47328 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741; FRL–9969–06– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS46 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Recovery Combustion Sources at 

Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted for the chemical 

recovery combustion sources at kraft, 

soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 

semichemical pulp mills regulated 

under the national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). 

We are finalizing our proposed 

determination that risks from the source 

category are acceptable and that the 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. We are 

also finalizing amendments to the 

NESHAP based on developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies identified as part of the 

technology review. These final 

amendments include revisions to the 

opacity monitoring provisions and the 

addition of requirements to maintain 

proper operation of the electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) automatic voltage 

control (AVC). Additional amendments 

are also being finalized including the 

requirement to conduct 5-year periodic 

emissions testing, and submit electronic 

reports; revisions to provisions 

addressing periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and 

technical and editorial changes. These 

amendments are made under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and will improve the effectiveness of 

the rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 11, 2017. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of October 11, 

2017] 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741. 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 

(CBI) 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 

WJC 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 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Docket 

Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (Mail Code: E143– 

03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–3158; fax number: 

(919) 541–0516; and email address: 

spence.kelley@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, 

Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division (Mail Code: C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0881; and email address: hirtz.james@

epa.gov. For information about the 

applicability of the NESHAP to a 

particular entity, contact Ms. Sara 

Ayres, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code: E–19J), 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 

353–6266; and email address: 

ayres.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

AVC automatic voltage control 

BLO black liquor oxidation 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHIEF Clearinghouse for Inventories and 

Emissions Factors 

CMS continuous monitoring system 

COMS continuous opacity monitoring 

system 

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring 

system 

CRA Congressional Review Act 

DAS data acquisition system 

D.C. Cir. United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit 

DCE direct contact evaporator 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP electrostatic precipitator 

EST Eastern Standard Time 

FR Federal Register 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HI hazard index 

HQ hazard quotient 

IBR incorporation by reference 

ICR Information Collection Request 

km kilometer 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NDCE nondirect contact evaporator 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

No. number 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NSPS new source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutant known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PM particulate matter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS–1 Performance Specification 1 

QA quality assurance 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SDT smelt dissolving tank 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

THC total hydrocarbons 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

v. versus 

WebFIRE Web Factor Information Retrieval 

System 

XML extensible markup language 

Background information. On 

December 30, 2016, the EPA proposed 

revisions to the NESHAP for Chemical 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47329 

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, 

Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills based on our 

RTR. In this action, we are finalizing 

amendments to the rule based on public 

comment and updated analyses. We 

summarize comments that the EPA 

received regarding the proposed rule 

that resulted in changes in the final 

rulemaking package and provide our 

responses in this preamble. A summary 

of all other public comments on the 

proposal and the EPA’s responses to 

those comments is available in the 

document titled, National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Chemical Recovery Combustion 

Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and 

Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart MM)—Residual 

Risk and Technology Review, Final 

Amendments: Response to Public 

Comments on December 30, 2016 

Proposal, in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741). A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the 

regulatory language that incorporates 

the changes in this action is also 

available in the docket. 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the subpart MM source category 

and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

subpart MM source category in our 

December 30, 2016, proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the subpart 

MM source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

subpart MM source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction? 

D. What other changes have been made to 

the NESHAP? 

E. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

F. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

subpart MM source category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Subpart 

MM Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the Subpart MM 

Source Category 

C. Changes to SSM Provisions 

D. Emissions Testing 

E. CPMS Operating Limits 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

G. Technical and Editorial Changes 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B: Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS1 code 

Pulp and Paper Production ...................... Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills.

32211, 32212, 

32213. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet. Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a 

copy of this final action at: https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-standalone-semichemical-pulp-mills-mact-ii. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version and key technical 

documents at this same Web site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at https://

www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories, 

and detailed emissions and other data 

we used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

December 11, 2017. Under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47330 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit has affirmed this approach of 

implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA 

determines that the existing technology-based 

standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then 

the Agency is free to readopt those standards during 

the residual risk rulemaking.’’). 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that only 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 the EPA to 

reconsider the rule if the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the 

Administrator 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 should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South 

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, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, the EPA must identify 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAPs listed in CAA section 

112(b) and then promulgate technologybased NESHAP for those sources. 

‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or 

have the potential to emit, any single 

HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) 

or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAPs. For major 

sources, these standards are commonly 

referred to as maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards 

and must reflect the maximum degree of 

emission reductions of HAPs achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts). In 

developing MACT standards, CAA 

section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to 

consider the application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems or 

techniques, including, but not limited 

to, those 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 HAPs when released from a 

process, stack, storage, or fugitive 

emissions point; are design, equipment, 

work practice, or operational standards; 

or any combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements, and which 

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 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 bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing 5 sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, 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 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and 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. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see 81 FR 97049–51. 

B. What is the subpart MM source 

category and how does the NESHAP 

regulate HAP emissions from the source 

category? 

As defined in the Initial List of 

Categories of Sources Under Section 

112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 

July 16, 1992), the ‘‘Pulp and Paper 

Production’’ source category is any 

facility engaged in the production of 

pulp and/or paper. The EPA developed 

the NESHAPs for the source category in 

two phases. The first phase, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart S, regulates non-combustion 

processes at mills that (1) chemically 

pulp wood fiber (using kraft, sulfite, 

soda, and semichemical methods), (2) 

mechanically pulp wood fiber (e.g., 

groundwood, thermomechanical, 

pressurized), (3) pulp secondary fibers 

(deinked and non-deinked), (4) pulp 

non-wood material, and (5) manufacture 

paper. Subpart S was originally 

promulgated on April 15, 1998, (63 FR 

18504). The second phase, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart MM, regulates chemical 

recovery combustion sources at kraft, 

soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 

semichemical pulp mills, and was 

originally promulgated on January 12, 

2001 (66 FR 3180). The chemical 

recovery combustion sources include 

kraft and soda recovery furnaces, smelt 

dissolving tanks (SDTs), and lime kilns; 

kraft black liquor oxidation (BLO) units; 

sulfite combustion units; and 

semichemical combustion units. 

Because subpart MM sources comprise 

a subset of the sources at a pulp and 

paper mill, for purposes of this 

preamble, we are referring to the source 

category for this NESHAP as the 

‘‘subpart MM source category.’’ 

We already completed the RTR for 40 

CFR part 63, subpart S, with final 

amendments published in the Federal 

Register on September 11, 2012 (77 FR 

55698). For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM RTR, we published proposed 

amendments in the Federal Register on 

December 30, 2016 (81 FR 97046). We 

conducted a risk assessment and 

technology review of the emission 

sources covered by subpart MM, as well 

as a risk assessment of the whole 

facility. The facility-wide risk 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47331 

assessment includes emissions from all 

sources of HAPs at the facility, 

including sources covered by other 

NESHAP (e.g., pulp and paper 

production processes covered under 

subpart S, boilers covered under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart DDDDD, and paper and 

other web coating operations covered 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ). This 

final rule focuses exclusively on the 

RTR for subpart MM. The EPA is not 

amending subpart S, subpart DDDDD, or 

subpart JJJJ in this action. 

According to the results of the EPA’s 

2011 pulp and paper Information 

Collection Request (ICR), and updates 

based on more recent information, there 

are a total of 107 major sources in the 

United States (U.S.) that conduct 

chemical recovery combustion 

operations, including 97 kraft pulp 

mills, 1 soda pulp mill, 3 sulfite pulp 

mills, and 6 stand-alone semichemical 

pulp mills. 

Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63 

includes numerical emission limits for 

recovery furnaces, SDTs, lime kilns, and 

sulfite and semichemical combustion 

units. The control systems used by most 

mills to meet the subpart MM emission 

limits are as follows: 

• Recovery furnaces: ESPs, wet 

scrubbers, and nondirect contact 

evaporator (NDCE) furnace design with 

dry-bottom ESP and dry particulate 

matter (PM) return system. 

• Smelt dissolving tanks: Wet 

scrubbers, mist eliminators, and venting 

to recovery furnace. 

• Lime kilns: ESPs and wet scrubbers. 

• Sulfite combustion units: Wet 

scrubbers and mist eliminators. 

• Semichemical combustion units: 

Wet scrubbers, ESPs, and regenerative 

thermal oxidizers (RTOs). 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

subpart MM source category in our 

December 30, 2016, proposal? 

On December 30, 2016, the EPA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register for the subpart MM 

NESHAP for Chemical Recovery 

Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, 

Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical 

Pulp Mills, which took into 

consideration the RTR analyses. In that 

action, we proposed to: 

• Reduce the opacity limits for 

recovery furnaces; 

• Revise the opacity monitoring 

allowances for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns (i.e., the percentage of the 

operating time within a semiannual 

period below which opacity can exceed 

the limit without it being considered a 

violation); 

• Require ESP parameter monitoring 

for recovery furnaces and lime kilns 

equipped with ESPs; 

• Clarify the monitoring requirements 

for combined ESP/wet scrubber 

controls; 

• Provide alternative monitoring 

parameters for SDT wet scrubbers; 

• Require periodic air emissions 

performance testing once every 5 years 

as facilities renew their operating 

permits; 

• Eliminate the SSM exemption; 

• Provide alternative monitoring 

parameters for wet scrubbers and ESPs 

during SSM periods; 

• Specify procedures for establishing 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) operating limits; 

• Reduce the reporting frequency and 

require electronic submission for excess 

emissions reports; 

• Require mills to submit electronic 

copies of performance test reports; and 

• Make a number of technical and 

editorial changes. 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

subpart MM source category and 

amends the subpart MM NESHAP based 

on those determinations. This action 

also finalizes other changes to the 

NESHAP, including a requirement for 5- 

year periodic emissions testing; 

electronic reporting; revisions to 

provisions addressing periods of SSM; 

and technical and editorial changes. 

This final action is based on the 

proposed rulemaking (published in the 

Federal Register on December 30, 2016) 

and reflects refinements made in 

response to comments received during 

the public comment period for that 

proposal. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the subpart 

MM source category? 

The EPA proposed no changes to the 

subpart MM NESHAP based on the risk 

review conducted pursuant to CAA 

section 112(f). We are finalizing our 

proposed determination that risks from 

the source category are acceptable, 

considering all of the health information 

and factors evaluated, and also 

considering risk estimation uncertainty. 

We are also finalizing our proposed 

determination that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety, as 

well as our finding regarding the 

absence of adverse environmental 

effects. The EPA received no new data 

or other information during the public 

comment period that affected our 

determinations. Therefore, we are not 

requiring additional controls and, thus, 

are not making any revisions to the 

existing standards under CAA section 

112(f). 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

subpart MM source category? 

We determined that there are 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that warrant 

revisions to the NESHAP for this source 

category. Therefore, to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), 

we are revising the NESHAP as follows: 

• Revising the opacity monitoring 

allowance for all recovery furnaces 

equipped with ESPs from 6 percent to 

2 percent; 

• Revising the opacity monitoring 

allowance for all lime kilns equipped 

with ESPs from 6 percent to 3 percent; 

• Adding a requirement for recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns equipped with 

ESPs to maintain proper operation of 

the ESP AVC; 

• Adding the aforementioned ESP 

requirement and wet scrubber parameter 

monitoring for emission units equipped 

with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber; 

and 

• Providing alternative monitoring, 

specifically scrubber fan amperage, as 

an alternative to pressure drop 

measurement, for SDT dynamic 

scrubbers operating at ambient pressure 

and low-pressure entrainment scrubbers 

on SDTs where the fan speed does not 

vary. 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction? 

As proposed, we are finalizing 

amendments to the subpart MM 

NESHAP to eliminate the SSM 

exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

the EPA has established standards in 

this rule that apply at all times. We are 

also revising Table 1 to Subpart MM of 

Part 63 (General Provisions applicability 

table) to change several references 

related to requirements that apply 

during periods of SSM. We are 

eliminating or revising certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption, including the 

requirement for an SSM plan. We are 

also making changes to the rule to 

remove or modify language that is no 

longer applicable due to the removal of 

the SSM exemption. With the final 

amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MM monitoring requirements, 

we determined that facilities in this 

source category can meet the applicable 

emissions standards in this NESHAP at 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47332 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

2A copy of the revised semiannual electronic 

excess emissions reporting form (spreadsheet 

template) incorporating public comments has been 

placed in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741). 

all times, including periods of startup 

and shutdown; therefore, no additional 

standards are needed to address 

emissions during these periods. 

The 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM 

monitoring requirements were analyzed 

and adjusted to ensure that continuous 

compliance can feasibly be 

demonstrated during periods of startup 

and shutdown. Subpart MM requires 

continuous opacity monitoring to 

indicate ongoing compliance with the 

PM emission limits. In developing the 

proposed standards for the subpart MM 

RTR, the EPA reviewed numerous 

continuous opacity monitoring datasets 

that included periods of startup and 

shutdown, and stated that the affected 

units would be able to comply with the 

proposed standards at all times. Further 

analysis of the datasets show that 

sufficient startup and shutdown data 

were included in the analyses to form 

the basis for our conclusions, even 

though not all units provided such data. 

Subpart MM also requires continuous 

RTO operating temperature and wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring. As 

proposed, we are removing the 

requirement to consider wet scrubber 

pressure drop during startup and 

shutdown because pressure drop is 

dependent on gas flow, which is 

transient (changing) during startup and 

shutdown. Continuous compliance is 

based on scrubber liquid flow rate 

monitoring during startup and 

shutdown instead of both pressure drop 

and liquid flow rate. We are also 

limiting the times when corrective 

actions are implemented or violations 

are recorded to times when spent 

pulping liquor or lime mud is fed (as 

applicable). The final rule specifies that 

corrective action can include 

completion of transient startup and 

shutdown conditions as expediently as 

possible. 

D. What other changes have been made 

to the NESHAP? 

Other changes to the NESHAP that do 

not fall into the categories in the 

previous sections include: 

• Requiring facilities to conduct 

periodic air emissions performance 

testing, with the first of the tests to be 

conducted within 3 years of the 

effective date of the revised standards, 

and thereafter no longer than 5 years 

following the previous performance test; 

• Specifying procedures for 

establishing operating limits based on 

data recorded by CPMS, including the 

frequency for recording parameters and 

the averaging period for reducing the 

recorded readings; 

• Reducing the frequency for 

submitting excess emissions reports 

from quarterly to semiannually in 

conjunction with requiring electronic 

reporting of excess emissions (in the 

future, as reporting forms are tested and 

become available—see section IV.F of 

this preamble); 

• Requiring facilities to submit 

electronic copies of performance test 

reports; 

• Requiring facilities to submit initial 

notifications and notifications of 

compliance status electronically; and 

• Making various technical and 

editorial corrections. 

E. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The revisions to the NESHAP being 

promulgated in this action are effective 

on October 11, 2017. The compliance 

date for existing sources is October 11, 

2019, with the exception of the first 

periodic performance test, which must 

be conducted by October 13, 2020, and 

the date to submit performance test data 

through CEDRI, which is within 60 days 

of completing the test. Facilities must 

comply with the changes set out in this 

final rule no later than 2 years after the 

effective date of the final rule. Section 

112(i)(3) of the CAA provides that, for 

a standard or other regulation 

promulgated under CAA section 112, 

the Administrator shall establish a 

compliance date no later than 3 years 

after the effective date of the standard, 

except where otherwise provided. We 

conclude that 2 years are necessary to 

make the system adjustments needed to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

revised requirements, including 

adjusting data acquisition systems 

(DAS) to include startup and shutdown 

periods and the revised opacity 

monitoring allowances, to transition to 

electronic excess emissions reporting, 

and to comply with revised monitoring 

requirements. 

As noted in section IV.F of this 

preamble, the initial compliance date 

for electronic excess emissions reporting 

will be 1 year after the excess emissions 

reporting form (i.e., a spreadsheet 

template) becomes available in the 

EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 

compliance date 2 years after 

promulgation allows 1 year for betatesting of the e-reporting form before it 

is placed into CEDRI, followed by 1 year 

for facilities to begin using the final 

form.2 A period of 3 years after 

promulgation is not needed for 

compliance because, as explained in 

section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA 

is not finalizing the proposed revisions 

to the opacity limits or ESP parameter 

monitoring requirements that would 

involve capital projects such as an ESP 

upgrade. 

New sources must comply with all of 

the standards by October 11, 2017, or 

upon startup, whichever is later. 

F. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

The EPA is requiring owners and 

operators of pulp and paper production 

facilities to submit electronic copies of 

certain required performance test 

reports to the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The 

electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this rulemaking will 

increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. 

The EPA Web site that stores the 

submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is 

easily accessible and provides a userfriendly interface. By making the 

records, data, and reports addressed in 

this rulemaking readily available, the 

EPA, the regulated community, and the 

public will benefit when the EPA 

conducts future CAA-required 

technology reviews. As a result of 

having reports readily accessible, our 

ability to carry out timely 

comprehensive reviews will be 

increased. 

We anticipate that fewer or less 

substantial ICRs in conjunction with 

prospective CAA-required technology 

reviews may be needed, which results 

in a decrease in time spent by industry 

to respond to data collection requests. 

We also expect the ICRs to contain less 

extensive stack testing provisions, as we 

will already have stack test data 

electronically. Reduced testing 

requirements would be a cost savings to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47333 

3Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

industry. The EPA should also be able 

to conduct these required reviews more 

efficiently. While the regulated 

community may benefit from a reduced 

burden of ICRs, the general public 

benefits from the Agency’s ability to 

provide these required reviews more 

efficiently, resulting in increased public 

health and environmental protection. 

State, local, and tribal air agencies, as 

well as the EPA, can benefit from more 

streamlined and automated review of 

the electronically submitted data. 

Standardizing report formats allows air 

agencies to review reports and data 

more quickly. Having reports and 

associated data in electronic format will 

facilitate review through the use of 

software ‘‘search’’ options, as well as the 

downloading and analyzing of data in 

spreadsheet format. Additionally, air 

agencies and the EPA can access reports 

wherever and whenever they want or 

need, as long as they have access to the 

Internet. The ability to access and 

review air emission report information 

electronically will assist air agencies to 

more quickly and accurately determine 

compliance with the applicable 

regulations, potentially allowing a faster 

response to violations which could 

minimize harmful air emissions. This 

benefits both air agencies and the 

general public. 

For a more thorough discussion of 

electronic reporting required by this 

rule, see the discussion in the preamble 

of the proposal (81 FR 97079–81). 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, air agencies, 

and the EPA significant time, money, 

and effort while improving the quality 

of emission inventories and air quality 

regulations and enhancing the public’s 

access to this important information. 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

subpart MM source category? 

For each action, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing, the EPA’s 

rationale for the final decisions and 

amendments, and a summary of key 

comments and responses. A thorough 

discussion of all comments received on 

the proposed rulemaking and EPA’s 

corresponding responses can be found 

in the comment summary and response 

document available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741). 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Subpart 

MM Source Category 

Results of residual risk review. 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results for the review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the December 30, 

2016, proposed rule for the subpart MM 

source category (81 FR 97046). The 

results of the risk assessment are 

presented briefly in Table 2 of this 

preamble, and in more detail in a 

document titled, Residual Risk 

Assessment for Pulp Mill Combustion 

Sources in Support of the October 2017 

Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0741). Based on both actual 

and allowable emissions for the source 

category, the estimated maximum 

individual risk (MIR) 3 was 4-in-1 

million, with emissions of gaseous 

organic HAPs acetaldehyde and 

naphthalene from the BLO process 

accounting for the majority of the risk. 

The total estimated national cancer 

incidence for this source category, based 

on actual emission levels, was 0.01 

excess cancer cases per year, or one case 

in 100 years. The total estimated 

national cancer incidence for this source 

category, based on allowable emission 

levels, was 0.02 excess cancer cases per 

year, or one case in 50 years. The 

estimated maximum chronic non-cancer 

target organ specific hazard index 

(TOSHI) value for this source category 

was 0.3, based on both actual and 

allowable emissions and driven by 

acrolein emissions from lime kilns. 

TABLE 2—PULP MILL COMBUSTION SOURCES (SUBPART MM) INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE DECEMBER

2016 PROPOSAL

Cancer MIR (in-1-million) Cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Population 

with risk of 

1-in-1 

million or more 

Population 

with risk of 

10-in-1 

million or more 

Max chronic 

non-cancer 

HI 1

(actuals) 

Max chronic 

non-cancer 

HI 1

(allowables) 

Based on actual 

emissions 

Based on allowable 

emmissions 

Source category.4 (naphthalene, acetaldehyde).4 (naphthalene, acetaldehyde).0.01 7,600 0 HI < 1 HI < 1 

Whole facility 20 (arsenic, chromium VI) ..... ................................................ 0.05 440,000 280 HI = 1 HI = 1 

1 Hazard index. 

The multi-pathway screening 

analysis, based on actual emissions, 

indicates the excess cancer risk from 

this source category is less than 10-in1 million, based on dioxins/furans and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) 

emissions, with PAH emissions 

accounting for 99 percent of these 

potential risks from the fisher and the 

farmer scenarios considered for multipathway modeling. There were no 

facilities within this source category 

with a final multi-pathway non-cancer 

screen value greater than 1 for cadmium 

or mercury. 

To put the risks from the source 

category in context, we also evaluated 

facility-wide risk. Our facility-wide risk 

assessment, based on actual emissions, 

estimated the MIR to be 20-in-1 million 

driven by arsenic and chromium VI 

emissions, and estimated the chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI value to be 1, driven 

by emissions of acrolein. We estimated 

approximately 440,000 people to have 

cancer risks greater than or equal to 1- 

in-1 million considering facility-wide 

emissions from the pulp and paper 

production source category (see Table 

2). The facility-wide cancer and noncancer risks are driven by emissions 

from industrial boilers, representing 62 

percent of the cancer risks and 95 

percent of the non-cancer risks. 

Emissions from 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM sources represent only 6 percent of 

the total facility-wide cancer risk of 20- 

in-1 million. 

The screening assessment of worstcase acute inhalation impacts indicates 

no pollutants exceeding a hazard 

quotient (HQ) value of 1 based on the 

reference exposure level (REL), with an 

estimated worst-case maximum acute 

HQ of 0.3 for acrolein based on the 1- 

hour REL. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47334 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

4The environmental screening analysis is 

documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp 

Mill Combustion Sources in Support of the October 

2017 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 

available in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741). 

A review of the uncertainties in the 

risk assessment identified one 

additional key consideration, and that is 

the quality of data associated with the 

facility-wide emissions. The data 

provided from the power boilers (i.e., 

sources covered under Boiler MACT, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD) were 

collected in 2009 and represent preMACT emissions before any controls 

were implemented. The uncertainty 

introduced by using pre-MACT boiler 

emissions data may result in an 

overestimated risk estimate for the 

facility-wide analysis for both cancer 

and non-cancer impacts. 

We weighed all health risk factors in 

our risk acceptability determination, 

and we proposed that the residual risks 

from this source category are acceptable. 

We then considered whether the 

NESHAP provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

whether more stringent standards were 

necessary to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect by taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors. In determining 

whether the standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

we examined the same risk factors that 

we investigated for our acceptability 

determination and also considered the 

costs, technological feasibility, and 

other relevant factors related to 

emissions control options that might 

reduce risk associated with emissions 

from the source category. As noted in 

the discussion of the ample margin of 

safety analysis in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (81 FR 97069–70), we 

considered options for further reducing 

gaseous organic HAP emissions from 

recovery furnace systems. We 

considered the reduction in HAP 

emissions that could be achieved by 

converting or replacing direct contact 

evaporator (DCE) recovery furnaces 

(which include BLO systems) with 

NDCE recovery furnaces. We also 

considered conversion of wet ESP 

systems to dry ESP systems for NDCE 

recovery furnaces. The overall cost of 

these options is an estimated $1.4 

billion to $3.7 billion in capital cost and 

$120 million to $440 million in 

annualized cost. Application of these 

options would achieve an estimated 

emission reduction of 2,920 tpy of 

gaseous organic HAPs (including risk 

drivers and other gaseous organic 

HAPs), with a corresponding cost 

effectiveness of $45,000 to $153,000 per 

ton of emissions reduced. Due to the 

low level of current risk and the costs 

associated with these options, we 

proposed that additional HAP emission 

reductions from the source category are 

not necessary to provide an ample 

margin of safety. Based on the results of 

our environmental risk screening 

assessment,4 we also proposed that 

more stringent standards are not 

necessary to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

Public comments and final approach. 

Most of the commenters providing input 

on the proposed risk review supported 

our determination of risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety analysis for 

40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. 

We evaluated all of the comments on 

EPA’s risk review and determined that 

no changes to the review are needed. A 

summary of these comments and our 

responses is located in the comment 

summary and response document, 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741). 

For the reasons explained in the 

proposed rule, we determined that the 

risks from the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM source category are acceptable, and 

the current standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health 

and prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. Since proposal, neither the risk 

assessment nor our determinations 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety or adverse 

environmental effects have changed. 

Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 

112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual 

risk review as proposed. 

B. Technology Review for the Subpart 

MM Source Category 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review, which 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for the 

emission sources in the source category. 

The following paragraphs discuss what 

we proposed pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(6), changes to the technology 

review since proposal, the key 

comments we received on the 

technology review and our responses, 

and the rationale for our final approach 

for the technology review. For an indepth account of the comments and 

responses, see the comment summary 

and response document in the docket 

for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0741). 

Emissions standards. At proposal, we 

focused our CAA section 112(d)(6) 

review of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM 

on the emissions standards currently 

established in subpart MM. No costeffective developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies were 

identified in our technology review to 

warrant revisions to the gaseous organic 

HAP standards for recovery furnaces 

and semichemical combustion units, or 

to the HAP metal standards for recovery 

furnaces, lime kilns, SDTs, and sulfite 

combustion units. More information 

concerning our technology review is in 

the memorandum titled, Section 

112(d)(6) Technology Review for the 

NESHAP for Chemical Recovery 

Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, 

Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical 

Pulp Mills, available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0741), and in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (81 FR 97070–75). 

Multiple commenters concurred with 

the EPA that the results of the 

technology review supported the 

conclusion that there should be no 

changes to the emissions standards. One 

commenter objected and argued that the 

current MACT standards for HAP metals 

from recovery furnaces, SDTs, lime 

kilns, and sulfite combustion units did 

not meet the requirements of CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3) when 

originally promulgated. The commenter 

stated that each of the emissions 

standards must receive a proper CAA 

section 112(d)(6) review to evaluate 

whether there is an emissions standard 

in place that met the CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3) test. According to the 

commenter, the EPA must set emissions 

standards on each of these emission 

units to satisfy the CAA, by establishing 

a proper floor for the first time, and 

performing a beyond-the-floor analysis. 

The commenter argued that the EPA is 

not authorized by CAA section 112(d)(6) 

to leave in place errors made when 

performing the originally-required 

MACT rulemaking under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3). 

In addition to commenting on the 

current 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM 

standards, commenters offered opposing 

opinions regarding whether the EPA 

should have expanded the scope of 

sources and/or pollutants covered by 

subpart MM as part of the technology 

review. One commenter argued that the 

EPA has no obligation to expand the 

scope of the existing standards, and 

does not in fact have statutory authority 

to do so. The commenter stated that 

there is neither legal nor technical 

justification for considering limitations 

for new pollutants or for new sources as 

part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review 

of the subpart MM standards. The 

commenter also stated that the EPA’s 

residual risk review, which included the 

major processes and pollutants, did not 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47335 

5See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Review of the Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data 

from the Pulp and Paper ICR Responses for Subpart 

MM Sources. 

6See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and 

Technology Review. 

identify any reason for expanding the 

emission units covered or the pollutants 

limited in the subpart MM standards. 

Another commenter argued that the 

EPA must set emissions standards for all 

emitted HAPs from all emission units. 

The commenter stated that, currently, 

there are uncontrolled HAPs emitted by 

pulp mills, including mercury, dioxins/ 

furans, and hydrochloric acid. The 

commenter also stated that the gaseous 

organic HAPs emitted from existing 

recovery furnaces and from new and 

existing lime kilns and SDTs have no 

applicable emission limit. The 

commenter also noted that the EPA 

failed to set any standard for HAP 

metals emissions from new and existing 

chemical recovery combustion units at 

stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. 

The commenter indicated that the CAA 

section 112(d)(6) review has brought the 

problem of currently unregulated HAPs 

to the EPA’s attention, and it is now 

‘‘necessary’’ under CAA section 

112(d)(6) to set emissions standards that 

control these pollutants, as the CAA 

directs. The commenter also asserted 

that, under CAA section 112(d)(6), the 

D.C. Circuit Court legal decisions 

governing the EPA’s regulatory 

responsibility are ‘‘developments’’ that 

define proper pollution controls, 

practices, and technologies, and the 

EPA is legally required to account for 

them and set standards to limit these 

pollutants in the review rulemaking. 

Regarding our review of the current 

40 CFR part 63, subpart MM standards, 

we disagree with the commenter that 

implied the EPA must recalculate or 

reanalyze the validity of MACT floors 

previously established under CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3) as part of the 

technology review under CAA section 

112(d)(6). As explained in prior RTR 

rulemakings, the EPA does not read 

CAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring a 

reanalysis or recalculation of MACT 

floors. See National Emissions 

Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 

FR 19992, 20008 (April 15, 2005)). We 

read CAA section 112(d)(6) as providing 

the EPA with substantial latitude in 

weighing a variety of factors and 

arriving at an appropriate balance in 

considering revisions to standards 

promulgated under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3). Nothing in CAA 

section 112(d)(6) expressly or implicitly 

requires that the EPA recalculate the 

MACT floor as part of the CAA section 

112(d)(6) review. The EPA’s 

interpretation on this point has been 

upheld by the D.C. Circuit. Nat’l Ass’n 

for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 

1, 7–9 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Ass’n of Battery 

Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F. 3d 667, 673 

(D.C. Cir. 2013); Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 

F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

Further, CAA section 112(d)(6) provides 

that the ‘‘developments’’ the EPA must 

take into account when conducting 

technology reviews are specifically 

‘‘developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies.’’ See 81 FR 

79066 (December 30, 2016) (describing 

the developments the EPA considers 

when conducting CAA section 112(d)(6) 

reviews). The EPA interprets the term 

‘‘developments’’ to include 

technological improvements that could 

result in significant additional emission 

reduction as well as wholly new 

methods of emission reduction. See, 

e.g., 75 FR 65083; see also Nat’l Ass’n 

Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 1, 11 

(D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding the EPA’s 

conclusion that developments include 

changes that indicate that a previously 

considered option for reducing 

emissions may now be cost-effective or 

technologically feasible and concluding 

that it is sufficient for the EPA ‘‘to 

assess and discuss the collective impact 

of the developments it has identified, 

and to revise standards appropriately in 

light thereof.’’). The EPA does not, 

however, interpret the term 

‘‘development’’ as used in CAA section 

112(d)(6) to include intervening case 

law. An intervening decision by a court 

regarding other CAA section 112 

requirements does not constitute a 

development in a practice, process or 

control technology. As such, the EPA 

has no obligation to consider 

intervening case law as a 

‘‘development’’ when identifying 

developments for purposes of the 

section 112(d)(6) review. 

Regarding the scope of the subpart 

MM technology review, the EPA 

acknowledges that standards for certain 

combinations of pollutants and 

processes in the subpart MM source 

category have not been promulgated 

according to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

(3). We agree that the EPA does not have 

any obligation to expand the scope of 

the existing standards under CAA 

section 112(d)(6), and we do not look to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for authority to 

set additional standards within a source 

category. The authority to set additional 

standards within a source category 

comes from CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

(3). Though the EPA has discretion to 

develop standards under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3) for previously 

unregulated pollutants at the same time 

as the Agency completes the CAA 

section 112(d)(6) review, nothing in 

CAA section 112(d)(6) expressly 

requires the EPA to do so as part of that 

review. The compressed schedule for 

this rulemaking, due to the courtordered deadline, did not make it 

reasonable to appropriately evaluate 

new standards for unregulated 

pollutants and processes. This issue is 

discussed further in the comment 

summary and response document that is 

available in the docket. The EPA is not 

taking any action at this time with 

respect to the unregulated pollutants or 

processes, though the EPA might choose 

to do so in the future after assembling 

the data and information needed to 

conduct the CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

(3) analyses. 

Continuous opacity monitoring. Based 

on our analysis of continuous opacity 

monitoring system (COMS) data for kraft 

and soda recovery furnaces and lime 

kilns equipped with ESPs 5 and our 

consideration of the costs and impacts 

of various opacity monitoring options 

for these sources,6 we stated at proposal 

that: 

• There had been a development in 

existing recovery furnace operating 

practices that supported reducing the 

existing source opacity limit from 35 

percent to 20 percent and revising the 

monitoring allowance for the 20 percent 

opacity limit from 6 percent to a 2 

percent monitoring allowance as part of 

the subpart MM technology review 

process; and 

• There had been a development in 

existing lime kiln operating practices 

that supported revising the monitoring 

allowance from 6 percent to a 1 percent 

monitoring allowance for opacity as part 

of the subpart MM technology review 

process. 

The estimated cost effectiveness of the 

proposed recovery furnace option, 

$36,800 per ton PM, was within the 

range of other recent EPA regulations. 

There was no cost-effectiveness value 

for the proposed lime kiln option 

because there were no estimated 

incremental HAP reductions (81 FR 

97072–73). 

Multiple commenters objected to the 

proposed changes to the opacity 

requirements for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns, questioning the cost 

effectiveness and stating that the 

technology review should not result in 

changing the opacity requirements. The 

commenters argued that the EPA’s 

assumption for ‘‘improving 

maintenance’’ to reduce the number of 

exceedances of the recovery furnace and 

lime kiln opacity limits was incorrect, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47336 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

7See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual 

Risk and Technology Review for Promulgation. 

8 Id. 

9See the memoranda in the docket titled, 

Addendum to the Review of the Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper ICR 

Responses for Subpart MM Sources, and Revised 

Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and 

Technology Review for Promulgation. 

10See the memorandum in the docket titled, 

Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual 

Risk and Technology Review for Promulgation. 

11 Id. 

and stated that facilities would incur 

emission unit shutdown (and resulting 

lost production) and potential capital 

costs in order to meet the reduced 

opacity limits and monitoring 

allowances. Commenters stated that 

facilities would need to make ESP 

upgrades to meet the proposed limits 

and they provided cost estimates for 

these upgrades, based on their 

experiences. In response to these 

comments, we conducted further 

analysis, based on the assumption that 

ESP upgrades (but not maintenance) 

would be needed to meet the proposed 

standard and revised the cost estimates 

considering the cost data provided.7 In 

this further analysis considering new 

information, we estimated costs that are 

significantly higher than what we 

estimated at proposal. For recovery 

furnaces, we estimated annual ESP 

upgrade costs of $21 million v. $8.7 

million at proposal; for lime kilns, we 

estimated annual ESP upgrade costs of 

$0.87 million v. $0.068 million at 

proposal. For PM, the surrogate for HAP 

metals, we estimated the cost 

effectiveness for recovery furnace ESP 

upgrades to increase from $36,800 to 

$91,400 per ton. For HAP metals 

specifically, the cost effectiveness 

exceeds $250 million per ton. 

Commenters also stated that 

examination of only 1 year of COMS 

data for 2009 from the 2011 pulp and 

paper ICR was not adequate to fully 

determine the impacts of the proposed 

change or to demonstrate that there has 

been a change in operating practice. 

Commenters further stated that the 

COMS data for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns that the EPA used in its 

analysis did not include periods of 

startup and shutdown in all instances, 

and that the EPA’s analysis of existing 

performance relative to the proposed 

opacity limits and monitoring 

allowances was, therefore, incomplete. 

The EPA acknowledges that 2009 data 

may not be representative of current 

operation, as suggested by the 

commenters, and that the number of 

startup and shutdown events likely vary 

from year to year. Considering this 

information and the analyses performed 

for the final action,8 we are not 

finalizing the recovery furnace and lime 

kiln opacity requirements as proposed. 

Instead, we are finalizing an opacity 

limit of 35 percent for existing recovery 

furnaces, with a corrective action level 

of 20 percent and a 2 percent 

monitoring allowance. A 2 percent 

monitoring allowance reflects 

improvements in operating practices 

from the previous 6 percent allowance, 

but allows sufficient flexibility for 

periods of startup and shutdown. We 

are finalizing, as proposed, an opacity 

limit of 20 percent for new recovery 

furnaces, with a corrective action level 

of 20 percent and a 2 percent 

monitoring allowance. For lime kilns, 

we are finalizing an opacity limit of 20 

percent, with a 3 percent monitoring 

allowance. A 3 percent monitoring 

allowance reflects improvements in 

operating practices from the previous 6 

percent allowance, but allows sufficient 

flexibility for periods of startup and 

shutdown as compared to the proposed 

1 percent allowance. Our review of 

available COMS data indicates that all 

recovery furnaces and lime kilns 

equipped with ESPs can meet these 

limits, so we do not expect any costs 

associated with these requirements, 

which addresses commenters’ concerns 

about the cost of the proposed opacity 

options.9

ESP parameter monitoring. We 

proposed an ESP parameter monitoring 

requirement for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns equipped with ESPs. We 

proposed that these sources monitor the 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current (or, alternatively, total 

secondary power) of each ESP collection 

field. These proposed ESP parameter 

monitoring requirements were in 

addition to opacity monitoring for 

recovery furnaces equipped with ESPs 

alone. The purpose of this proposed 

requirement was to provide an 

additional indicator of ESP performance 

and enable affected sources to show 

continuous compliance with the HAP 

metal standards (surrogate PM emission 

limits) at all times, including periods 

when the opacity monitoring allowance 

is used (81 FR 97073). For example, 

these requirements were proposed to 

provide an indicator that the ESP was 

efficiently operated and properly 

maintained for the duration of the 

semiannual reporting period, including 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

At the time of the proposed rule, we 

estimated that the nationwide costs 

associated with adding the proposed 

ESP parameter monitoring requirements 

would be $5.7 million capital and $1.4 

million annualized for ESP parameter 

monitors, and that all mills with ESPcontrolled recovery furnaces and lime 

kilns would be impacted (81 FR 97073). 

Multiple commenters stated that the 

ESP total power monitoring provisions 

should be removed or revised. Instead of 

adding an additional monitoring 

requirement that they believed would be 

burdensome and duplicative of the 

opacity monitoring already being 

conducted, commenters suggested that 

the EPA should instead require proper 

operation of the ESP’s AVC or power 

management system, which would 

achieve the same goal of ensuring the 

ESP performance. Commenters provided 

information suggesting that we 

underestimated the ESP parameter 

monitoring costs, specifically that EPA 

incorrectly assumed that all ESPs were 

equipped with the ability to record the 

parameters. Based on our review of this 

cost information, we conducted a 

reanalysis and estimated revised costs of 

$16 million in capital costs and $4 

million in annualized costs associated 

with adding ESP parameter monitoring 

for existing sources.10

Given that the intent of the proposed 

additional ESP monitoring was to 

ensure efficient operation and proper 

maintenance of the ESP, see 81 FR 

97073 (December 30, 2016), and that 

commenters suggested that the use of 

the AVC ensures efficient operation and 

notifies operators of issues requiring 

maintenance, and that the costs were 

significantly higher than EPA estimated 

at proposal, we are not finalizing the 

proposed ESP parameter monitoring 

requirements. The EPA is instead 

finalizing a requirement for recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns equipped with 

ESPs to maintain proper operation of 

the ESP’s AVC. This requirement 

applies at all times, including times 

when the opacity monitoring allowance 

is used. Because existing ESPs already 

have AVC, there is no need to estimate 

equipment cost. We have only estimated 

recordkeeping costs for this 

requirement.11 The final rule also 

clarifies that the requirement to 

maintain proper operation of the ESP’s 

AVC does not apply to recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns subject to the 40 

CFR part 60, subpart BBa New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for Kraft 

Pulp Mills, because the NSPS requires 

ESP parameter monitoring for these 

units. 

Monitoring of ESPs followed by wet 

scrubbers. Because moisture in wet 

stacks interferes with opacity readings, 

opacity is not a suitable monitoring 

requirement for recovery furnaces or 

lime kilns with wet scrubber stacks. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47337 

Therefore, we proposed to require ESP 

and wet scrubber parameter monitoring 

for emission units equipped with an 

ESP followed by a wet scrubber. The 

ESP parameters proposed to be 

monitored were secondary voltage and 

secondary current (or, alternatively, 

total secondary power), and the wet 

scrubber parameters were pressure drop 

and scrubber liquid flow rate (81 FR 

97073–74). As noted in the previous 

paragraph, for the final rule, we are 

replacing the proposed ESP parameter 

monitoring requirement with a 

requirement to maintain proper 

operation of the ESP’s AVC based on 

public comment, except for recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns subject to the 

subpart BBa NSPS, because ESP 

parameter monitoring is already 

required for these units. We are 

finalizing the rest of these monitoring 

requirements as proposed. 

Wet scrubber parameter monitoring. 

Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63 specifies 

monitoring of scrubber liquid flow rate 

and pressure drop for kraft and soda 

SDTs and sulfite combustion units 

equipped with wet scrubbers. Facilities 

may have difficulty meeting the 

minimum pressure drop requirement 

during startup and shutdown, as 

expected due to the reduced (and 

changing) volumetric flow of stack gases 

during these periods. We proposed 

revising the monitoring requirements to 

address startup and shutdown periods 

when certain parameters could be 

difficult to achieve. Specifically, we 

proposed to consider only scrubber 

liquid flow rate during these periods 

(i.e., excess emissions would include 

any 3-hour period when black liquor 

solids (BLS) are fired that the scrubber 

flow rate does not meet the minimum 

parameter limits set in the initial 

performance test). Based on previous 

alternative monitoring requests for 

SDTs, we also proposed to allow 

operators to use SDT scrubber fan 

amperage as an alternative to pressure 

drop measurement for SDT dynamic 

scrubbers operating at ambient pressure 

or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers 

on SDTs where the fan speed does not 

vary (81 FR 97074–75). We received no 

public comments on the proposed 

changes in wet scrubber parameter 

monitoring and, therefore, are finalizing 

these monitoring requirements as 

proposed. 

C. Changes to SSM Provisions 

We received several comments on our 

proposal to remove exemptions for SSM 

events. See the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741) for public 

comments and our responses relating to 

our proposal to remove the SSM 

exemption from 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM. An overview of our rationale for 

removing this exemption is provided 

below. 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We have eliminated the SSM 

exemption in this rule. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has 

established standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. We have also revised 

Table 1 (the General Provisions 

applicability table) in several respects as 

is explained in more detail below. For 

example, we have eliminated the 

incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop an 

SSM plan. We have also eliminated and 

revised certain recordkeeping and 

reporting that is related to the SSM 

exemption as described in detail in the 

proposed rule and summarized again 

here. 

In establishing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, has not 

established alternate emissions 

standards for those periods. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 

(definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards and this reading has been 

upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit 

in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 

579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA 

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 CAA 

section 112 that directs the Agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing sources when setting 

emissions standards. As the D.C. Circuit 

has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be 

treated in the same manner as the type 

of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A 

malfunction is a failure of the source to 

perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ 

and no statutory language compels the 

EPA to consider such events in setting 

CAA section 112 standards. 

As the D.C. Circuit recognized in U.S. 

Sugar Corp., accounting for 

malfunctions in setting emissions 

standards 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. 

Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to 

conceive of a standard that could apply 

equally to the wide range of possible 

boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 

explosion to minor mechanical defects. 

Any possible standard is likely to be 

hopelessly generic to govern such a 

wide array of circumstances.’’) 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 datagathering 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,’ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47338 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99 percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device 

was repaired. The source’s emissions 

during the malfunction would be 100 

times higher than during normal 

operations. As such, the emissions over 

a 4-day malfunction period would 

exceed the annual emissions of the 

source during normal operations. As 

this example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 

to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA 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 excess 

emissions. 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). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emissions 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 

112 is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 

F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). 

40 CFR 63.860(d) General duty. We 

are revising the General Provisions table 

(Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a 

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the 

general duty to minimize emissions. 

Some of the language in that section is 

no longer necessary or appropriate in 

light of the elimination of the SSM 

exemption. We are instead adding 

general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 

63.860(d) that reflects the general duty 

to minimize emissions while 

eliminating the reference to periods 

covered by an SSM exemption. The 

current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

characterizes what the general duty 

entails during periods of SSM. With the 

elimination of the SSM exemption, 

there is no need to differentiate between 

normal operations, startup and 

shutdown, and malfunction events in 

describing the general duty. Therefore, 

the language the EPA is promulgating 

for 40 CFR 63.860(d) does not include 

that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). 

We are also revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) to add an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and 

include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 

are not necessary with the elimination 

of the SSM exemption or are redundant 

with the general duty requirement being 

added at 40 CFR 63.860(d). 

SSM plan. We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) to add an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include 

a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Generally, these 

paragraphs require development of an 

SSM plan and specify SSM 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM plan. 

As noted, the EPA is removing the SSM 

exemptions. Therefore, affected units 

will be subject to an emissions standard 

during such events. The applicability of 

a standard during such events will 

ensure that sources have ample 

incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance and, thus, the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

Compliance with standards. We are 

revising the General Provisions table 

(Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by redesignating this section as 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and including a ‘‘no’’ in 

column 3. The current language of 40 

CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from 

non-opacity standards during periods of 

SSM. As discussed above, the Court in 

Sierra Club vacated the exemptions 

contained in this provision and held 

that the CAA requires that some CAA 

section 112 standard apply 

continuously. Consistent with Sierra 

Club, the EPA is revising standards in 

this rule to apply at all times. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) entry for 40 

CFR 63.6(h) by re-designating this 

section as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The 

current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) 

exempts sources from opacity standards 

during periods of SSM. As discussed 

above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 

the exemptions contained in this 

provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some CAA section 112 

standard apply continuously. Consistent 

with Sierra Club, the EPA is revising 

standards in this rule to apply at all 

times. 

40 CFR 63.865 Performance test 

requirements and test methods. We are 

revising the General Provisions table 

(Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 

63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 

requirements. The EPA is instead 

adding a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.865. The 

performance testing requirements we 

are adding differ from the General 

Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 

restated the SSM exemption and 

language that precluded startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. The 

revised performance testing provisions 

require testing under representative 

operating conditions, excluding periods 

of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted 

under this subpart should not be 

conducted during malfunctions because 

conditions during malfunctions are 

often not representative of normal 

operating conditions. The EPA is adding 

language that requires the owner or 

operator to record the process 

information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner 

or operator make available records ‘‘as 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47339 

may be necessary to determine the 

condition of the performance test’’ to 

the Administrator upon request, but 

does not specifically require the 

information to be recorded. The 

regulatory text the EPA is adding to this 

provision builds on that requirement 

and makes explicit the requirement to 

record the information. 

40 CFR 63.864 Monitoring 

requirements. We are revising the 

General Provisions table (Table 1) by redesignating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1), adding entries for 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii) and including 

‘‘no’’ in column 3 for paragraphs (i) and 

(iii). The cross-references to the general 

duty and SSM plan requirements in 

those subparagraphs are not necessary 

in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 

63.8 that require good air pollution 

control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and 

that set out the requirements of a quality 

control program for monitoring 

equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The final 

sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to 

the General Provisions’ SSM plan 

requirement which is no longer 

applicable. The EPA is adding to the 

rule at 40 CFR 63.864(f) text that is 

identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except 

that the final sentence is replaced with 

the following sentence: ‘‘The program of 

corrective action should be included in 

the plan required under 40 CFR 

63.8(d)(2).’’ 

40 CFR 63.866 Recordkeeping 

requirements. We are revising the 

General Provisions table (Table 1) by 

adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) 

and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. 

Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA is promulgating that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations applies to startup 

and shutdown. In the absence of special 

provisions applicable to startup and 

shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during a 

malfunction. The EPA is adding such 

requirements to 40 CFR 63.866(d). The 

regulatory text we are adding differs 

from the General Provisions it is 

replacing in that the General Provisions 

requires the creation and retention of a 

record of the occurrence and duration of 

each malfunction of process, air 

pollution control, and monitoring 

equipment. The EPA is applying the 

requirement to any failure to meet an 

applicable standard and is requiring that 

the source record the date, time, and 

duration of the failure rather than the 

‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also adding to 

40 CFR 63.866(d) a requirement that 

sources keep records that include a list 

of the affected source or equipment and 

actions taken to minimize emissions, an 

estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit the source failed to meet, 

and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. Examples of 

such methods could include mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available, or engineering 

judgment based on known process 

parameters. The EPA is requiring that 

sources keep records of this information 

to ensure that there is adequate 

information to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of any failure to 

meet a standard, and to provide data 

that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

when the source has failed to meet an 

applicable standard. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. When 

applicable, the provision requires 

sources to record actions taken during 

SSM events when actions were 

inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 

requirement is no longer appropriate 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required. The requirement previously 

applicable under 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to 

minimize emissions and record 

corrective actions is now applicable by 

reference to 40 CFR 63.866(d). 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. When 

applicable, the provision requires 

sources to record actions taken during 

SSM events to show that actions taken 

were consistent with their SSM plan. 

The requirement is no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The EPA 

is promulgating that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) 

no longer applies. When applicable, the 

provision allows an owner or operator 

to use the affected source’s SSM plan or 

records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements of the SSM plan, specified 

in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 

through (12). The EPA is eliminating 

this requirement because SSM plans 

will no longer be required, and, 

therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 

serves any useful purpose for affected 

units. 

40 CFR 63.867 Reporting 

requirements. We are revising the 

General Provisions table (Table 1) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by re-designating 

it as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing 

the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the periodic 

reporting requirements for startups, 

shutdowns, and malfunctions. To 

replace the General Provisions reporting 

requirement, the EPA is adding 

reporting requirements to 40 CFR 

63.867(c). The replacement language 

differs from the General Provisions 

requirement in that it eliminates 

periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone 

report. We are promulgating language 

that requires sources that fail to meet an 

applicable standard at any time to report 

the information concerning such events 

in the semiannual report already 

required under this rule. We are 

promulgating that the report must 

contain the number, date, time, 

duration, and the cause of such events 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), a list of the affected source 

or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

We will no longer require owners or 

operators to determine whether actions 

taken to correct a malfunction are 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans will no longer be required. The 

final amendments, therefore, eliminate 

the cross reference to 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the 

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Table 1) to add an 

entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and 

include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 

report for startups, shutdown, and 

malfunctions when a source failed to 

meet an applicable standard, but did not 

follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 

require owners and operators to report 

when actions taken during a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction were not 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47340 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

12 Id. 13 Id. 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans will no longer be required. 

D. Emissions Testing 

Periodic testing. As part of an ongoing 

effort to improve compliance with 

various federal air emission regulations, 

we reviewed the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM emissions testing and monitoring 

requirements and proposed to require 

periodic emissions testing every 5 years. 

We proposed that the first of the 

periodic performance tests be conducted 

within 3 years of the effective date of 

the revised standards and, thereafter, 

before the facilities renew their 40 CFR 

part 70 operating permits, but no longer 

than 5 years following the previous 

performance test. The proposal required 

periodic filterable PM testing for 

existing and new kraft and soda 

recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns 

and sulfite combustion units; periodic 

methanol testing for new kraft and soda 

recovery furnaces; and periodic total 

hydrocarbon (THC) testing for existing 

and new semichemical combustion 

units (81 FR 97078). 

Multiple commenters expressed 

concern about the proposed requirement 

for facilities to conduct periodic tests 

‘‘before renewing their 40 CFR part 70 

operating permit,’’ arguing that the 

phrase was confusing and unnecessary, 

and they recommended that the 

wording linking periodic testing to 

permit renewal should be struck. We 

have reviewed these comments and 

agree that tying the timing for periodic 

testing to title V permit renewal could 

be considered confusing and could 

unnecessarily complicate the rule. 

Therefore, we are finalizing (as 

proposed) the requirement to conduct 

the first of the periodic tests within 3 

years of the effective date of the revised 

standards and, thereafter, no longer than 

5 years following the previous test, 

without reference to permit renewal. For 

more information, see the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741).12

Test conditions. We also proposed to 

revise the performance test 

requirements to specify that 

‘‘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’’ (81 FR 97081). 

The proposed rule language was 

included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM 

as a replacement for similar language in 

40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that is no longer 

entirely applicable because it stated that 

periods of SSM would not be 

considered a violation. 

A commenter objected to the 

proposed language, stating that, 

depending on what ‘‘conditions’’ the 

Administrator specifies, it may be 

impossible to conduct performance 

testing in the time frame required, while 

simultaneously meeting all the 

conditions the Administrator or their 

designee may specify. The commenter 

suggested that the rule should simply 

require that performance tests be 

conducted under normal operating 

conditions. We agree that the proposed 

rule language needs clarification and 

have revised the language for the final 

rule to refer to ‘‘normal operating 

conditions’’ and eliminate the phrase 

‘‘such conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator.’’ 

E. CPMS Operating Limits 

We proposed specific changes 

regarding the establishment and 

enforcement of CPMS operating limits. 

A discussion of the proposed changes, 

the public comments received, and the 

changes made for promulgation is 

provided in the following paragraphs 

and presented in greater detail in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0741).13

Procedures for establishing operating 

limits. We proposed procedures for 

establishing operating limits based on 

data recorded by CPMS. The 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart MM emissions 

standards include numerical emission 

limits, with compliance demonstrated 

through the proposed periodic 

performance tests, and operating limits 

(e.g., opacity limits or continuously 

monitored parameter limits) used to 

demonstrate ongoing compliance in 

between performance tests. The original 

subpart MM regulatory text referred 

extensively to operating parameter 

ranges and is not as specific as more 

recent NESHAPs in specifying how 

operating limits are to be determined. 

Therefore, we proposed language to 

clarify the procedures for establishing 

parameter limits, beginning with the 

first periodic performance test proposed 

to be required under 40 CFR 63.865. We 

proposed that the operating limits be 

established as the average of the 

parameter values associated with each 

performance test run in 40 CFR 

63.864(j). Wet scrubbers and RTOs have 

minimum operating limits, such that the 

EPA would consider 3-hour average 

values below the minimum operating 

limit to be a monitoring exceedance to 

be reported under 40 CFR 63.867(c) (81 

FR 97078–79). 

Multiple commenters objected to the 

proposed provisions in 40 CFR 63.864(j) 

that specify how operating parameter 

limits are established. The commenters 

argued that use of the test average 

conflicts with the language in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart MM that allows the 

operating parameter limits to be 

expanded based on additional test data 

and limits the flexibility facilities need 

to establish an operating limit that 

allows for the full range of process 

operation. Commenters argued that the 

proposed methodology also conflicts 

with recent MACT rules such as the 

Boiler MACT rule (subpart DDDDD) that 

allows use of the lowest or highest 

individual test run to be used. 

Commenters concluded that flexibility 

in use of the hourly average value 

obtained during a test run and not the 

test average is important to establishing 

operating parameter limits that allow for 

a compliance demonstration at 

operating conditions below full load. 

Commenters stated that the ability to 

confirm the established operating limit 

during subsequent testing is another 

important element of flexibility needed 

in subpart MM. Commenters also 

recommended that subpart MM should 

allow operating parameter limits to be 

adjusted to a level that is 90 percent of 

the value during the test to allow for 

operational flexibility. 

In response to these comments, we 

have revised the rule from proposal to 

allow minimum operating parameter 

limits to be established based on the 

lowest 1-hour average value recorded 

during a performance test that 

demonstrates compliance. We have also 

revised the rule from proposal to allow 

facilities to confirm the established 

operating limits during subsequent 

testing instead of requiring the operating 

limits to be reestablished during each 

repeat test. With these added 

flexibilities, in addition to provisions 

included in 40 CFR 63.864(k) that 

specify corrective actions before an 

operating parameter violation is 

incurred, we did not include the 

commenter’s suggested 90 percent 

adjustment for minimum operating 

parameter limits. Facilities may 

establish a range of parameter values by 

conducting multiple performance tests. 

Exceedances of operating limits. We 

proposed to eliminate the language in 

40 CFR 63.864(k)(3) providing that no 

more than one non-opacity monitoring 

exceedance will be attributed in any 24- 

hour period (81 FR 97079). Multiple 

commenters argued that the EPA should 

not delete 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3), noting 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47341 

14 Id. 

that facilities may experience 

consecutive 3-hour periods where 

operating parameter values (e.g., 

concurrent scrubber flow and pressure 

drop) are out of range as part of the 

same event, despite a facility’s best 

efforts to take corrective action as soon 

as possible. With the removal of the 24- 

hour defined period, commenters 

indicated it is unclear how to count 

concurrent parameter events for the 

purposes of determining a 

noncompliance count. Commenters also 

noted that 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM 

does not currently specify that the 3- 

hour wet scrubber continuous 

monitoring systems (CMS) are averaged 

over 3-hour blocks or 3-hour rolling 

periods and that states have not been 

consistent in applying this averaging 

period, so a facility with a 3-hour rolling 

average would consume the five 

allowed 3-hour averages in as little as 7 

hours. 

In response to these comments, we are 

not taking any final action to eliminate 

or in any way revise 40 CFR 

63.864(k)(3). We recognize that one 

event could trigger multiple 3-hour 

exceedances in a 24-hour period, 

especially for facilities using a 3-hour 

rolling average. As originally 

promulgated, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM did not specify whether 3-hours 

averages were to be reduced to 3-hour 

block or 3-hour rolling averages. As a 

result, commenters brought to our 

attention that some facilities are 

currently using block averages, while 

others are using rolling averages. 

Keeping in place the current provision 

in 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3) that no more 

than one exceedance will be attributed 

in any given 24-hour period avoids 

creating a difference in the compliance 

obligation between the two monitoring 

approaches. 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

We proposed specific changes to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Major public comments 

on the proposed amendments to these 

requirements and the EPA’s responses 

are discussed in the paragraphs below 

and presented in greater detail in the 

comment summary and response 

document, available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0741).14

Reporting frequency and electronic 

reporting. As originally promulgated, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart MM requires that 

owners and operators of facilities 

submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for monitoring exceedances and 

periods of noncompliance and 

semiannual reports when no excess 

emissions have occurred during the 

reporting period. These excess emission 

reports are typically submitted as a hard 

copy to the delegated authority, and 

reports in this form usually are not 

readily available for the EPA and the 

public to analyze. We proposed that 

semiannual electronic reporting would 

provide ample data to assess a facility’s 

performance with regard to the 

emissions standards in subpart MM. We 

proposed that all excess emissions 

reports be submitted on a semiannual 

basis in conjunction with requiring 

electronic reporting as discussed below 

(81 FR 97079). We received public 

comments supporting the reduction in 

reporting frequency and no comments 

disagreeing with this change. Therefore, 

we are finalizing this provision as 

proposed. 

We proposed that owners and 

operators of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM facilities submit performance test 

reports, semiannual reports, and 

notifications through CEDRI. The EPA 

believes that the electronic submittal of 

these reports will increase the 

usefulness of the data contained in the 

reports, is consistent with current trends 

in data availability, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, and will ultimately result 

in less burden on the regulated 

community (81 FR 97079). 

Multiple commenters stated that the 

EPA’s proposed new electronic 

reporting requirement in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart MM will be excessively 

burdensome to industry and is not 

justified. We disagree with these 

comments. Based on the analysis 

performed for the proposed Electronic 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for the New Source 

Performance Standards (i.e., the NSPS 

electronic reporting rule) (80 FR 15100), 

electronic reporting results in an overall 

cost savings to industry when 

annualized over a 20-year period, 

although there are some initial costs in 

the short term (80 FR 15111). The cost 

savings is achieved through means such 

as standardization of data, embedded 

quality assurance (QA) checks, 

automatic calculation routines, and 

reduced data entry through the ability to 

reuse data in files instead of starting 

anew with each report. As outlined in 

the NSPS electronic reporting rule, there 

are many benefits to electronic reporting 

spanning all users of the data—the EPA, 

state and local regulators, the regulated 

entities, and the public. In the preamble 

to this proposed rule (81 FR 97079–80), 

we provided a number of reasons why 

the electronic reporting required by the 

amendments will provide benefits going 

forward and that most of the benefits we 

outlined were longer-term benefits (e.g., 

eliminating ‘‘paper-based, manual 

processes, thereby saving time and 

resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the 

public.’’). For these reasons, we are 

finalizing the requirement to 

electronically report test results through 

CEDRI using the Electronic Reporting 

Tool (ERT). 

One commenter noted that the EPA’s 

ERT, which is used to generate the test 

data files uploaded to the EPA’s CDX 

through CEDRI, continues to be revised 

and updated due to various flaws. The 

commenter argued that it is 

unreasonable to put sources at risk of 

violations (due to late or inaccurate 

reporting) because of EPA reporting tool 

issues or availability. At a minimum, 

the commenter suggested that the 

requirement to use a particular CEDRI 

form should stipulate that the form has 

been available for 1 year, per the 

recently signed final, but not published 

NSPS electronic reporting rule. 

According to the commenter, that rule 

also provides for a reporting extension 

in the event of an outage of the EPA’s 

CDX or CEDRI the week prior to a 

report’s due date. The commenter 

suggested that this same allowance 

should be provided in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MM if the electronic reporting 

requirement is finalized. 

We agree that it is unreasonable to put 

sources at risk of violations because of 

EPA reporting tool issues or availability. 

Based on commenter input and our 

consideration of the tasks that facilities 

must conduct prior to initial 

compliance, we have determined 1 year 

from the posting of the reporting form 

(i.e., a spreadsheet template) on the 

CEDRI Web site will provide for a more 

efficient transition to electronic 

reporting of semiannual reports. For 

these reports, the initial compliance 

date for electronic reporting will be 1 

year from the date the form is posted on 

the CEDRI Web site. We have also added 

language to the final rule to provide 

facilities with the ability to seek 

electronic reporting extensions for 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the 

CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure 

event in the time just prior to a report’s 

due date. If either the CDX or CEDRI is 

unavailable at any time beginning 5 

business days prior to the date that the 

submission is due, and the 

unavailability prevents the submission 

of a report by the required date, a 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47342 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

15 Id. 

facility may assert a claim of EPA 

system outage. We consider 5 business 

days prior to the reporting deadline to 

be an appropriate timeframe because if 

the system is down prior to this time, 

facilities will have 1 week to complete 

reporting once the system is back 

online. We will provide notification of 

known outages as far in advance as 

possible by the EPA’s Clearinghouse for 

Inventories and Emissions Factors 

(CHIEF) Listserv notice, posting on the 

CEDRI Web site and posting on the CDX 

Web site to enable facilities to plan 

accordingly. However, if a planned or 

unplanned outage occurs and a facility 

believes that it will affect or it has 

affected compliance with an electronic 

reporting requirement, we have 

provided a process to assert such a 

claim. A force majeure event is an event 

that will be or has been caused by 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

affected facility, its contractors, or any 

entity controlled by the affected facility 

that prevents you from complying with 

the requirement to submit a report 

electronically as required by this rule. 

Examples of such events are acts of 

nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 

equipment failure or safety hazards 

beyond the control of the facility. If 

such an event occurs or is still occurring 

or if there are still lingering effects of 

the event in the 5 business days prior to 

a submission deadline, we have 

provided a process to assert a claim of 

force majeure. In both circumstances, 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible once the situation has been 

resolved. We are providing these 

potential extensions to protect facilities 

from noncompliance in cases when a 

facility cannot successfully submit a 

report by the reporting deadline for 

reasons outside of its control, as 

described above. We are not providing 

an extension for other instances. You 

should register for CEDRI far in advance 

of the initial compliance date, in order 

to make sure that you can complete the 

identity proofing process prior to the 

initial compliance date. Additionally, 

we recommend you start developing 

reports early, in case any questions arise 

during the reporting process. 

While we do agree that more time is 

necessary to comply with electronic 

reporting requirements for semiannual 

reports, we do not agree that more time 

is necessary to comply with electronic 

reporting requirements for performance 

test reports and performance evaluation 

reports, which are uploads of ERT files. 

The allotted 60 days should be ample 

time to determine whether reports using 

the ERT need to be uploaded to the CDX 

through CEDRI. We also disagree that 

the ERT continues to be revised and 

updated due to various flaws. We 

acknowledge that, in early versions of 

the ERT, there were some issues, 

particularly related to rounding results. 

However, we have diligently worked to 

address issues as they have been 

brought to our attention. We have also 

added many improvements to the ERT 

based on feedback from users. We are 

finalizing the requirement to submit 

reports electronically to the EPA 

through CEDRI. 

If the requirement for using CEDRI for 

electronic reporting remains in the final 

rule, commenters stated they would 

prefer filling and uploading the 

spreadsheet to fulfill the reporting 

requirements rather than entering the 

required information into a fillable 

CEDRI web form and increasing the 

chances of transcription errors, if they 

must choose between approaches. 

However, the commenters indicated 

their ultimate preference would be for 

facilities to upload their own alreadyformatted reports generated from their 

DAS, rather than reformatting the 

current information to fit the EPA’s 

reporting form. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

support for the use of the spreadsheet 

style form for fulfilling reporting 

requirements. We intend to solely use 

the spreadsheet-style form for this rule 

in lieu of a fillable web form or 

extensible markup language (XML) 

submittal. Commenters provided a 

variety of detailed comments on the 

semiannual compliance reporting 

spreadsheet for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM, which have resulted in a number 

of changes to the spreadsheet reporting 

form (template) for the final rule. For 

more information, see the comment 

summary and response document, 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741).15 We have also placed a copy of 

the revised electronic reporting 

spreadsheet template incorporating 

public comments in the docket. The 

spreadsheet template includes tabs for 

excess emissions summary reports and 

excess emissions detailed reports (if 

required). We are not allowing free-form 

excess emissions summary reports 

because this does not allow for efficient 

electronic compilation of the 

information reported, a key benefit of 

electronic reporting. The final rule 

requires use of the excess emissions 

summary report tabs in the spreadsheet 

template for each semiannual report. 

However, when detailed reporting is 

required (e.g., due to the number of 

operating limit exceedances or monitor 

downtime), facilities would be allowed 

to submit detailed reports in either the 

spreadsheet template format provided or 

in an alternative format specifying the 

required details (e.g., as a separate file 

upload into CEDRI) given the length of 

detailed reports. Allowing a file upload 

of detailed reports in an alternate format 

allows facilities to provide data 

generated from their DAS. 

As another burden-reducing measure, 

we have reduced the number of 

notifications proposed to be uploaded 

into CEDRI. As proposed, an electronic 

copy of all notifications required under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart MM would have 

been required to be uploaded into 

CEDRI. Subpart MM requires numerous 

notifications listed in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), as specified in Table 1 of 

subpart MM. For example, facilities are 

required to notify their delegated 

authority prior to conducting or 

rescheduling performance tests, as well 

as in the event of a CMS performance 

evaluation. Considering comments on 

electronic reporting in general, and after 

reviewing the number of notifications, 

we revised the final rule to only require 

upload of initial notifications required 

in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of 

compliance status required in 40 CFR 

63.9(h), and the report of PM emission 

limits required in 40 CFR 63.867(b) to 

be included in a notification of 

compliance status. This change focuses 

CEDRI-reporting of notifications for 

subpart MM on key (non-routine) 

notifications that will be the most 

informative in conjunction with 

electronically submitted emissions test 

reports and semiannual reports. Any of 

these notifications required after 2 years 

following the effective date of the final 

rule would be required to be uploaded 

into CEDRI in a user-specified file 

format. No specific form is being 

designed for subpart MM notifications 

at this time. 

Excess emissions recordkeeping and 

reporting. We proposed specifying in 40 

CFR 63.867(c)(1) and (3) the reporting 

requirements from the NESHAP General 

Provisions for the excess emissions and 

summary reports. We believed that 

specifying the General Provision 

reporting requirements for the proposed 

semiannual reports in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MM would help eliminate 

confusion as to which report is 

submitted (e.g., full excess emissions 

report or summary report) and the 

content of the required report (81 FR 

97080). 

The EPA’s intent with the proposed 

revisions to 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1) and (3) 

was to include the relevant language 

from 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of the General 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47343 

Provisions specifying the contents of 

summary and detailed excess emissions 

reports into 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM 

to improve clarity. However, we 

received public comments indicating 

that duplicating the relevant portions of 

40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) as proposed may 

have caused some confusion. To remedy 

this confusion, we are splitting out the 

paragraphs of 40 CFR 63.10(e) and 

63.10(e)(3) in the General Provisions 

applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart 

MM of Part 63) to more clearly indicate 

which sections apply or are replaced by 

sections in subpart MM. We are 

finalizing a revised version of 40 CFR 

63.867(c)(1) that removes the proposed 

references to paragraphs in 40 CFR 

63.10(e)(3), replaced by 40 CFR 

63.867(c)(1). We are also noting in Table 

1 that 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1) and (3) 

specify the contents of the summary and 

detailed excess emissions reports. We 

are finalizing a revised version of 

§ 63.867(c) that refers to the procedures 

in 40 CFR 63.867(d)(2) and 40 CFR 

63.10(e)(3)(v) for submittal of the 

semiannual excess emission reports and 

summary reports. 

Section 63.10(e)(3)(v) continues to 

apply and is not being replaced with 

language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM. This section specifies the delivery 

date for the report (i.e., post-marked by 

the 30th business day following each 

calendar half) and general content for 

the report. The final rule now relies on 

40 CFR 63.10(e)(3)(v) for the 

requirement: ‘‘When no excess 

emissions or exceedances of a parameter 

have occurred, or a CMS has not been 

inoperative, out of control, repaired, or 

adjusted, such information shall be 

stated in the report.’’ 

In addition, we are not finalizing the 

proposed requirement in 40 CFR 

63.867(c)(3)(iii)(A)(2) to include in the 

detailed excess emissions report the 

number of 6-minute opacity averages 

removed due to invalid readings, to 

address a comment that including this 

provision could imply that invalid 

opacity averages are periods of excess 

emissions. The CMS performance 

summary portion of the summary and 

detail reports provide sufficient 

information on the duration of invalid 

readings. 

We proposed to revise the 

recordkeeping requirements section in 

40 CFR 63.866(d)(2) to require that 

sources record information on failures 

to meet the applicable standard (81 FR 

97081). We further proposed in 40 CFR 

63.867(c)(4) to require reporting of this 

information in the excess emissions 

report along with an estimate of 

emissions associated with the failure. 

Multiple commenters objected to the 

proposed requirement that would have 

required an emissions estimate in 

association with opacity or parameter 

operating limits. The commenters 

argued that attempting to quantify 

emissions that may theoretically result 

from a violation of monitoring 

requirements would be extremely 

burdensome, impracticable, and would 

result in over-reporting and inaccurate 

emissions estimates. The commenters 

stated that, with a large margin of 

compliance, a monitoring violation may 

not actually result in emissions in 

excess of the applicable emission limit. 

They recommended that this proposed 

language be revised. 

In response to this comment, we have 

revised the language in the final 

rulemaking to require emissions 

estimates to be provided in the 

semiannual report only for failures to 

meet ‘‘emission limits,’’ such as the PM 

(HAP metal), methanol, or THC limits 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM. Failures to meet emission limits 

are likely to be discovered during 

periodic emissions tests, which provide 

a quantitative means for estimating 

emissions. Failures also include 

violations of opacity and parameter 

operating limits as specified in 

§ 63.864(k)(2), which are required to be 

reported with the corresponding 

number of failures, and the date, time, 

and duration of each failure in the 

semiannual report. The final rule does 

not require reporting of an emissions 

estimate associated with failure to meet 

an opacity or parameter operating limit, 

but does require facilities to maintain 

sufficient information to provide an 

emissions estimate if such an estimate 

was requested by the Administrator. 

G. Technical and Editorial Changes 

The EPA is finalizing as proposed (81 

FR 97081) several technical and 

editorial corrections on which we 

received no public comments, 

including: 

• Revisions throughout 40 CFR part 

63, subpart MM to clarify the location 

in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test 

methods; 

• Revisions throughout 40 CFR part 

63, subpart MM to update the facility 

name for Cosmo Specialty Fibers; 

• Revisions to the definitions section 

in 40 CFR 63.861 to: 

Æ Remove the definition for ‘‘black 

liquor gasification’’ and remove 

reference to black liquor gasification in 

the definitions for ‘‘kraft recovery 

furnace,’’ ‘‘recovery furnace,’’ 

‘‘semichemical combustion unit,’’ and 

‘‘soda recovery furnace’’; 

Æ Remove the SSM exemption from 

the definition for ‘‘modification’’; 

Æ Clarify that the definition for 

‘‘particulate matter (PM)’’ refers to 

filterable PM; 

Æ Remove reference to use of one-half 

of the method detection limit for nondetect Method 29 measurements within 

the definition of ‘‘hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) metals’’; 

Æ Change the definition for ‘‘smelt 

dissolving tanks (SDT)’’ to refer to the 

singular ‘‘smelt dissolving tank (SDT)’’ 

to be consistent with the use of the term 

in the rule; and 

Æ Remove the definition for ‘‘startup’’ 

that pertains to the former black liquor 

gasification system at Georgia-Pacific’s 

facility in Big Island, Virginia. 

• Correction of a misspelling in 40 

CFR 63.862(c). 

• Revisions to multiple sections (40 

CFR 63.863, 63.866, and 63.867) to 

remove reference to the former smelters 

and former black liquor gasification 

system at Georgia-Pacific’s facility in 

Big Island, Virginia. 

• Revisions to the monitoring 

requirements section in 40 CFR 63.864 

to add reference to Performance 

Specification 1 (PS–1) in COMS 

monitoring provisions and add 

incorporation by reference (IBR) for bag 

leak detection systems. 

• Revisions to the performance test 

requirements section in 40 CFR 63.865 

to change the ambient oxygen 

concentration in Equations 7 and 8 from 

21 percent to 20.9 percent to make 

subpart MM consistent with the rest of 

the NESHAPs. 

• Revision to the terminology in the 

delegation of authority section in 40 

CFR 63.868 to match the definitions in 

40 CFR 63.90. 

• Revisions to the General Provisions 

applicability table (Table 1 to subpart 

MM of part 63) to align with those 

sections of the General Provisions that 

have been amended or reserved over 

time. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

There are currently 107 major source 

pulp and paper mills operating in the 

U.S. that conduct chemical recovery 

combustion operations, including 97 

kraft pulp mills, 1 soda pulp mill, 3 

sulfite pulp mills, and 6 stand-alone 

semichemical pulp mills. The existing 

affected source regulated at kraft or soda 

pulp mills is each existing chemical 

recovery system, defined as all existing 

DCE and NDCE recovery furnaces, 

SDTs, and lime kilns. A DCE recovery 

furnace system is defined to include the 

DCE recovery furnace and BLO system 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47344 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

at the pulp mill. New affected sources 

at kraft or soda pulp mills include each 

new recovery furnace and associated 

SDT, and each new lime kiln. Subpart 

MM of 40 CFR part 63 affected sources 

also include each new or existing 

chemical recovery combustion unit 

located at a sulfite pulp mill or at a 

stand-alone semichemical pulp mill. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

At the current level of control, 

emissions of HAPs (HAP metals, acid 

gases, and gaseous organic HAPs) are 

approximately 11,600 tpy. Current 

emissions of PM (a surrogate pollutant 

for HAP metals) and total reduced sulfur 

compounds (emitted by the same 

mechanism as gaseous organic HAP) are 

approximately 23,200 tpy and 3,600 tpy, 

respectively. 

The final amendments require all 107 

mills subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM to conduct periodic testing for their 

chemical recovery combustion 

operations; 96 mills with recovery 

furnaces or lime kilns equipped with 

ESP controls to meet more stringent 

opacity monitoring allowances and 

comply with a requirement to maintain 

proper operation of the ESP’s AVC; and 

all 107 mills to operate without the SSM 

exemption. The EPA estimates that the 

final changes to the opacity monitoring 

allowances will result in no emissions 

reductions. We were unable to quantify 

the specific emissions reductions 

associated with periodic emissions 

testing or eliminating the SSM 

exemption, and we expect no emissions 

reductions with the aforementioned ESP 

requirement. Periodic testing will help 

facilities understand the emissions from 

and performance of their processes and 

control systems, and will help to 

identify potential issues that may 

otherwise go unnoticed, and thus, 

providing benefit to both the facilities 

and to surrounding populations. 

Eliminating the SSM exemption will 

reduce emissions by requiring facilities 

to meet the applicable standards at all 

times. 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts are impacts that would result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices (i.e., increased secondary 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

power plants, which include PM, 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and 

sulfur dioxide). Energy impacts include 

the electricity and steam needed to 

operate control devices and other 

equipment that would be required 

under this final rule. The EPA estimates 

that the final changes to the opacity 

monitoring allowances will result in no 

energy impacts or secondary emissions 

of criteria pollutants. The EPA also 

expects no secondary air emissions 

impacts or energy impacts from the 

other final requirements. 

For further information on these 

impacts, see the memorandum titled, 

Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart 

MM Residual Risk and Technology 

Review for Promulgation, available in 

the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741). 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

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. Costs to 

transition to electronic excess emissions 

reporting and adjust existing record 

systems for the revised opacity 

monitoring allowances were also 

estimated as part of the reporting and 

recordkeeping costs. Costs associated 

with periodic testing were estimated for 

the 73 mills that do not already conduct 

periodic testing and include the costs 

for EPA Method 5 filterable PM testing 

for kraft and soda recovery furnaces, 

lime kilns, and SDTs and sulfite 

combustion units; EPA Method 308 

methanol testing for new kraft and soda 

recovery furnaces; and EPA Method 25A 

THC testing for semichemical 

combustion units. Costs associated with 

the requirement to maintain proper 

operation of ESP AVC were estimated 

for the 96 mills with ESP-controlled 

recovery furnaces and lime kilns and 

include only recordkeeping costs, since 

existing ESPs are already expected to 

have these systems. The EPA estimates 

the nationwide capital costs associated 

with these new requirements to be $3.8 

million and the nationwide annual costs 

to be $0.97 million to $1.0 million per 

year at 3 percent and 7 percent interest 

rates, respectively. 

For further information on these costs, 

see the memorandum titled, Revised 

Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM 

Residual Risk and Technology Review 

for Promulgation, available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The economic impact analysis is 

designed to inform decision makers 

about the potential economic 

consequences of a regulatory action. For 

the final rule, the EPA performed a 

partial-equilibrium analysis of national 

pulp and paper product markets to 

estimate potential paper product market 

impacts, as well as consumer and 

producer welfare impacts of the 

regulatory options. 

Across regulatory options, the EPA 

estimates market-level changes in the 

paper and paperboard markets to be 

insignificant. For the final rule, the EPA 

predicts national-level weighted average 

paper and paperboard prices to increase 

about 0.01 percent, while total 

production levels decrease less than 

0.01 percent on average. 

In addition, the EPA performed a 

screening analysis for impacts on small 

businesses by comparing estimated 

annualized engineering compliance 

costs at the firm-level to firm sales. The 

screening analysis found that the ratio 

of compliance cost to firm revenue falls 

below 1 percent for the three small 

companies likely to be affected by the 

final rule. For small firms, the minimum 

and maximum cost-to-sales ratios are 

less than 1 percent. 

More information and details of this 

analysis are provided in the technical 

document, titled Economic Impact 

Analysis for Final Revisions to the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart MM, 

for the Pulp and Paper Industry, 

available in the docket for this final rule 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741). 

E. What are the benefits? 

We do not estimate any significant 

reductions in HAP emissions as a result 

of these final amendments. However, 

the amendments will help to improve 

the clarity of the rule, which will 

improve compliance and, therefore, 

minimize emissions. Certain provisions 

also provide operational flexibility with 

no increase in HAP emissions. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

We examined the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with the source category 

by performing a demographic analysis 

of the population close to the facilities. 

In this analysis, we evaluated the 

distribution of HAP-related cancer and 

non-cancer risks from the subpart MM 

source category across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the populations living near 

facilities identified as having the highest 

risks. The methodology and the results 

of the demographic analyses are 

included in a technical report, Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Pulp Mill Combustion Sources, 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741). The results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on the 

estimated risks from actual emissions 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47345 

16This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP. 

See 54 FR 38046. 

17See the following document in the docket 

titled, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of 

Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near 

Pulp Mill Combustion Sources. 

levels for the population living within 

50 kilometers (km) of the facilities.16

The results of the subpart MM source 

category demographic analysis indicate 

that emissions from the source category 

expose approximately 7,600 people to a 

cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 

and do not expose any person to a 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 

1. The specific demographic results 

indicate that the percentage of the 

population potentially impacted by 

emissions is greater than its 

corresponding national percentage for 

the minority population (33 percent for 

the source category compared to 28 

percent nationwide), the African 

American population (28 percent for the 

source category compared to 13 percent 

nationwide) and for the population over 

age 25 without a high school diploma 

(18 percent for the source category 

compared to 15 percent nationwide). 

The proximity results (irrespective of 

risk) indicate that the population 

percentages for certain demographic 

categories within 5 km of source 

category emissions are greater than the 

corresponding national percentage for 

those same demographics. The 

following demographic percentages for 

populations residing within close 

proximity to facilities with chemical 

recovery combustion sources are higher 

than the corresponding nationwide 

percentage: African American, ages 65 

and up, over age 25 without a high 

school diploma, and below the poverty 

level. 

The risks due to HAP emissions from 

this source category are low for all 

populations (e.g., inhalation cancer risks 

are less than 4-in-1 million for all 

populations and non-cancer HIs are less 

than 1). Furthermore, we do not expect 

this final rule to achieve significant 

reductions in HAP emissions. Section 

IV.B of this preamble addresses 

opportunities as part of the technology 

review to further reduce HAP emissions. 

We did not find these technologies to be 

cost effective. 

Therefore, we conclude that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. However, this final rule 

will provide additional benefits to these 

demographic groups by improving the 

compliance, monitoring, and 

implementation of the NESHAP. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health risks or safety risks addressed by 

this action present a disproportionate 

risk to children. The results of the 

subpart MM source category 

demographic analysis 17 indicate that 

approximately 7,600 people are exposed 

to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 

million and no one is exposed to a 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 

1 due to emissions from the source 

category. The distribution of the 

population with risks above 1-in-1 

million is 26 percent for ages 0 to 17, 

61 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 13 

percent for ages 65 and up. Children 

ages 0 to 17 also constitute 24 percent 

of the population nationwide. 

Therefore, the analysis shows that 

actual emissions from 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MM facilities have only a 

slightly greater impact on children ages 

0 to 17. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

ICR document that the EPA prepared 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

1805.09. You can find a copy of the ICR 

in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741), and it is 

briefly summarized here. 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, which are 

essential in determining compliance 

and 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. 

We are finalizing changes to the 40 

CFR part 63, subpart MM paperwork 

requirements in the form of eliminating 

the SSM reporting and SSM plan 

requirements, adding periodic 

emissions testing for selected process 

equipment, revising opacity monitoring 

allowances, adding a recordkeeping 

requirement for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns equipped with ESPs, 

reducing the frequency of all excess 

emissions reports to semiannual, and 

requiring electronic submittal of all 

performance test reports and 

semiannual reports. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Respondents include chemical pulp 

mills operating equipment subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart MM. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (authorized by section 114 of 

the CAA). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

107. 

Frequency of response: The frequency 

of responses varies depending on the 

burden item. Responses include 

notifications, reports of periodic 

performance tests, and semiannual 

compliance reports. 

Total estimated burden: The 

estimated annual recordkeeping and 

reporting burden for this information 

collection, averaged over the first 3 

years of this ICR, is 124,085 labor hours 

per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $14.1 to 14.2 

million per year, including $13.4 

million per year in labor costs and $0.7 

to 0.8 million per year in annualized 

capital costs at 3 percent and 7 percent 

interest, respectively. These estimated 

costs represent the full ongoing 

information collection burden for 40 

CFR part 63, subpart MM, as revised by 

the final amendments being 

promulgated. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47346 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. The EPA 

estimates that all affected small entities 

will have annualized costs of less than 

1 percent of their sales. We have, 

therefore, concluded that this action 

will have no net regulatory burden for 

all directly regulated small entities. For 

more information on the small entity 

impacts associated with this rule, please 

refer to the Economic Impact Analysis 

for Final Revisions to the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, Subpart MM, for the Pulp 

and Paper Industry in the public docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0741). 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This final rule imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of kraft, soda, 

sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical 

pulp mills and not tribal governments. 

The EPA does not know of any pulp 

mills owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments, or located within tribal 

lands. However, if there are any, the 

effect of this rule on communities of 

tribal governments would not be unique 

or disproportionate to the effect on other 

communities. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in section 

IV.A of this preamble and further 

documented in the risk report titled, 

Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp Mill 

Combustion Sources in Support of the 

October 2017 Risk and Technology 

Review Final Rule, available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741). 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. While the EPA identified 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)’’ as being potentially 

applicable, the Agency decided not to 

use it. The use of this voluntary 

consensus standard would be 

impractical because this standard is 

only acceptable as an alternative to the 

portion of EPA Method 29 for mercury, 

and emissions testing for mercury alone 

is not required under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MM. 

The EPA is incorporating into 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart MM the following 

guidance document: EPA–454/R–98– 

015, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, September 

1997. This guidance document provides 

procedures for selecting, installing, 

setting up, adjusting, and operating a 

bag leak detection system; and also 

includes QA procedures. This guidance 

document is readily accessible at 

https://www.epa.gov/emc/emccontinuous-emission-monitoringsystems. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in section V.F of this 

preamble and the technical report titled, 

Risk and Technology Review–Analysis 

of Socio-Economic Factors for 

Populations Living Near Pulp Mill 

Combustion Sources, in the public 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0741). 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Pulp and 

paper mills, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47347 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 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 

revising paragraph (m)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997, 

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR 

approved for §§ 63.548(e), 63.864(e), 

63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 

63.11224(f). 

* * * * * 

Subpart MM—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.860 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (7) and 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.860 Applicability and designation of 

affected source. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Each new or existing sulfite 

combustion unit located at a sulfite pulp 

mill, except such existing units at 

Cosmo Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis, 

Washington facility (Emission Unit no. 

AP–10). 

* * * * * 

(7) The requirements of the alternative 

standard in § 63.862(d) apply to the hog 

fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers’ 

Cosmopolis, Washington facility 

(Emission Unit no. HD–14). 

* * * * * 

(d) 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. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner or operator to make any 

further efforts to reduce emissions if 

levels required by the applicable 

standard have been achieved. 

Determination of whether a source is 

operating in compliance with operation 

and maintenance requirements 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. 

■ 4. Section 63.861 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the definition for ‘‘Black 

liquor gasification’’; 

■ b. Revising the definitions for 

‘‘Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

metals,’’ ‘‘Hog fuel dryer,’’ ‘‘Kraft 

recovery furnace,’’ ‘‘Modification,’’ 

‘‘Particulate matter (PM),’’ ‘‘Recovery 

furnace,’’ ‘‘Semichemical combustion 

unit,’’ ‘‘Smelt dissolving tanks,’’ and 

‘‘Soda recovery furnace’’; 

■ c. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Startup’’; and 

■ d. Revising the definition for ‘‘Total 

hydrocarbons (THC).’’ 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.861 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

metals means the sum of all emissions 

of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium as measured by EPA Method 

29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hog fuel dryer means the equipment 

that combusts fine particles of wood 

waste (hog fuel) in a fluidized bed and 

directs the heated exhaust stream to a 

rotary dryer containing wet hog fuel to 

be dried prior to combustion in the hog 

fuel boiler at Cosmo Specialty Fibers’ 

Cosmopolis, Washington facility. The 

hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty 

Fibers’ Cosmopolis, Washington facility 

is Emission Unit no. HD–14. 

* * * * * 

Kraft recovery furnace means a 

recovery furnace that is used to burn 

black liquor produced by the kraft 

pulping process, as well as any recovery 

furnace that burns black liquor 

produced from both the kraft and 

semichemical pulping processes, and 

includes the direct contact evaporator, if 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

Modification means, for the purposes 

of § 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(E)(1), any physical 

change (excluding any routine part 

replacement or maintenance) or 

operational change that is made to the 

air pollution control device that could 

result in an increase in PM emissions. 

* * * * * 

Particulate matter (PM) means total 

filterable particulate matter as measured 

by EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3), EPA Method 17 

(§ 63.865(b)(1)) (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6), or EPA Method 29 (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

* * * * * 

Recovery furnace means an enclosed 

combustion device where concentrated 

black liquor produced by the kraft or 

soda pulping process is burned to 

recover pulping chemicals and produce 

steam. 

* * * * * 

Semichemical combustion unit means 

any equipment used to combust or 

pyrolyze black liquor at stand-alone 

semichemical pulp mills for the purpose 

of chemical recovery. 

* * * * * 

Smelt dissolving tank (SDT) means a 

vessel used for dissolving the smelt 

collected from a kraft or soda recovery 

furnace. 

* * * * * 

Soda recovery furnace means a 

recovery furnace used to burn black 

liquor produced by the soda pulping 

process and includes the direct contact 

evaporator, if applicable. 

* * * * * 

Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the 

sum of organic compounds measured as 

carbon using EPA Method 25A (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7). 

■ 5. Section 63.862 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.862 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(c) Standards for gaseous organic 

HAP. (1) The owner or operator of any 

new recovery furnace at a kraft or soda 

pulp mill must ensure that the 

concentration of gaseous organic HAP, 

as measured by methanol, discharged to 

the atmosphere is no greater than 0.012 

kg/Mg (0.025 lb/ton) of black liquor 

solids fired. 

* * * * * 

(d) Alternative standard. As an 

alternative to meeting the requirements 

of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the 

owner or operator of the existing hog 

fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers’ 

Cosmopolis, Washington facility 

(Emission Unit no. HD–14) must ensure 

that the mass of PM in the exhaust gases 

discharged to the atmosphere from the 

hog fuel dryer is less than or equal to 

4.535 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (10.0 

pounds per hour (lb/hr)). 

■ 6. Section 63.863 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.863 Compliance dates. 

(a) The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source or process unit 

must comply with the requirements in 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

this subpart no later than March 13, 

2004, except as noted in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) The owner or operator of an 

existing source or process unit must 

comply with the revised requirements 

published on October 11, 2017 no later 

than October 11, 2019, with the 

exception of the following: 

(1) The first of the 5-year periodic 

performance tests must be conducted by 

October 13, 2020, and thereafter within 

5 years following the previous 

performance test; and 

(2) The date to submit performance 

test data through the CEDRI is within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test. 

■ 7. Section 63.864 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (d) and paragraph (d)(4); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (e)(1) and (2); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (e)(10)(i) and 

(ii); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(iii); 

■ e. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (e)(12) and paragraphs 

(e)(12)(i), (ix), and (x); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (e)(13) and (14); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (f); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (g); 

■ i. Adding paragraph (h); and 

■ j. Revising paragraphs (j) and (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.864 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Continuous opacity monitoring 

system (COMS). The owner or operator 

of each affected kraft or soda recovery 

furnace or lime kiln equipped with an 

ESP must install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate a COMS in accordance with 

Performance Specification 1 (PS–1) in 

appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and the 

provisions in §§ 63.6(h) and 63.8 and 

paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) As specified in § 63.8(g)(2), each 6- 

minute COMS data average must be 

calculated as the average of 36 or more 

data points, equally spaced over each 6- 

minute period. 

(e) * * * 

(1) For any kraft or soda recovery 

furnace or lime kiln using an ESP 

emission control device, the owner or 

operator must maintain proper 

operation of the ESP’s automatic voltage 

control (AVC). 

(2) For any kraft or soda recovery 

furnace or lime kiln using an ESP 

followed by a wet scrubber, the owner 

or operator must follow the parameter 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (10) of this 

section. The opacity monitoring system 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

is not required for combination ESP/wet 

scrubber control device systems. 

* * * * * 

(10) * * * 

(i) A monitoring device used for the 

continuous measurement of the pressure 

drop of the gas stream across the 

scrubber must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be accurate to within a 

gage pressure of ±500 pascals (±2 inches 

of water gage pressure); and 

(ii) A monitoring device used for 

continuous measurement of the 

scrubbing liquid flow rate must be 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

accurate within ±5 percent of the design 

scrubbing liquid flow rate. 

(iii) As an alternative to pressure drop 

measurement under paragraph (e)(3)(i) 

of this section, a monitoring device for 

measurement of fan amperage may be 

used for smelt dissolving tank dynamic 

scrubbers that operate at ambient 

pressure or for low-energy entrainment 

scrubbers where the fan speed does not 

vary. 

* * * * * 

(12) The owner or operator of the 

affected hog fuel dryer at Cosmo 

Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis, 

Washington facility (Emission Unit no. 

HD–14) must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(12)(i) through (xi) of this 

section for each bag leak detection 

system. 

(i) The owner or operator must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate each 

triboelectric bag leak detection system 

according to EPA–454/R–98–015, 

‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 63.14). The owner or operator must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

other types of bag leak detection 

systems in a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations. 

* * * * * 

(ix) The baseline output must be 

established by adjusting the range and 

the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time according to section 

5.0 of the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 63.14). 

(x) Following initial adjustment of the 

system, the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted 

except as detailed in the site-specific 

monitoring plan. In no case may the 

sensitivity be increased by more than 

100 percent or decreased more than 50 

percent over a 365-day period unless 

such adjustment follows a complete 

fabric filter inspection which 

demonstrates that the fabric filter is in 

good operating condition, as defined in 

section 5.2 of the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance,’’ 

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). 

Record each adjustment. 

* * * * * 

(13) The owner or operator of each 

affected source or process unit that uses 

an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric 

filter may monitor alternative control 

device operating parameters subject to 

prior written approval by the 

Administrator. The request for approval 

must also include the manner in which 

the parameter operating limit is to be 

set. 

(14) The owner or operator of each 

affected source or process unit that uses 

an air pollution control system other 

than an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or 

fabric filter must provide to the 

Administrator an alternative monitoring 

request that includes a description of 

the control device, test results verifying 

the performance of the control device, 

the appropriate operating parameters 

that will be monitored, how the 

operating limit is to be set, and the 

frequency of measuring and recording to 

establish continuous compliance with 

the standards. The alternative 

monitoring request is subject to the 

Administrator’s approval. The owner or 

operator of the affected source or 

process unit must install, calibrate, 

operate, and maintain the monitor(s) in 

accordance with the alternative 

monitoring request approved by the 

Administrator. The owner or operator 

must include in the information 

submitted to the Administrator 

proposed performance specifications 

and quality assurance procedures for the 

monitors. The Administrator may 

request further information and will 

approve acceptable test methods and 

procedures. The owner or operator must 

monitor the parameters as approved by 

the Administrator using the methods 

and procedures in the alternative 

monitoring request. 

(f) Data quality assurance. The owner 

or operator shall keep CMS data quality 

assurance procedures consistent with 

the requirements in § 63.8(d)(1) and (2) 

on record for the life of the affected 

source or until the affected source is no 

longer subject to the provisions of this 

part, to be made available for 

inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator. If the performance 

evaluation plan in § 63.8(d)(2) is 

revised, the owner or operator shall 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the performance evaluation plan on 

record to be made available for 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47349 

inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator, for a period of 5 years 

after each revision to the plan. The 

program of corrective action should be 

included in the plan required under 

§ 63.8(d)(2). 

(g) Gaseous organic HAP. The owner 

or operator of each affected source or 

process unit complying with the 

gaseous organic HAP standard of 

§ 63.862(c)(1) through the use of an 

NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a 

dry ESP system is not required to 

conduct any continuous monitoring to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

gaseous organic HAP standard. 

(h) Monitoring data. As specified in 

§ 63.8(g)(5), monitoring data recorded 

during periods of unavoidable CMS 

breakdowns, out-of-control periods, 

repairs, maintenance periods, 

calibration checks, and zero (low-level) 

and high level adjustments must not be 

included in any data average computed 

under this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(j) Determination of operating limits. 

(1) During the initial or periodic 

performance test required in § 63.865, 

the owner or operator of any affected 

source or process unit must establish 

operating limits for the monitoring 

parameters in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 

and (e)(10) through (14) of this section, 

as appropriate; or 

(2) The owner or operator may base 

operating limits on values recorded 

during previous performance tests or 

conduct additional performance tests for 

the specific purpose of establishing 

operating limits, provided that data 

used to establish the operating limits are 

or have been obtained during testing 

that used the test methods and 

procedures required in this subpart. The 

owner or operator of the affected source 

or process unit must certify that all 

control techniques and processes have 

not been modified subsequent to the 

testing upon which the data used to 

establish the operating parameter limits 

were obtained. 

(3) The owner or operator of an 

affected source or process unit may 

establish expanded or replacement 

operating limits for the monitoring 

parameters listed in paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) and (e)(10) through (14) of this 

section and established in paragraph 

(j)(1) or (2) of this section during 

subsequent performance tests using the 

test methods in § 63.865. 

(4) The owner or operator of the 

affected source or process unit must 

continuously monitor each parameter 

and determine the arithmetic average 

value of each parameter during each 

performance test run. Multiple 

performance tests may be conducted to 

establish a range of parameter values. 

Operating outside a previously 

established parameter limit during a 

performance test to expand the 

operating limit range does not constitute 

a monitoring exceedance. Operating 

limits must be confirmed or 

reestablished during performance tests. 

(5) New, expanded, or replacement 

operating limits for the monitoring 

parameter values listed in paragraphs 

(e)(1) and (2) and (e)(10) through (14) of 

this section should be determined as 

described in paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. 

(i) The owner or operator of an 

affected source or process unit that uses 

a wet scrubber must set a minimum 

scrubber pressure drop operating limit 

as the lowest of the 1-hour average 

pressure drop values associated with 

each test run demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit in 

§ 63.862. 

(A) For a smelt dissolving tank 

dynamic wet scrubber operating at 

ambient pressure or for low-energy 

entrainment scrubbers where fan speed 

does not vary, the minimum fan 

amperage operating limit must be set as 

the lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values associated with each 

test run demonstrating compliance with 

the applicable emission limit in 

§ 63.862. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) The owner operator of an affected 

source equipped with an RTO must set 

the minimum operating temperature of 

the RTO as the lowest of the 1-hour 

average temperature values associated 

with each test run demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit in § 63.862. 

(k) On-going compliance provisions. 

(1) Following the compliance date, 

owners or operators of all affected 

sources or process units are required to 

implement corrective action if the 

monitoring exceedances in paragraphs 

(k)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section 

occur during times when spent pulping 

liquor or lime mud is fed (as 

applicable). Corrective action can 

include completion of transient startup 

and shutdown conditions as 

expediently as possible. 

(i) For a new or existing kraft or soda 

recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped 

with an ESP, when the average of ten 

consecutive 6-minute averages result in 

a measurement greater than 20 percent 

opacity; 

(ii) For a new or existing kraft or soda 

recovery furnace, kraft or soda smelt 

dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, 

or sulfite combustion unit equipped 

with a wet scrubber, when any 3-hour 

average parameter value is below the 

minimum operating limit established in 

paragraph (j) of this section, with the 

exception of pressure drop during 

periods of startup and shutdown; 

(iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda 

recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped 

with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber, 

when any 3-hour average scrubber 

parameter value is below the minimum 

operating limit established in paragraph 

(j) of this section, with the exception of 

pressure drop during periods of startup 

and shutdown; 

(iv) For a new or existing 

semichemical combustion unit 

equipped with an RTO, when any 

1-hour average temperature falls below 

the minimum temperature operating 

limit established in paragraph (j) of this 

section; 

(v) For the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo 

Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis, 

Washington facility (Emission Unit no. 

HD–14), when the bag leak detection 

system alarm sounds; 

(vi) For an affected source or process 

unit equipped with an ESP, wet 

scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and 

monitoring alternative operating 

parameters established in paragraph 

(e)(13) of this section, when any 3-hour 

average value does not meet the 

operating limit established in paragraph 

(j) of this section; and 

(vii) For an affected source or process 

unit equipped with an alternative air 

pollution control system and monitoring 

operating parameters approved by the 

Administrator as established in 

paragraph (e)(14) of this section, when 

any 3-hour average value does not meet 

the operating limit established in 

paragraph (j) of this section. 

(2) Following the compliance date, 

owners or operators of all affected 

sources or process units are in violation 

of the standards of § 63.862 if the 

monitoring exceedances in paragraphs 

(k)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section 

occur during times when spent pulping 

liquor or lime mud is fed (as 

applicable): 

(i) For an existing kraft or soda 

recovery furnace equipped with an ESP, 

when opacity is greater than 35 percent 

for 2 percent or more of the operating 

time within any semiannual period; 

(ii) For a new kraft or soda recovery 

furnace equipped with an ESP, when 

opacity is greater than 20 percent for 2 

percent or more of the operating time 

within any semiannual period; 

(iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda 

lime kiln equipped with an ESP, when 

opacity is greater than 20 percent for 3 

percent or more of the operating time 

within any semiannual period; 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) For a new or existing kraft or soda 

recovery furnace, kraft or soda smelt 

dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, 

or sulfite combustion unit equipped 

with a wet scrubber, when six or more 

3-hour average parameter values within 

any 6-month reporting period are below 

the minimum operating limits 

established in paragraph (j) of this 

section, with the exception of pressure 

drop during periods of startup and 

shutdown; 

(v) For a new or existing kraft or soda 

recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped 

with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber, 

when six or more 3-hour average 

scrubber parameter values within any 6- 

month reporting period are outside the 

range of values established in paragraph 

(j) of this section, with the exception of 

pressure drop during periods of startup 

and shutdown; 

(vi) For a new or existing 

semichemical combustion unit 

equipped with an RTO, when any 3- 

hour average temperature falls below 

the temperature established in 

paragraph (j) of this section; 

(vii) For the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo 

Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis, 

Washington facility (Emission Unit no. 

HD–14), when corrective action is not 

initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak 

detection system alarm and the alarm is 

engaged for more than 5 percent of the 

total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating the 

operating time fraction, if inspection of 

the fabric filter demonstrates that no 

corrective action is required, no alarm 

time is counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if corrective action 

is not initiated within 1 hour, the alarm 

time is counted as the actual amount of 

time taken to initiate corrective action; 

(viii) For an affected source or process 

unit equipped with an ESP, wet 

scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and 

monitoring alternative operating 

parameters established in paragraph 

(e)(13) of this section, when six or more 

3-hour average values within any 6- 

month reporting period do not meet the 

operating limits established in 

paragraph (j) of this section; and 

(ix) For an affected source or process 

unit equipped with an alternative air 

pollution control system and monitoring 

operating parameters approved by the 

Administrator as established in 

paragraph (e)(14) of this section, when 

six or more 3-hour average values 

within any 6-month reporting period do 

not meet the operating limits 

established in paragraph (j) of this 

section. 

(3) For purposes of determining the 

number of nonopacity monitoring 

exceedances, no more than one 

exceedance will be attributed in any 

given 24-hour period. 

■ 8. Section 63.865 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5), (c)(1), and 

the introductory text of paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.865 Performance test requirements 

and test methods. 

The owner or operator of each 

affected source or process unit subject to 

the requirements of this subpart is 

required to conduct an initial 

performance test and periodic 

performance tests using the test 

methods and procedures listed in § 63.7 

and paragraph (b) of this section. The 

owner or operator must conduct the first 

of the periodic performance tests within 

3 years of the effective date of the 

revised standards and thereafter within 

5 years following the previous 

performance test. Performance tests 

shall be conducted based on 

representative performance (i.e., 

performance based on normal operating 

conditions) of the affected source for the 

period being tested. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests 

during periods of malfunction. The 

owner or operator must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

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. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) For purposes of determining the 

concentration or mass of PM emitted 

from each kraft or soda recovery 

furnace, sulfite combustion unit, smelt 

dissolving tank, lime kiln, or the hog 

fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers’ 

Cosmopolis, Washington facility 

(Emission Unit no. HD–14), Method 5 in 

appendix A–3 of 40 CFR part 60 or 

Method 29 in appendix A–8 of 40 CFR 

part 60 must be used, except that 

Method 17 in appendix A–6 of 40 CFR 

part 60 may be used in lieu of Method 

5 or Method 29 if a constant value of 

0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added to 

the results of Method 17, and the stack 

temperature is no greater than 205 °C 

(400 °F). For Methods 5, 29, and 17, the 

sampling time and sample volume for 

each run must be at least 60 minutes 

and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), and water 

must be used as the cleanup solvent 

instead of acetone in the sample 

recovery procedure. 

(2) For sources complying with 

§ 63.862(a) or (b), the PM concentration 

must be corrected to the appropriate 

oxygen concentration using Equation 7 

of this section as follows: 

Where: 

Ccorr = the measured concentration corrected 

for oxygen, g/dscm (gr/dscf); 

Cmeas = the measured concentration 

uncorrected for oxygen, g/dscm (gr/dscf); 

X = the corrected volumetric oxygen 

concentration (8 percent for kraft or soda 

recovery furnaces and sulfite combustion 

units and 10 percent for kraft or soda 

lime kilns); and 

Y = the measured average volumetric oxygen 

concentration. 

(3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A– 

2 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration. 

The voluntary consensus standard 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981—Part 10 

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) 

may be used as an alternative to using 

Method 3B. The gas sample must be 

taken at the same time and at the same 

traverse points as the particulate 

sample. 

(4) For purposes of complying with 

§ 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(A), the volumetric gas 

flow rate must be corrected to the 

appropriate oxygen concentration using 

Equation 8 of this section as follows: 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2ER11OC17.004</GPH> ER11OC17.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47351 

Where: 

Qcorr = the measured volumetric gas flow rate 

corrected for oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/ 

min). 

Qmeas = the measured volumetric gas flow 

rate uncorrected for oxygen, dscm/min 

(dscf/min). 

Y = the measured average volumetric oxygen 

concentration. 

X = the corrected volumetric oxygen 

concentration (8 percent for kraft or soda 

recovery furnaces and 10 percent for 

kraft or soda lime kilns). 

(5)(i) For purposes of selecting 

sampling port location and number of 

traverse points, Method 1 or 1A in 

appendix A–1 of 40 CFR part 60 must 

be used; 

(ii) For purposes of determining stack 

gas velocity and volumetric flow rate, 

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix 

A–1 of 40 CFR part 60 or Method 2G in 

appendix A–2 of 40 CFR part 60 must 

be used; 

(iii) For purposes of conducting gas 

analysis, Method 3, 3A, or 3B in 

appendix A–2 of 40 CFR part 60 must 

be used. The voluntary consensus 

standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981—Part 10 (incorporated by 

reference—see § 63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to using Method 3B; and 

(iv) For purposes of determining 

moisture content of stack gas, Method 4 

in appendix A–3 of 40 CFR part 60 must 

be used. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator complying 

through the use of an NDCE recovery 

furnace equipped with a dry ESP system 

is required to conduct periodic 

performance testing using Method 308 

in appendix A of this part, as well as the 

methods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) 

through (iv) of this section to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

gaseous organic HAP standard. The 

requirements and equations in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be 

met and utilized, respectively. 

* * * * * 

(d) The owner or operator seeking to 

determine compliance with the gaseous 

organic HAP standards in § 63.862(c)(2) 

for semichemical combustion units 

must use Method 25A in appendix 

A–7 of 40 CFR part 60, as well as the 

methods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. The 

sampling time for each Method 25A run 

must be at least 60 minutes. The 

calibration gas for each Method 25A run 

must be propane. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.866 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a) 

and revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.866 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) In addition to the general records 

required by § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) and (vi) 

through (xiv), the owner or operator 

must maintain records of the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(8) of this section: 

(1) Records of black liquor solids 

firing rates in units of Mg/d or ton/d for 

all recovery furnaces and semichemical 

combustion units; 

(2) Records of CaO production rates in 

units of Mg/d or ton/d for all lime kilns; 

(3) Records of parameter monitoring 

data required under § 63.864, including 

any period when the operating 

parameter levels were inconsistent with 

the levels established during the 

performance test, with a brief 

explanation of the cause of the 

monitoring exceedance, the time the 

monitoring exceedance occurred, the 

time corrective action was initiated and 

completed, and the corrective action 

taken; 

(4) Records and documentation of 

supporting calculations for compliance 

determinations made under § 63.865(a) 

through (d); 

(5) Records of parameter operating 

limits established for each affected 

source or process unit; 

(6) Records certifying that an NDCE 

recovery furnace equipped with a dry 

ESP system is used to comply with the 

gaseous organic HAP standard in 

§ 63.862(c)(1); 

(7) For the bag leak detection system 

on the hog fuel dryer fabric filter at 

Cosmo Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis, 

Washington facility (Emission Unit no. 

HD–14), records of each alarm, the time 

of the alarm, the time corrective action 

was initiated and completed, and a brief 

description of the cause of the alarm 

and the corrective action taken; and 

(8) Records demonstrating compliance 

with the requirement in § 63.864(e)(1) to 

maintain proper operation of an ESP’s 

AVC. 

(d)(1) In the event that an affected 

unit fails to meet an applicable 

standard, including any emission limit 

in § 63.862 or any opacity or CPMS 

operating limit in § 63.864, record the 

number of failures. For each failure 

record the date, start time, and duration 

of each failure. 

(2) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

and the following information: 

(i) For any failure to meet an emission 

limit in § 63.862, record an estimate of 

the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(ii) For each failure to meet an 

operating limit in § 63.864, maintain 

sufficient information to estimate the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit. This 

information must be sufficient to 

provide a reliable emissions estimate if 

requested by the Administrator. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.860(d) and any corrective actions 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation. 

■ 10. Section 63.867 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(2); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(3); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (d). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.867 Reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(3) In addition to the requirements in 

subpart A of this part, the owner or 

operator of the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo 

Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis, 

Washington, facility (Emission Unit no. 

HD–14) must include analysis and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for bag leak 

detection systems in § 63.864(e)(12) in 

the Notification of Compliance Status. 

* * * * * 

(c) Excess emissions report. The 

owner or operator must submit 

semiannual excess emissions reports 

containing the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 

section. The owner or operator must 

submit semiannual excess emission 

reports and summary reports following 

the procedure specified in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section as specified in 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(v). 

(1) If the total duration of excess 

emissions or process control system 

parameter exceedances for the reporting 

period is less than 1 percent of the total 

reporting period operating time, and 

CMS downtime is less than 5 percent of 

the total reporting period operating 

time, only the summary report is 

required to be submitted. This report 

will be titled ‘‘Summary Report— 

Gaseous and Opacity Excess Emissions 

and Continuous Monitoring System 

Performance’’ and must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (x) of this section. 

(i) The company name and address 

and name of the affected facility. 

(ii) Beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period. 

(iii) An identification of each process 

unit with the corresponding air 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47352 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

pollution control device, being included 

in the semiannual report, including the 

pollutants monitored at each process 

unit, and the total operating time for 

each process unit. 

(iv) An identification of the applicable 

emission limits, operating parameter 

limits, and averaging times. 

(v) An identification of the monitoring 

equipment used for each process unit 

and the corresponding model number. 

(vi) Date of the last CMS certification 

or audit. 

(vii) An emission data summary, 

including the total duration of excess 

emissions (recorded in minutes for 

opacity and hours for gases), the 

duration of excess emissions expressed 

as a percent of operating time, the 

number of averaging periods recorded as 

excess emissions, and reason for the 

excess emissions (e.g., startup/ 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

other known reasons, or other unknown 

reasons). 

(viii) A CMS performance summary, 

including the total duration of CMS 

downtime during the reporting period 

(recorded in minutes for opacity and 

hours for gases), the total duration of 

CMS downtime expressed as a percent 

of the total source operating time during 

that reporting period, and a breakdown 

of the total CMS downtime during the 

reporting period (e.g., monitoring 

equipment malfunction, non-monitoring 

equipment malfunction, quality 

assurance, quality control calibrations, 

other known causes, or other unknown 

causes). 

(ix) A description of changes to CMS, 

processes, or controls since last 

reporting period. 

(x) A certification by a certifying 

official of truth, accuracy and 

completeness. This will state that, based 

on information and belief formed after 

reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

information in the document are true, 

accurate, and complete. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) If measured parameters meet any 

of the conditions specified in 

§ 63.864(k)(1) or (2), the owner or 

operator of the affected source must 

submit a semiannual report describing 

the excess emissions that occurred. If 

the total duration of monitoring 

exceedances for the reporting period is 

1 percent or greater of the total reporting 

period operating time, or the total CMS 

downtime for the reporting period is 5 

percent or greater of the total reporting 

period operating time, or any violations 

according to § 63.864(k)(2) occurred, 

information from both the summary 

report and the excess emissions and 

continuous monitoring system 

performance report must be submitted. 

This report will be titled ‘‘Excess 

Emissions and Continuous Monitoring 

System Performance Report’’ and must 

contain the information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x) of this 

section, in addition to the information 

required in § 63.10(c)(5) through (14), as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 

(vi) of this section. Reporting 

monitoring exceedances does not 

constitute a violation of the applicable 

standard unless the violation criteria in 

§ 63.864(k)(2) and (3) are reached. 

(i) An identification of the date and 

time identifying each period during 

which the CMS was inoperative except 

for zero (low-level) and high-level 

checks. 

(ii) An identification of the date and 

time identifying each period during 

which the CMS was out of control, as 

defined in § 63.8(c)(7). 

(iii) The specific identification of each 

period of excess emissions and 

parameter monitoring exceedances as 

described in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(A) 

through (E) of this section. 

(A) For opacity: 

(1) The total number of 6-minute 

averages in the reporting period 

(excluding process unit downtime). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) The number of 6-minute averages 

in the reporting period that exceeded 

the relevant opacity limit. 

(4) The percent of 6-minute averages 

in the reporting period that exceed the 

relevant opacity limit. 

(5) An identification of each 

exceedance by start and end time, date, 

and cause of exceedance (including 

startup/shutdown, control equipment 

problems, process problems, other 

known causes, or other unknown 

causes). 

(B) [Reserved] 

(C) For wet scrubber operating 

parameters: 

(1) The operating limits established 

during the performance test for 

scrubbing liquid flow rate and pressure 

drop across the scrubber (or fan 

amperage if used for smelt dissolving 

tank scrubbers). 

(2) The number of 3-hour wet 

scrubber parameter averages below the 

minimum operating limit established 

during the performance test, if 

applicable. 

(3) An identification of each 

exceedance by start and end time, date, 

and cause of exceedance (including 

startup/shutdown, control equipment 

problems, process problems, other 

known causes, or other unknown 

causes). 

(D) For RTO operating temperature: 

(1) The operating limit established 

during the performance test. 

(2) The number of 1-hour and 3-hour 

temperature averages below the 

minimum operating limit established 

during the performance test. 

(3) An identification of each 

exceedance by start and end time, date, 

and cause of exceedance including 

startup/shutdown, control equipment 

problems, process problems, other 

known causes, or other unknown 

causes). 

(E) For alternative parameters 

established according to § 63.864(e)(13) 

or (14) subject to the requirements of 

§ 63.864(k)(1) and (2): 

(1) The type of operating parameters 

monitored for compliance. 

(2) The operating limits established 

during the performance test. 

(3) The number of 3-hour parameter 

averages outside of the operating limits 

established during the performance test. 

(4) An identification of each 

exceedance by start and end time, date, 

and cause of exceedance including 

startup/shutdown, control equipment 

problems, process problems, other 

known causes, or other unknown 

causes). 

(iv) The nature and cause of the event 

(if known). 

(v) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(vi) The nature of repairs and 

adjustments to the CMS that was 

inoperative or out of control. 

(4) If a source fails to meet an 

applicable standard, including any 

emission limit in § 63.862 or any 

opacity or CPMS operating limit in 

§ 63.864, report such events in the 

semiannual excess emissions report. 

Report the number of failures to meet an 

applicable standard. For each instance, 

report the date, time and duration of 

each failure. For each failure, the report 

must include a list of the affected 

sources or equipment, and for any 

failure to meet an emission limit under 

§ 63.862, provide an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(5) The owner or operator of an 

affected source or process unit subject to 

the requirements of this subpart and 

subpart S of this part may combine 

excess emissions and/or summary 

reports for the mill. 

(d) Electronic reporting. (1) Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2) 

required by this subpart, the owner or 

operator must submit the results of the 

performance test following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47353 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance test to the 

EPA via the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 

(CEDRI can be accessed through the 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

(https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test 

data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT Web site. If the owner 

or operator claims that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), the owner or operator 

must submit a complete file generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an 

alternate electronic file consistent with 

the XML schema listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

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: Group 

Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD 

C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph 

(d)(1)(i). 

(ii) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site at the time of the test, the 

owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13 unless the 

Administrator agrees to or specifies an 

alternative reporting method. 

(2) The owner or operator must 

submit the notifications required in 

§ 63.9(b) and § 63.9(h) (including any 

information specified in § 63.867(b)) 

and semiannual reports to the EPA via 

the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed 

through the EPA’s CDX (https://

cdx.epa.gov).) You must upload an 

electronic copy of each notification in 

CEDRI beginning with any notification 

specified in this paragraph that is 

required after October 11, 2019. The 

owner or operator must use the 

appropriate electronic report in CEDRI 

for this subpart listed on the CEDRI Web 

site (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri) for semiannual reports. If the 

reporting form specific to this subpart is 

not available in CEDRI at the time that 

the report is due, you must submit the 

report to the Administrator at all the 

appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. 

Once the form has been available in 

CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin 

submitting all subsequent reports via 

CEDRI. The reports must be submitted 

by the deadlines specified in this 

subpart, regardless of the method in 

which the reports are submitted. 

(3) If you are required to 

electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due to a 

planned or actual outage of either the 

EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the 

period of time beginning 5 business 

days prior to the date that the 

submission is due, you will be or are 

precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX 

and submitting a required report within 

the time prescribed, you may assert a 

claim of EPA system outage for failure 

to timely comply with the reporting 

requirement. You must submit 

notification to the Administrator in 

writing as soon as possible following the 

date you first knew, or through due 

diligence should have known, that the 

event may cause or caused a delay in 

reporting. You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description 

identifying the date, time and length of 

the outage; a rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to the EPA system outage; 

describe the measures taken or to be 

taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and identify a date by which 

you propose to report, or if you have 

already met the reporting requirement at 

the time of the notification, the date you 

reported. In any circumstance, the 

report must be submitted electronically 

as soon as possible after the outage is 

resolved. The decision to accept the 

claim of EPA system outage and allow 

an extension to the reporting deadline is 

solely within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(4) If you are required to 

electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force 

majeure event is about to occur, occurs, 

or has occurred or there are lingering 

effects from such an event within the 

period of time beginning 5 business 

days prior to the date the submission is 

due, the owner or operator may assert a 

claim of force majeure for failure to 

timely comply with the reporting 

requirement. For the purposes of this 

section, a force majeure event is defined 

as an event that will be or has been 

caused by circumstances beyond the 

control of the affected facility, its 

contractors, or any entity controlled by 

the affected facility that prevents you 

from complying with the requirement to 

submit a report electronically within the 

time period prescribed. Examples of 

such events are acts of nature (e.g., 

hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazard beyond the control of 

the affected facility (e.g., large scale 

power outage). If you intend to assert a 

claim of force majeure, you must submit 

notification to the Administrator in 

writing as soon as possible following the 

date you first knew, or through due 

diligence should have known, that the 

event may cause or caused a delay in 

reporting. You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of 

the force majeure event and a rationale 

for attributing the delay in reporting 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the 

force majeure event; describe the 

measures taken or to be taken to 

minimize the delay in reporting; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

report, or if you have already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date you reported. In 

any circumstance, the reporting must 

occur as soon as possible after the force 

majeure event occurs. The decision to 

accept the claim of force majeure and 

allow an extension to the reporting 

deadline is solely within the discretion 

of the Administrator. 

■ 11. Section 63.868 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.868 Delegation of authority. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Approval of a major change to test 

method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and 

as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of a major change to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

■ 12. Table 1 to Subpart MM of Part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47354 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MM 

General provisions 

reference Summary of requirements Applies to subpart MM Explanation 

63.1(a)(1) ................... General applicability of the General Provisions Yes ............................ Additional terms defined in § 63.861; when 

overlap between subparts A and MM of this 

part, subpart MM takes precedence. 

63.1(a)(2)–(14) ........... General applicability of the General Provisions Yes.

63.1(b)(1) ................... Initial applicability determination ...................... No .............................. Subpart MM specifies the applicability in 

§ 63.860. 

63.1(b)(2) ................... Title V operating permit—see 40 CFR part 70 Yes ............................ All major affected sources are required to obtain a title V permit. 

63.1(b)(3) ................... Record of the applicability determination ......... No .............................. All affected sources are subject to subpart 

MM according to the applicability definition 

of subpart MM. 

63.1(c)(1) ................... Applicability of subpart A of this part after a 

relevant standard has been set.

Yes ............................ Subpart MM clarifies the applicability of each 

paragraph of subpart A of this part to 

sources subject to subpart MM. 

63.1(c)(2) ................... Title V permit requirement ................................ Yes ............................ All major affected sources are required to obtain a title V permit. There are no area 

sources in the pulp and paper mill source 

category. 

63.1(c)(3) ................... [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.1(c)(4) ................... Requirements for existing source that obtains 

an extension of compliance.

Yes.

63.1(c)(5) ................... Notification requirements for an area source 

that increases HAP emissions to major 

source levels.

Yes.

63.1(d) ....................... [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.1(e) ....................... Applicability of permit program before a relevant standard has been set.Yes.

63.2 ............................ Definitions ......................................................... Yes ............................ Additional terms defined in § 63.861; when 

overlap between subparts A and MM of this 

part occurs, subpart MM takes precedence. 

63.3 ............................ Units and abbreviations .................................... Yes.

63.4 ............................ Prohibited activities and circumvention ............ Yes.

63.5(a) ....................... Construction and reconstruction—applicability Yes.

63.5(b)(1) ................... Upon construction, relevant standards for new 

sources.

Yes.

63.5(b)(2) ................... [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.5(b)(3) ................... New construction/reconstruction ...................... Yes.

63.5(b)(4) ................... Construction/reconstruction notification ........... Yes.

63.5(b)(5) ................... Construction/reconstruction compliance .......... Yes.

63.5(b)(6) ................... Equipment addition or process change ........... Yes.

63.5(c) ........................ [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.5(d) ....................... Application for approval of construction/reconstruction.Yes.

63.5(e) ....................... Construction/reconstruction approval ............... Yes.

63.5(f) ........................ Construction/reconstruction approval based on 

prior State preconstruction review.

Yes.

63.6(a)(1) ................... Compliance with standards and maintenance 

requirements—applicability.

Yes.

63.6(a)(2) ................... Requirements for area source that increases 

emissions to become major.

Yes.

63.6(b) ....................... Compliance dates for new and reconstructed 

sources.

Yes.

63.6(c) ........................ Compliance dates for existing sources ............ Yes, except for 

sources granted extensions under 

63.863(c).

Subpart MM specifically stipulates the compliance schedule for existing sources. 

63.6(d) ....................... [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.6(e)(1)(i) ................ General duty to minimize emissions ................ No .............................. See § 63.860(d) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............... Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP .... No.

63.6(e)(1)(iii) .............. Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations.Yes.

63.6(e)(2) ................... [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.6(e)(3) ................... Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 

(SSMP).

No.

63.6(f)(1) .................... Compliance with nonopacity emissions standards except during SSM.No.

63.6(f)(2)–(3) .............. Methods for determining compliance with nonopacity emissions standards.Yes.

63.6(g) ....................... Compliance with alternative nonopacity emissions standards.Yes.


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47355 

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

General provisions 

reference Summary of requirements Applies to subpart MM Explanation 

63.6(h)(1) ................... Compliance with opacity and visible emissions 

(VE) standards except during SSM.

No.

63.6(h)(2)–(9) ............. Compliance with opacity and VE standards .... Yes ............................ Subpart MM does not contain any opacity or 

VE standards; however, § 63.864 specifies 

opacity monitoring requirements. 

63.6(i) ......................... Extension of compliance with emissions 

standards.

Yes.

63.6(j) ......................... Exemption from compliance with emissions 

standards.

Yes.

63.7(a)(1) ................... Performance testing requirements—applicability.Yes.

63.7(a)(2) ................... Performance test dates .................................... Yes.

63.7(a)(3) ................... Performance test requests by Administrator 

under CAA section 114.

Yes.

63.7(a)(4) ................... Notification of delay in performance testing 

due to force majeure.

Yes.

63.7(b)(1) ................... Notification of performance test ....................... Yes.

63.7(b)(2) ................... Notification of delay in conducting a scheduled 

performance test.

Yes.

63.7(c) ........................ Quality assurance program .............................. Yes.

63.7(d) ....................... Performance testing facilities ........................... Yes.

63.7(e)(1) ................... Conduct of performance tests .......................... No .............................. See § 63.865.

63.7(e)(2)–(3) ............. Conduct of performance tests .......................... Yes.

63.7(e)(4) ................... Testing under section 114 ................................ Yes.

63.7(f) ........................ Use of an alternative test method .................... Yes.

63.7(g) ....................... Data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting ... Yes.

63.7(h) ....................... Waiver of performance tests ............................ Yes ............................ § 63.865(c)(1) specifies the only exemption 

from performance testing allowed under 

subpart MM. 

63.8(a)(1) ................... Monitoring requirements—applicability ............ Yes ............................ See § 63.864. 

63.8(a)(2) ................... Performance Specifications .............................. Yes.

63.8(a)(3) ................... [Reserved] ........................................................ No.

63.8(a)(4) ................... Monitoring with flares ....................................... No .............................. The use of flares to meet the standards in 

subpart MM is not anticipated. 

63.8(b)(1) ................... Conduct of monitoring ...................................... Yes ............................ See § 63.864. 

63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems.Yes.

63.8(c)(1) ................... Operation and maintenance of CMS ............... Yes ............................ See § 63.864. 

63.8(c)(1)(i) ................ General duty to minimize emissions and CMS 

operation.

No.

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............... Reporting requirements for SSM when action 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to develop SSM plan for CMS ... No.

63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............. Monitoring system installation .......................... Yes.

63.8(c)(4) ................... CMS requirements ........................................... Yes.

63.8(c)(5) ................... Continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) minimum procedures.

Yes.

63.8(c)(6) ................... Zero and high level calibration check requirements.Yes.

63.8(c)(7)–(8) ............. Out-of-control periods ....................................... Yes.

63.8(d)(1)–(2) ............. CMS quality control program ........................... Yes ............................ See § 63.864. 

63.8(d)(3) ................... Written procedures for CMS ............................ No .............................. See § 63.864(f). 

63.8(e)(1) ................... Performance evaluation of CMS ...................... Yes.

63.8(e)(2) ................... Notification of performance evaluation ............. Yes.

63.8(e)(3) ................... Submission of site-specific performance evaluation test plan.Yes.

63.8(e)(4) ................... Conduct of performance evaluation and performance evaluation dates.Yes.

63.8(e)(5) ................... Reporting performance evaluation results ....... Yes.

63.8(f) ........................ Use of an alternative monitoring method ......... Yes.

63.8(g) ....................... Reduction of monitoring data ........................... Yes.

63.9(a) ....................... Notification requirements—applicability and 

general information.

Yes.

63.9(b) ....................... Initial notifications ............................................. Yes.

63.9(c) ........................ Request for extension of compliance ............... Yes.

63.9(d) ....................... Notification that source subject to special compliance requirements.Yes.

63.9(e) ....................... Notification of performance test ....................... Yes.

63.9(f) ........................ Notification of opacity and VE observations .... Yes ............................ Subpart MM does not contain any opacity or 

VE standards; however, § 63.864 specifies 

opacity monitoring requirements. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
47356 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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

General provisions 

reference Summary of requirements Applies to subpart MM Explanation 

63.9(g)(1) ................... Additional notification requirements for 

sources with CMS.

Yes.

63.9(g)(2) ................... Notification of compliance with opacity emissions standard.Yes ............................ Subpart MM does not contain any opacity or 

VE emissions standards; however, § 63.864 

specifies opacity monitoring requirements. 

63.9(g)(3) ................... Notification that criterion to continue use of alternative to relative accuracy testing has 

been exceeded.

Yes.

63.9(h) ....................... Notification of compliance status ..................... Yes.

63.9(i) ......................... Adjustment to time periods or postmark deadlines for submittal and review of required 

communications.

Yes.

63.9(j) ......................... Change in information already provided .......... Yes.

63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping requirements—applicability 

and general information.

Yes ............................ See § 63.866. 

63.10(b)(1) ................. Records retention ............................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i) .............. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of 

startups and shutdowns.

No.

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard No .............................. See § 63.866(d) for recordkeeping of (1) date, 

time and duration; (2) listing of affected 

source or equipment, and an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............ Maintenance records ........................................ Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ...... Actions taken to minimize emissions during 

SSM.

No.

63.10(b)(2)(vi) ............ Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions ............. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. Other CMS requirements ................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(3) ................. Records retention for sources not subject to 

relevant standard.

Yes ............................ Applicability requirements are given in 

§ 63.860. 

63.10(c)(1)–(14) ......... Additional recordkeeping requirements for 

sources with CMS.

Yes.

63.10(c)(15) ............... Use of SSM plan .............................................. No.

63.10(d)(1) ................. General reporting requirements ....................... Yes.

63.10(d)(2) ................. Reporting results of performance tests ............ Yes.

63.10(d)(3) ................. Reporting results of opacity or VE observations.Yes ............................ Subpart MM does not include any opacity or 

VE standards; however, § 63.864 specifies 

opacity monitoring requirements. 

63.10(d)(4) ................. Progress reports ............................................... Yes.

63.10(d)(5)(i) .............. Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

reports.

No .............................. See § 63.867(c)(3) for malfunction reporting 

requirements. 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) ............. Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

reports.

No .............................. See § 63.867(c)(3) for malfunction reporting 

requirements. 

63.10(e)(1) ................. Additional reporting requirements for sources 

with CMS—General.

Yes.

63.10(e)(2) ................. Reporting results of CMS performance evaluations.Yes.

63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iv) ....... Requirement to submit excess emissions and 

CMS performance report and/or summary 

report and frequency of reporting.

No .............................. § 63.867(c)(1) and (3) require submittal of the 

excess emissions and CMS performance report and/or summary report on a semiannual basis. 

63.10(e)(3)(v) ............. General content and submittal dates for excess emissions and monitoring system performance reports.Yes.

63.10(e)(3)(vi) ............ Specific summary report content ..................... No .............................. § 63.867(c)(1) specifies the summary report 

content. 

63.10(e)(3)(vii)–(viii) ... Conditions for submitting summary report 

versus detailed excess emission report.

No .............................. § 63.867(c)(1) and (3) specify the conditions 

for submitting the summary report or detailed excess emissions and CMS performance report. 

63.10(e)(4) ................. Reporting continuous opacity monitoring system data produced during a performance 

test.

Yes.

63.10(f) ...................... Waiver of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.Yes.

63.11 .......................... Control device requirements for flares ............. No .............................. The use of flares to meet the standards in 

subpart MM is not anticipated. 

63.12 .......................... State authority and delegations ....................... Yes.

63.13 .......................... Addresses of State air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices.Yes.


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47357 

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

General provisions 

reference Summary of requirements Applies to subpart MM Explanation 

63.14 .......................... Incorporations by reference ............................. Yes.

63.15 .......................... Availability of information and confidentiality ... Yes.

63.16 .......................... Requirements for Performance Track member 

facilities.

Yes.

[FR Doc. 2017–21799 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2