55698 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

*******

Article 43 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rule 4–43) 

*******

5–40–5810 ........ Definitions ..................................... 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

5–40–5820 ........ Standard for air emissions ............ 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

*******

5–140–5850 ...... Compliance ................................... 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

*******

5–40–5880 ........ Reporting ....................................... 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

*******

5–40–5920 ........ Permits .......................................... 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 130 Regulations for Open Burning [Formerly 9VAC5 Chapter 40, Part II, Article 40] 

Part I General Provisions 

*******

5–130–20 .......... Definitions ..................................... 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

*******

5–130–40 .......... Permissible open burning ............. 8/17/11 6/1/12 by Letter Notice ................. The SIP effective date is 6/1/12. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–22207 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: bradfield.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

specific information regarding the risk 

modeling methodology, contact Mr. 

James Hirtz, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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: hirtz.james@epa.gov. 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) 564– 

5391, ayres.

sara@epa.

gov.

John Bradfield, 

(919) 541– 

3062, 

bradfield.

john@epa.

gov. 

1EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 2EPA’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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55700 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1USEPA. Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/ 

OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. 

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 nonopacity 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 semichemical 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

Requirement 

Capital 

cost 

[million] 

Annual 

cost 

[million] 

Net 

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

NESHAP and source 

category 

NAICS 

Code 1

MACT 

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 onsite), 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, semichemical and mechanical. 

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, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 bestperforming 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 onsite), 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 readopting 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55702 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2Located in 11 states. 

3For 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. 

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 semichemical 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

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55703 

4See 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. 

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. 

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 nonmalfunctioning 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

5See 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 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 MACTallowable 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

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55705 

6For a full discussion of this analysis, see the 

memorandum in the docket titled, Ample Margin of 

Safety Analysis for Pulping and Papermaking 

Processes. 

7See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Recommendations Concerning Residual Risk 

Remodeling for the Pulp and Paper Industry. 

8See Residual Risk Assessment for the Pulp and 

Paper Source Category, in the docket for the subpart 

S rulemaking. 

9See 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. 

10For 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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

considered these energy and secondary 

air emissions impacts for steam 

strippers for the final rule as a result of 

the public comments.11

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. 

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 § 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 § 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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-forprofit 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

13U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

14Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice 

Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 

15Mennis 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. 

16Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

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. 

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] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(28); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(54); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (f)(1); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(3) and 

(4) as paragraphs (f)(4) and (5); 

■ e. Adding new paragraph (f)(3); and 

■ f. Revising paragraph (i)(1). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 §§ 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] 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.441 is amended by 

adding a definition for ‘‘affirmative 

defense,’’ in alphabetical order, to read 

as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.443 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) introductory text 

to read as follows: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55711 

§ 63.443 Standards for the pulping system 

at kraft, soda, and semi-chemical 

processes. 

* * * * * 

(e) Periods of excess emissions 

reported under § 63.455 shall not be a 

violation of § 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: 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.446 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 noncondensate) wastewater streams to 

comply with the Clean Water Act). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.453 is amended by 

adding paragraph (q) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 7. Section 63.454 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 8. Section 63.455 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 63.13. 

(3) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test as defined in § 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 § 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 § 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. 

■ 9. Section 63.456 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.456 Affirmative defense for violation 

of emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in §§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 10. Section 63.457 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(3); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(4); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(i); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (d)(1); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (k)(1); and 

■ j. Adding paragraph (o). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 63.443(d)(3) or (4). 

(1) Conduct an initial performance 

test for all emission sources subject to 

the limitations in §§ 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 

§§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 63.14(b)(28) of subpart A of this part); 

or ASTM D6348–03 (incorporated by 

reference in § 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 × 

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 

§ 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 § 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. 

■ 11. Section 63.459 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(A) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(A)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(8)(ii); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(8)(iii); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(ii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 63.14). 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(ii) The owner or operator shall use 

NCASI Method DI/HAPS–99.01 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 § 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 semiannual reporting period does not exceed 

one percent. All periods of excess 

emission shall be reported, and shall 

include: 

* * * * * 

■ 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

Reference Applies to 

subpart 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 ...................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART S OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a—Continued 

Reference Applies to 

subpart S Comment 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 sentence, 

which refers 

to an SSM 

plan.

SSM plans are not required 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55715 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART S OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART S a—Continued 

Reference Applies to 

subpart S Comment 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 ...................

aWherever 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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 95 

[ET Docket No. 08–59; FCC 12–54] 

Medical Area Body Network 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document expands the 

Commission’s Medical Device 

Radiocommunications Service 

(MedRadio) rules to permit the 

development of new Medical Body Area 

Network (MBAN) devices in the 2360– 

2400 MHz band. The MBAN technology 

will provide a flexible platform for the 

wireless networking of multiple body 

transmitters used for the purpose of 

measuring and recording physiological 

parameters and other patient 

information or for performing diagnostic 

or therapeutic functions, primarily in 

health care facilities. This platform will 

enhance patient safety, care and comfort 

by reducing the need to physically 

connect sensors to essential monitoring 

equipment by cables and wires. This 

decision is the latest in a series of 

actions to expand the spectrum 

available for wireless medical use. The 

Commission finds that the risk of 

increased interference is minimal and is 

greatly outweighed by the benefits of the 

MBAN rules. 

DATES: Effective October 11, 2012, 

except for §§ 95.1215(c), 95.1217(a)(3), 

95.1223, and 95.1225, which contain 

information collection requirements that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES