the bleaching system. We estimate that 114 of 
the 171 major source mills operate subpart S processes that are 
affected by this final rule.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    These final amendments will require an estimated 114 mills to 
conduct repeat testing for pulping and bleaching operations and all 
major sources with equipment subject to the subpart S standards to 
operate without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the 
specific emissions reductions associated with repeat emissions testing 
or eliminating the SSM exemption. However, repeat testing will tend to 
reduce emissions by providing incentive for facilities to maintain 
their control systems and make periodic adjustments to ensure peak 
performance. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by 
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM 
periods.
    Section IV.B of this preamble presents estimates of the air quality 
impacts associated with the kraft pulping process condensate regulatory 
options that were not selected for inclusion in this final rule.

[[Page 55707]]

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Pulp and paper mills will incur costs to conduct repeat testing and 
record malfunctions in support of the new affirmative defense in the 
rule. Costs associated with elimination of the startup and shutdown 
exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping 
costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM 
record systems. Nationwide capital costs are estimated to be $5.9 
million. The total nationwide annualized costs associated with these 
new requirements are estimated to be $2.1 million per year.
    Section IV.B of this preamble presents cost estimates associated 
with the kraft pulping process condensate regulatory options that were 
not selected for inclusion in this final rule.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed an EIA of the final rule for pulp and paper consumers 
and producers nationally. The EIA, which documents the data sources and 
methods used and provides detailed results, can be found in the docket 
for the final rule. This section provides an overview of key results.
    The final rule induces minimal changes in the average national 
price of paper and paperboard products. Paper and paperboard product 
prices increase less than 0.01 percent on average, while production 
levels decrease less that 0.01 percent on average, as a result of the 
final rule. Consumers are estimated to experience a reduction in 
economic welfare of about $1.1 million as the result of slightly higher 
prices and slightly reduced consumption. Although producers' welfare 
losses are mitigated to some degree by slightly higher prices, market 
conditions limit their ability to pass on all of the compliance costs. 
As a result, they also are estimated to experience a loss in economic 
welfare of about $1.0 million as a result of the final rule.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because this rulemaking is not likely to have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more, we have not conducted a RIA or a 
benefits analysis. Since we were unable to quantify the emissions 
reductions associated with the new requirements in the final rule 
(repeat testing and elimination of the SSM exemption), we were also 
unable to quantify the monetary benefits associated with these new 
requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel 
legal and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 
January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq. The ICR document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2452.02. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them. The information requirements are 
based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 
mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. 
These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B.
    This final rule includes new paperwork requirements for repeat 
testing for selected process equipment, as described in 40 CFR 
63.457(a)(2). More specifically, we are requiring stack testing every 5 
years for total HAP for chemical pulping operations and bleaching 
operations at pulp and paper mills. This final rule also includes new 
paperwork requirements for recordkeeping of malfunctions, as described 
in 40 CFR 63.454(g) (conducted in support of the affirmative defense 
provisions, as described in 40 CFR 63.456).
    When a malfunction occurs, sources must report the event according 
to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. 
An affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission 
limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it 
can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. 
The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only 
where the event that causes a violation of the emission limit meets the 
narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, 
not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or 
careless operation) and where the source took necessary actions to 
minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet certain 
notification and reporting requirements. For example, the source must 
prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written report to 
the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and 
requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
    The EPA is adding affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in 
the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 
magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative 
defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided 
administrative adjustments to the ICR that show what the notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion 
of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's estimate for the 
required notification, reports and records for any individual incident, 
including the root cause analysis, totals $3,258, and is based on the 
time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview 
plant employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction that 
has caused a violation of an emissions limit. The estimate also 
includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for 
submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of 
this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 
violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative 
defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in 
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
emissions events reported by source operators, only a

[[Page 55708]]

small number would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on 
the definition above), and only a subset of violations caused by 
malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the 
affirmative defense. Thus, we expect the number of instances in which 
source operators might be expected to avail themselves of the 
affirmative defense will be extremely small. For this reason, we 
estimate no more than two such occurrences per year for all sources 
subject to subpart S over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We 
expect to gather information on such events in the future and will 
revise this estimate as better information becomes available.
    The estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with 
subpart S after the effective date of the final rule is estimated to be 
52,300 labor hours at a cost of $4.94 million per year and total non-
labor capital and O&M costs of $841,000 per year. This estimate 
includes reporting costs, such as reading and understanding the rule 
requirements, conducting required activities (e.g., stack testing, 
inspections), and preparing notifications and compliance reports and 
recordkeeping costs associated with malfunctions, monitoring and 
inspections. The total burden for the federal government is estimated 
to be 6,870 hours per year at a total labor cost of $310,000 per year. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR 
is approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numbers 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 SISNOSE. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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. For 
this source category, which has the general NAICS subsector code 322 
(i.e., Paper Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 
500 to 750 employees (depending on the specific NAICS code) according 
to the SBA small business standards definitions.
    The EPA analyzed impacts on small businesses by comparing estimated 
annualized engineering compliance costs at the company-level to company 
revenue. The analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to 
company revenue falls below 1 percent for the three small companies 
that are likely to be affected by the finalized rule. After considering 
the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify 
that this action will not have a SISNOSE. See the EIA in the docket for 
this rule for more details on this analysis.
    Although this final rule will not have a SISNOSE, the EPA 
nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small 
entities. The proposed amendment tightening the kraft pulping process 
condensate standards was not finalized after the EPA re-evaluated the 
amendment and its costs and impacts in response to public comments (see 
section IV.B of this preamble for further information). The repeat 
testing requirement was established in a way that minimizes the costs 
for testing and reporting while still providing the agency the 
necessary information needed to ensure continuous compliance with the 
final standards. Also, the final malfunction recordkeeping requirement 
was designed to provide all pulp and paper companies, including small 
entities, with a means of supporting an affirmative defense in the 
event of a violation occurring during a malfunction.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain a federal mandate under the provisions 
of Title II of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector. This final rule is not expected to 
impact state, local or tribal governments. The nationwide annual cost 
of this final rule for affected sources is $2.1 million. Thus, this 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 
UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not 
apply to such governments and will not impose any obligations upon 
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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. None of the facilities subject 
to this action are owned or operated by state governments and nothing 
in this final rule will supersede state regulations. The burden to the 
respondents and the states is less than $2.1 million for the entire 
source category. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
final rule.

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

    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, the 
EPA did outreach and consultation on this rule. The EPA presented this 
information to the tribes prior to proposal of this rule via a call 
with the National Tribal Air Association. In addition, the EPA 
presented the information on the sources and the industry at the 
National Tribal Forum in Spokane, Washington. The EPA also offered 
consultation by letters sent to all tribal leaders. We held that 
consultation with the Nez Perce, Forest County Potowatomi and Leech 
Lake Band of Ojibewa on October 6, 2011. Additionally, a public 
outreach webinar was conducted during the comment period on January 31, 
2012, to review the proposed rule. The webinar was coordinated with the 
tribal governments and the general public.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not

[[Page 55709]]

economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the agency does not believe the environmental health risks or 
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 
to children. This action will not relax the control measures on 
existing regulated sources, and the EPA's risk assessment results--
included in the preamble (76 FR 81344) and docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0544) for the proposed rule--demonstrate that the existing regulation 
is associated with an acceptable level of risk and an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under 
Executive Order 13211 (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. This action will not create any new requirements for 
sources in the energy supply, distribution or use sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use VCS 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 VCS 
bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS.
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA has 
decided to use three VCS in this final rule.
    One VCS, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is 
cited in this final rule for its manual method of measuring the content 
of the exhaust gas as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of 
appendix A-2. This standard is available at http://www.asme.org or by 
mail at the ASME, Post Office Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900; or at 
Global Engineering Documents, Sales Department, 15 Inverness Way East, 
Englewood, CO 80112.
    A second VCS, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), ``Test Method for Determination 
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry'' is cited as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
18. A third VCS, ASTM D6348-03 (2010), ``Test Method for Determination 
of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' was determined to be an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 320. EPA Methods 18 and 320 are added as 
alternatives to EPA Method 308 in this final rule for measurement of 
methanol emissions. The two VCS alternatives are available for purchase 
from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or ProQuest, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48106.
    While the EPA has identified another 14 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this final rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in 
this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would be impractical because they 
do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule. See the 
docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and 63.8(f) of the NESHAP 
General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or 
procedures in the final rule and any amendments.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal 
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on 
minority populations and low income populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations because it 
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment.
    These final standards will not relax the control measures on 
sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions 
increases from these sources. In fact, as noted in section III.A of 
this preamble, the repeat testing provisions included in this final 
rule will tend to reduce emissions by providing incentive for 
facilities to maintain their control systems and make periodic 
adjustments to ensure peak performance. Also, eliminating the SSM 
exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the 
applicable standard during SSM periods.
    Additionally, the agency has reviewed this rule to determine if 
there is an overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous 
populations near the sources such that they may face disproportionate 
exposure from pollutants that could potentially be mitigated by this 
rulemaking. Although this analysis gives some indication of populations 
that may be exposed to levels of pollution that cause concern, it does 
not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly 
affected individuals or communities.
    The demographic data show that while most demographic categories 
are below, or within, 2 percentage points of national averages, the 
African-American population exceeds the national average by 3 
percentage points (15 percent versus 12 percent), or +25 percent. The 
facility-level demographic analysis results are presented in the 
November 2011 memorandum titled, Review of Environmental Justice 
Impacts: Pulp and Paper, a copy of which is available in the docket for 
this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544).
    The analysis of demographic data used proximity-to-a-source as a 
surrogate for exposure to identify those populations considered to be 
living near affected sources, such that they have measurable exposures 
to current HAP emissions from these sources. The demographic data for 
this analysis were extracted from the 2000 census data, which were 
provided to the EPA by the U.S. Census Bureau. Distributions by race 
are based on demographic information at the census block level and all 
other demographic groups are based on the extrapolation of census block 
group level data to the census block level. The socio-demographic 
parameters used in the analysis included the following categories: 
Racial (White, African American, Native American, Other or Multiracial, 
and All Other Races); Ethnicity (Hispanic); and Other (Number of people 
below the poverty line, Number of people with ages between 0 and 18, 
Number of people with ages greater than or equal to 65, Number of 
people with no high school diploma).

[[Page 55710]]

    In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities 
near affected sources, the EPA focused on those census blocks within 3 
miles of affected sources and determined the demographic composition 
(e.g., race, income, etc.) of these census blocks and compared them to 
the corresponding compositions nationally. The radius of 3 miles (or 
approximately 5 km) is consistent with other demographic analyses 
focused on areas around potential sources.13 14 15 16 In 
addition, air quality modeling experience has shown that the area 
within 3 miles of an individual source of emissions can generally be 
considered the area with the highest ambient air levels of the primary 
pollutants being emitted for most sources, both in absolute terms and 
relative to the contribution of other sources (assuming there are other 
sources in the area, as is typical in urban areas). While facility 
processes and fugitive emissions may have more localized impacts, the 
EPA acknowledges that because of various stack heights, there is the 
potential for dispersion beyond 3 miles. To the extent that any 
minority, low income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately 
impacted by the current emissions as a result of the proximity of their 
homes to these sources, that subpopulation also stands to see increased 
environmental and health benefit from the emissions reductions that may 
result from this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \14\ Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \15\ Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create 
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for 
Environmental Justice Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 
2002;83(1):281-297.
    \16\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA did outreach and consultation on this rule on the subject 
of federal actions to address EJ issues. The EPA requested input on EJ 
issues prior to proposal of this rule in regional conference calls and 
at the EPA's national EJ conference in 2011. Additionally, a public 
outreach webinar was conducted during the comment period on January 31, 
2012, to review the proposed rule. As noted above, the webinar was 
coordinated with the tribal governments and the general public.

K. 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 final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the 
U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on September 11, 
2012.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: July 31, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency is amending Title 40, chapter I of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(28);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(54);
0
c. Revising paragraph (f)(1);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (f)(4) and 
(5);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (f)(3); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (i)(1).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (28) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, approved 2004, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  60.485, 60.485a, 63.457, 63.772, 63.2351, 63.2354, and table 
8 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part.
* * * * *
    (54) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, approved 2003, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.457, 63.1349, table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part, and 
table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) NCASI Method DI/MEOH-94.03, Methanol in Process Liquids and 
Wastewaters by GC/FID, Issued May 2000, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.457 and 63.459 of subpart S of this part.
* * * * *
    (3) NCASI Method DI/HAPS-99.01, Selected HAPs In Condensates by GC/
FID, Issued February 2000, IBR approved for Sec.  63.459(b) of subpart 
S of this part.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.309, 
63.457(k), 63.865, 63.3166, 63.3360, 63.3545, 63.3555, 63.4166, 
63.4362, 63.4766, 63.4965, 63.5160, 63.9307, 63.9323, 63.11148, 
63.11155, 63.11162, 63.11163, 63.11410, 63.11551, 63.11945, table 5 to 
subpart DDDDD of this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part, 
table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part, and table 5 to subpart UUUUU of 
this part.
* * * * *

Subpart S--[Amended]

* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.441 is amended by adding a definition for ``affirmative 
defense,'' in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  63.441  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.443 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory 
text to read as follows:

[[Page 55711]]

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

* * * * *
    (e) Periods of excess emissions reported under Sec.  63.455 shall 
not be a violation of Sec.  63.443(c) and (d) provided that the time of 
excess emissions divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed the following levels:
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.446 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.446  Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

* * * * *
    (g) For each control device (e.g., steam stripper system or other 
equipment serving the same function) used to treat pulping process 
condensates to comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(e)(3) through (5) of this section, periods of excess emissions 
reported under Sec.  63.455 shall not be a violation of paragraphs (d), 
(e)(3) through (5), and (f) of this section provided that the time of 
excess emissions divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed 10 percent. The 10 percent 
excess emissions allowance does not apply to treatment of pulping 
process condensates according to paragraph (e)(2) of this section 
(e.g., the biological wastewater treatment system used to treat 
multiple (primarily non-condensate) wastewater streams to comply with 
the Clean Water Act).
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.453 is amended by adding paragraph (q) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.453  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (q) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator 
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

0
7. Section 63.454 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.454  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of each affected source subject to the 
requirements of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec.  63.10, as shown in Table 1 of this subpart, and 
the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this 
section for the monitoring parameters specified in Sec.  63.453.
* * * * *
    (g) Recordkeeping of malfunctions. The owner or operator must 
maintain the following records of malfunctions:
    (1) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment.
    (2) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.453(q), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.

0
8. Section 63.455 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.455  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Malfunction reporting requirements. If a malfunction occurred 
during the reporting period, the report must include the number, 
duration and a brief description for each type of malfunction which 
occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have 
caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. The report 
must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or 
operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.453(q), including actions taken 
to correct a malfunction.
    (h) The owner or operator must submit performance test reports as 
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator of an affected source shall report the 
results of the performance test before the close of business on the 
60th day following the completion of the performance test, unless 
approved otherwise in writing by the Administrator. A performance test 
is ``completed'' when field sample collection is terminated. Unless 
otherwise approved by the Administrator in writing, results of a 
performance test shall include the analysis of samples, determination 
of emissions and raw data. A complete test report must include the 
purpose of the test; a brief process description; a complete unit 
description, including a description of feed streams and control 
devices; sampling site description; pollutants measured; description of 
sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to standard 
procedures; quality assurance procedures; record of operating 
conditions, including operating parameters for which limits are being 
set, during the test; record of preparation of standards; record of 
calibrations; raw data sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for 
field and laboratory analyses; chain-of-custody documentation; 
explanation of laboratory data qualifiers; example calculations of all 
applicable stack gas parameters, emission rates, percent reduction 
rates, and analytical results, as applicable; and any other information 
required by the test method and the Administrator.
    (2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (defined in Sec.  63.2) as required by this subpart, the owner or 
operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including 
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart to the EPA's 
WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be 
submitted in the file format generated through use of the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data collected using test methods on the ERT Web site 
are subject to this requirement for submitting reports electronically 
to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information 
being submitted for performance tests is confidential business 
information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information 
claimed to be CBI on a compact disk, flash drive or other commonly used 
electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be 
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At 
the discretion of the delegated authority, the owner or operator must 
also submit these reports, including the CBI, to the delegated 
authority in the format specified by the delegated authority. For any 
performance test conducted using

[[Page 55712]]

test methods that are not listed on the ERT Web site, the owner or 
operator must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (3) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test as defined in Sec.  63.2, the owner or 
operator must submit relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the 
EPA's CDX by using CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (2) of this 
section. Only RATA pollutants that can be documented with the ERT (as 
listed on the ERT Web site) are subject to this requirement. For any 
performance evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on 
the ERT Web site, the owner or operator must submit the results of the 
performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address 
listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (4) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section must be sent 
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. 
The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in 
any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 
electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section in paper format.
0
9. Section 63.456 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.456  Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards 
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  63.443(c) and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 63.445(b) and (c), 
63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or Sec.  63.450(d), the owner or 
operator may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 
penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by 
malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 
assessed, however, if the owner or operator fails to meet the burden of 
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive 
relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a standard, the owner or operator must timely meet the reporting 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that:
    (1) The violation:
    (i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner, and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation 
occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent 
practicable to make these repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including 
any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
    (4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or 
a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented 
by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at 
issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods 
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. This affirmative defense 
report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial 
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the 
end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the 
initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report may 
be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess 
emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of 
the relevant standard.

0
10. Section 63.457 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(i);
0
f. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii);
0
h. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
0
i. Revising paragraph (k)(1); and
0
j. Adding paragraph (o).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.457  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) Performance tests. Initial and repeat performance tests are 
required for the emissions sources specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section, except for emission sources controlled by a 
combustion device that is designed and operated as specified in Sec.  
63.443(d)(3) or (4).
    (1) Conduct an initial performance test for all emission sources 
subject to the limitations in Sec. Sec.  63.443, 63.444, 63.445, 
63.446, and 63.447.
    (2) Conduct repeat performance tests at five-year intervals for all 
emission sources subject to the limitations in Sec. Sec.  63.443, 
63.444, and 63.445. The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be 
conducted by September 7, 2015, and thereafter within 60 months from 
the date of the previous performance test. Five-year repeat testing is 
not required for the following:
    (i) Knotter or screen systems with HAP emission rates below the 
criteria specified in Sec.  63.443(a)(1)(ii).
    (ii) Decker systems using fresh water or paper machine white water, 
or decker systems using process water with a total HAP concentration 
less than 400 parts per million by weight as specified in Sec.  
63.443(a)(1)(iv).
    (b) * * *
    (1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A-1, as appropriate, shall 
be used for selection of the sampling site as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using 
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A-1, as appropriate.
    (4) The moisture content of the vent gas shall be measured using 
Method 4 of part 60, appendix A-3.

[[Page 55713]]

    (5) * * *
    (i) Method 308 in Appendix A of this part; Method 320 in Appendix A 
of this part; Method 18 in appendix A-6 of part 60; ASTM D6420-99 
(Reapproved 2004) (incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14(b)(28) of 
subpart A of this part); or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  63.14(b)(54) of subpart A of this part) shall be used to 
determine the methanol concentration. If ASTM D6348-03 is used, the 
conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(A) though (b)(5)(i)(B) 
must be met.
    (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-03, sections A1 through A8 are required.
    (B) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the 
percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5 
of ASTM D6348-03). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a 
compound, %R must be between 70 and 130 percent. If the %R value does 
not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not 
acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that 
analyte following adjustment of the sampling or analytical procedure 
before the retest. The %R value for each compound must be reported in 
the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation: 
Reported Result = Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R.
    (ii) Except for the modifications specified in paragraphs 
(b)(5)(ii)(A) through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this section, Method 26A of part 
60, appendix A-8 shall be used to determine chlorine concentration in 
the vent stream.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) For determining methanol concentrations, NCASI Method DI/MEOH-
94.03. This test method is incorporated by reference in Sec.  
63.14(f)(1) of subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix A-7; and
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) The emission rate correction factor and excess air integrated 
sampling and analysis procedures of Methods 3A or 3B of part 60, 
appendix A-2 shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration. The 
samples shall be taken at the same time that the HAP samples are taken. 
As an alternative to Method 3B, ASME PTC 19.10-1981 [Part 10] may be 
used (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14(i)(1)).
* * * * *
    (o) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.

0
11. Section 63.459 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(A) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(A)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(8)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(8)(iii); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(ii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.459  Alternative standards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The owner or operator shall measure the methanol concentration 
of the outfall of any basin, using NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), when the VA/A ratio of 
that basin exceeds the following:
* * * * *
    (2) The highest VA/A ratio at which the outfall of any basin has 
previously measured non-detect for methanol, using NCASI Method DI/MEOH 
94.03 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator shall use NCASI Method DI/HAPS-99.01 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) to collect a grab sample 
and determine the HAP concentration of the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping 
Process Condensates, and Anaerobic Basin Discharge for the quarterly 
performance test conducted during the first quarter each year.
    (iii) For each of the remaining three quarters, the owner or 
operator may use NCASI Method DI/MEOH 94.03 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14) as a surrogate to collect and determine the HAP 
concentration of the Raw Mill Effluent, Pulping Process Condensates, 
and Anaerobic Basin Discharge.
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (ii) Periods of excess emissions shall not constitute a violation 
provided the time of excess emissions divided by the total process 
operating time in a semi-annual reporting period does not exceed one 
percent. All periods of excess emission shall be reported, and shall 
include:
* * * * *
0
12. Table 1 to subpart S is revised to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart S of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                              Subpart S \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
          Reference                     S                  Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(3)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.1(a)(4)..................  Yes.................  Subpart S (this
                                                     table) specifies
                                                     applicability of
                                                     each paragraph in
                                                     subpart A to
                                                     subpart S.
63.1(a)(5)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.1(a)(6)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.1(a)(7)-(9)..............  No..................  Sections reserved.
63.1(a)(10).................  No..................  Subpart S and other
                                                     cross-referenced
                                                     subparts specify
                                                     calendar or
                                                     operating day.
63.1(a)(11)-(12)............  Yes.................  ....................
63.1(b)(1)..................  No..................  Subpart S specifies
                                                     its own
                                                     applicability.
63.1(b)(2)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.1(b)(3)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.1(c)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.1(c)(3)-(4)..............  No..................  Sections reserved.
63.1(c)(5)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.1(d).....................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.1(e).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.2........................  Yes.................  ....................

[[Page 55714]]

 
63.3........................  Yes.................  ....................
63.4(a)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.4(a)(3)-(5)..............  No..................  Sections reserved.
63.4(b).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.4(c).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(a).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(b)(1)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(b)(2)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.5(b)(3)-(4)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(b)(5)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.5(b)(6)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(c).....................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.5(d).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(e).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.5(f).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(a).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(b)(1)-(5)..............  No..................  Subpart S specifies
                                                     compliance dates
                                                     for sources subject
                                                     to subpart S.
63.6(b)(6)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.6(b)(7)..................  No..................  Subpart S specifies
                                                     compliance dates
                                                     for sources subject
                                                     to subpart S.
63.6(c)(1)-(2)..............  No..................  Subpart S specifies
                                                     compliance dates
                                                     for sources subject
                                                     to subpart S.
63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  No..................  Sections reserved.
63.6(c)(5)..................  No..................  Subpart S specifies
                                                     compliance dates
                                                     for sources subject
                                                     to subpart S.
63.6(d).....................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  No..................  See Sec.   63.453(q)
                                                     for general duty
                                                     requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  No..................  ....................
63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(e)(2)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)..................  No..................  ....................
63.6(f)(1)..................  No..................  ....................
63.6(f)(2)-(3)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(g).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(h)(1)-(2)..............  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.6(h)(3)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.6(h)(4)-(9)..............  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.6(i)(1)-(14).............  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(i)(15).................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.6(i)(16).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.6(j).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(a).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(b).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(c).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(d).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(e)(1)..................  No..................  Replaced with Sec.
                                                     63.457(o), which
                                                     specifies
                                                     performance testing
                                                     conditions under
                                                     subpart S.
63.7(e)(2)-(4)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(f).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(g)(1)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(g)(2)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.7(g)(3)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.7(h).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(a)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(a)(3)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.8(a)(4)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(b)(1)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(b)(2)..................  No..................  Subpart S specifies
                                                     locations to
                                                     conduct monitoring.
63.8(b)(3)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(c)(1)-(c)(1)(i)........  No..................  See Sec.   63.453(q)
                                                     for general duty
                                                     requirement (which
                                                     includes monitoring
                                                     equipment).
63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  No..................  ....................
63.8(c)(2)-(3)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(c)(4)..................  No..................  Subpart S allows
                                                     site specific
                                                     determination of
                                                     monitoring
                                                     frequency in Sec.
                                                     63.453(n)(4).
63.8(c)(5)..................  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.8(c)(6)-(8)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(d)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(d)(3)..................  Yes, except for last  SSM plans are not
                               sentence, which       required
                               refers to an SSM
                               plan.

[[Page 55715]]

 
63.8(e).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(f)(1)-(5)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.8(f)(6)..................  No..................  Subpart S does not
                                                     specify relative
                                                     accuracy test for
                                                     CEMs.
63.8(g).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(a).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(b)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................  Initial
                                                     notifications must
                                                     be submitted within
                                                     one year after the
                                                     source becomes
                                                     subject to the
                                                     relevant standard.
63.9(b)(3)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.9(b)(4)-(5)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(c).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(d).....................  No..................  Special compliance
                                                     requirements are
                                                     only applicable to
                                                     kraft mills.
63.9(e).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(f).....................  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.9(g)(1)..................  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(g)(2)..................  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.9(g)(3)..................  No..................  Subpart S does not
                                                     specify relative
                                                     accuracy tests,
                                                     therefore no
                                                     notification is
                                                     required for an
                                                     alternative.
63.9(h)(1)-(3)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(h)(4)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.9(h)(5)-(6)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(i).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.9(j).....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(a)....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(b)(1).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(b)(2)(i)..............  No..................  ....................
63.10(b)(2)(ii).............  No..................  See Sec.   63.454(g)
                                                     for recordkeeping
                                                     of (1) occurrence
                                                     and duration and
                                                     (2) actions taken
                                                     during malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)............  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).........  No..................  ....................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv).......  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(b)(3).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(c)(1).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(c)(2)-(4).............  No..................  Sections reserved.
63.10(c)(5)-(8).............  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(c)(9).................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.10(c)(10)-(11)...........  No..................  See Sec.   63.454(g)
                                                     for malfunction
                                                     recordkeeping
                                                     requirements.
63.10(c)(12)-(14)...........  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(c)(15)................  No..................  ....................
63.10(d)(1)-(2).............  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(d)(3).................  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.10(d)(4).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(d)(5).................  No..................  See Sec.   63.455(g)
                                                     for malfunction
                                                     reporting
                                                     requirements.
63.10(e)(1).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(e)(2)(i)..............  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(e)(2)(ii).............  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.10(e)(3).................  Yes.................  ....................
63.10(e)(4).................  No..................  Pertains to
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitors that are
                                                     not part of this
                                                     standard.
63.10(f)....................  Yes.................  ....................
63.11-63.15.................  Yes.................  ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be
  sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).
  Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not
  required.

[FR Doc. 2012-20501 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P