
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47328-47357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21799]



[[Page 47327]]

Vol. 82

Wednesday,

No. 195

October 11, 2017

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

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

[[Page 47328]]


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

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

[[Page 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            NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp and Paper Production...  Chemical Recovery     32211, 32212, 32213.
                               Combustion Sources
                               at Kraft, Soda,
                               Sulfite, and Stand-
                               Alone Semichemical
                               Pulp Mills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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-air-pollution/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-stand-alone-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

[[Page 47330]]

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 technology-based 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 best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 47332]]

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 beta-testing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 user-friendly 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

[[Page 47333]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although 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.

                   Table 2--Pulp Mill Combustion Sources (Subpart MM) Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the December 2016 Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Cancer MIR (in-1-million)                          Population      Population
                                 ----------------------------------------     Cancer       with risk of    with risk of     Max chronic     Max chronic
                                                                             incidence        1-in-1          10-in-1      non-cancer HI   non-cancer HI
                                    Based on actual   Based on allowable    (cases per      million or      million or     \1\ (actuals)        \1\
                                       emissions          emmissions           year)           more            more                        (allowables)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category.................  4 (naphthalene,     4 (naphthalene,               0.01           7,600               0          HI < 1          HI < 1
                                   acetaldehyde).      acetaldehyde).
Whole facility..................  20 (arsenic,        ..................            0.05         440,000             280          HI = 1          HI = 1
                                   chromium VI).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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-in-1 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 multi-pathway 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 non-cancer 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 worst-case 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.

[[Page 47334]]

    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 pre-MACT 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 in-depth 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 cost-effective 
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

[[Page 47335]]

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 court-ordered 
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Review of the 
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper ICR 
Responses for Subpart MM Sources.
    \6\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Costs/Impacts of 
the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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,

[[Page 47336]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Revised Costs/
Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review for 
Promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ESP-
controlled 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Revised Costs/
Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review for 
Promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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 data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'') See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,'

[[Page 47338]]

such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, 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 off-line 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 re-designating 
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 re-designating 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 re-designating 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

[[Page 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 re-designating 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

[[Page 47340]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 47341]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 47342]]

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 already-
formatted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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:
    [cir] 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'';
    [cir] Remove the SSM exemption from the definition for 
``modification'';
    [cir] Clarify that the definition for ``particulate matter (PM)'' 
refers to filterable PM;
    [cir] Remove reference to use of one-half of the method detection 
limit for non-detect Method 29 measurements within the definition of 
``hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals'';
    [cir] 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
    [cir] 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

[[Page 47344]]

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 Socio-Economic 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

[[Page 47345]]

levels for the population living within 50 kilometers (km) of the 
facilities.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP. See 54 FR 38046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the following document in the docket titled, Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Pulp Mill Combustion Sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/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.

[[Page 47346]]

    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/emc-continuous-emission-monitoring-systems.

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, low-income 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:

[[Page 47347]]

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (m)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 
63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

Subpart MM--[Amended]

0
 3. Section 63.860 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (7) and 
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

0
4. Section 63.861 is amended by:
0
 a. Removing the definition for ``Black liquor gasification'';
0
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'';
0
c. Removing the definition for ``Startup''; and
0
d. Revising the definition for ``Total hydrocarbons (THC).''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 (Sec.  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).

0
5. Section 63.862 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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)).

0
6. Section 63.863 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.863  Compliance dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source or process 
unit must comply with the requirements in

[[Page 47348]]

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.

0
7. Section 63.864 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d) and paragraph 
(d)(4);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e)(1) and (2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(10)(i) and (ii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(iii);
0
e. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e)(12) and paragraphs 
(e)(12)(i), (ix), and (x);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(13) and (14);
0
g. Adding paragraph (f);
0
h. Revising paragraph (g);
0
i. Adding paragraph (h); and
0
j. Revising paragraphs (j) and (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  63.6(h) and 63.8 
and paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) As specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.862(c)(1) through the use of an NDCE recovery furnace 
equipped with a dry ESP system is not required to conduct any 
continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the gaseous 
organic HAP standard.
    (h) Monitoring data. As specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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;

[[Page 47350]]

    (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.

0
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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 [deg]C (400[emsp14] [deg]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 Sec.  63.862(a) or (b), the PM 
concentration must be corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration 
using Equation 7 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC17.004

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11OC17.005


[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.866 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a) 
and revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) In addition to the general records required by Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.862 or 
any opacity or CPMS operating limit in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  63.860(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected 
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.

0
10. Section 63.867 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 47352]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
63.864(e)(13) or (14) subject to the requirements of Sec.  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 Sec.  63.862 or any opacity or CPMS operating limit 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-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 Sec.  
63.13 unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternative 
reporting method.
    (2) The owner or operator must submit the notifications required in 
Sec.  63.9(b) and Sec.  63.9(h) (including any information specified in 
Sec.  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/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) 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 Sec.  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.

0
11. Section 63.868 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.868  Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Approval of a major change to test method under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.

0
 12. Table 1 to Subpart MM of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 47354]]



                Table 1 to Subpart MM of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Summary of
  General provisions reference         requirements            Applies to subpart MM            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)......................  General applicability  Yes.............................  Additional terms
                                   of the General                                           defined in Sec.
                                   Provisions.                                              63.861; when overlap
                                                                                            between subparts A
                                                                                            and MM of this part,
                                                                                            subpart MM takes
                                                                                            precedence.
63.1(a)(2)-(14).................  General applicability  Yes.............................
                                   of the General
                                   Provisions.
63.1(b)(1)......................  Initial applicability  No..............................  Subpart MM specifies
                                   determination.                                           the applicability in
                                                                                            Sec.   63.860.
63.1(b)(2)......................  Title V operating      Yes.............................  All major affected
                                   permit--see 40 CFR                                       sources are required
                                   part 70.                                                 to obtain a title V
                                                                                            permit.
63.1(b)(3)......................  Record of the          No..............................  All affected sources
                                   applicability                                            are subject to
                                   determination.                                           subpart MM according
                                                                                            to the applicability
                                                                                            definition of
                                                                                            subpart MM.
63.1(c)(1)......................  Applicability of       Yes.............................  Subpart MM clarifies
                                   subpart A of this                                        the applicability of
                                   part after a                                             each paragraph of
                                   relevant standard                                        subpart A of this
                                   has been set.                                            part to sources
                                                                                            subject to subpart
                                                                                            MM.
63.1(c)(2)......................  Title V permit         Yes.............................  All major affected
                                   requirement.                                             sources are required
                                                                                            to obtain a title V
                                                                                            permit. There are no
                                                                                            area sources in the
                                                                                            pulp and paper mill
                                                                                            source category.
63.1(c)(3)......................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.1(c)(4)......................  Requirements for       Yes.............................
                                   existing source that
                                   obtains an extension
                                   of compliance.
63.1(c)(5)......................  Notification           Yes.............................
                                   requirements for an
                                   area source that
                                   increases HAP
                                   emissions to major
                                   source levels.
63.1(d).........................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.1(e).........................  Applicability of       Yes.............................
                                   permit program
                                   before a relevant
                                   standard has been
                                   set.
63.2............................  Definitions..........  Yes.............................  Additional terms
                                                                                            defined in Sec.
                                                                                            63.861; when overlap
                                                                                            between subparts A
                                                                                            and MM of this part
                                                                                            occurs, subpart MM
                                                                                            takes precedence.
63.3............................  Units and              Yes.............................
                                   abbreviations.
63.4............................  Prohibited activities  Yes.............................
                                   and circumvention.
63.5(a).........................  Construction and       Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction--appl
                                   icability.
63.5(b)(1)......................  Upon construction,     Yes.............................
                                   relevant standards
                                   for new sources.
63.5(b)(2)......................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.5(b)(3)......................  New construction/      Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction.
63.5(b)(4)......................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   notification.
63.5(b)(5)......................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   compliance.
63.5(b)(6)......................  Equipment addition or  Yes.............................
                                   process change.
63.5(c).........................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.5(d).........................  Application for        Yes.............................
                                   approval of
                                   construction/
                                   reconstruction.
63.5(e).........................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   approval.
63.5(f).........................  Construction/          Yes.............................
                                   reconstruction
                                   approval based on
                                   prior State
                                   preconstruction
                                   review.
63.6(a)(1)......................  Compliance with        Yes.............................
                                   standards and
                                   maintenance
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability.
63.6(a)(2)......................  Requirements for area  Yes.............................
                                   source that
                                   increases emissions
                                   to become major.
63.6(b).........................  Compliance dates for   Yes.............................
                                   new and
                                   reconstructed
                                   sources.
63.6(c).........................  Compliance dates for   Yes, except for sources granted   Subpart MM
                                   existing sources.      extensions under 63.863(c).       specifically
                                                                                            stipulates the
                                                                                            compliance schedule
                                                                                            for existing
                                                                                            sources.
63.6(d).........................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.6(e)(1)(i)...................  General duty to        No..............................  See Sec.   63.860(d)
                                   minimize emissions.                                      for general duty
                                                                                            requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..................  Requirement to         No..............................
                                   correct malfunctions
                                   ASAP.
63.6(e)(1)(iii).................  Operation and          Yes.............................
                                   maintenance
                                   requirements
                                   enforceable
                                   independent of
                                   emissions
                                   limitations.
63.6(e)(2)......................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.6(e)(3)......................  Startup, shutdown,     No..............................
                                   and malfunction plan
                                   (SSMP).
63.6(f)(1)......................  Compliance with        No..............................
                                   nonopacity emissions
                                   standards except
                                   during SSM.
63.6(f)(2)-(3)..................  Methods for            Yes.............................
                                   determining
                                   compliance with
                                   nonopacity emissions
                                   standards.
63.6(g).........................  Compliance with        Yes.............................
                                   alternative
                                   nonopacity emissions
                                   standards.

[[Page 47355]]

 
63.6(h)(1)......................  Compliance with        No..............................
                                   opacity and visible
                                   emissions (VE)
                                   standards except
                                   during SSM.
63.6(h)(2)-(9)..................  Compliance with        Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   opacity and VE                                           contain any opacity
                                   standards.                                               or VE standards;
                                                                                            however, Sec.
                                                                                            63.864 specifies
                                                                                            opacity monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.6(i).........................  Extension of           Yes.............................
                                   compliance with
                                   emissions standards.
63.6(j).........................  Exemption from         Yes.............................
                                   compliance with
                                   emissions standards.
63.7(a)(1)......................  Performance testing    Yes.............................
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability.
63.7(a)(2)......................  Performance test       Yes.............................
                                   dates.
63.7(a)(3)......................  Performance test       Yes.............................
                                   requests by
                                   Administrator under
                                   CAA section 114.
63.7(a)(4)......................  Notification of delay  Yes.............................
                                   in performance
                                   testing due to force
                                   majeure.
63.7(b)(1)......................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   performance test.
63.7(b)(2)......................  Notification of delay  Yes.............................
                                   in conducting a
                                   scheduled
                                   performance test.
63.7(c).........................  Quality assurance      Yes.............................
                                   program.
63.7(d).........................  Performance testing    Yes.............................
                                   facilities.
63.7(e)(1)......................  Conduct of             No..............................  See Sec.   63.865.
                                   performance tests.
63.7(e)(2)-(3)..................  Conduct of             Yes.............................
                                   performance tests.
63.7(e)(4)......................  Testing under section  Yes.............................
                                   114.
63.7(f).........................  Use of an alternative  Yes.............................
                                   test method.
63.7(g).........................  Data analysis,         Yes.............................
                                   recordkeeping, and
                                   reporting.
63.7(h).........................  Waiver of performance  Yes.............................  Sec.   63.865(c)(1)
                                   tests.                                                   specifies the only
                                                                                            exemption from
                                                                                            performance testing
                                                                                            allowed under
                                                                                            subpart MM.
63.8(a)(1)......................  Monitoring             Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.864.
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability.
63.8(a)(2)......................  Performance            Yes.............................
                                   Specifications.
63.8(a)(3)......................  [Reserved]...........  No..............................
63.8(a)(4)......................  Monitoring with        No..............................  The use of flares to
                                   flares.                                                  meet the standards
                                                                                            in subpart MM is not
                                                                                            anticipated.
63.8(b)(1)......................  Conduct of monitoring  Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.864.
63.8(b)(2)-(3)..................  Specific requirements  Yes.............................
                                   for installing and
                                   reporting on
                                   monitoring systems.
63.8(c)(1)......................  Operation and          Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.864.
                                   maintenance of CMS.
63.8(c)(1)(i)...................  General duty to        No..............................
                                   minimize emissions
                                   and CMS operation.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)..................  Reporting              Yes.............................
                                   requirements for SSM
                                   when action not
                                   described in SSMP.
63.8(c)(1)(iii).................  Requirement to         No..............................
                                   develop SSM plan for
                                   CMS.
63.8(c)(2)-(3)..................  Monitoring system      Yes.............................
                                   installation.
63.8(c)(4)......................  CMS requirements.....  Yes.............................
63.8(c)(5)......................  Continuous opacity     Yes.............................
                                   monitoring system
                                   (COMS) minimum
                                   procedures.
63.8(c)(6)......................  Zero and high level    Yes.............................
                                   calibration check
                                   requirements.
63.8(c)(7)-(8)..................  Out-of-control         Yes.............................
                                   periods.
63.8(d)(1)-(2)..................  CMS quality control    Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.864.
                                   program.
63.8(d)(3)......................  Written procedures     No..............................  See Sec.   63.864(f).
                                   for CMS.
63.8(e)(1)......................  Performance            Yes.............................
                                   evaluation of CMS.
63.8(e)(2)......................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   performance
                                   evaluation.
63.8(e)(3)......................  Submission of site-    Yes.............................
                                   specific performance
                                   evaluation test plan.
63.8(e)(4)......................  Conduct of             Yes.............................
                                   performance
                                   evaluation and
                                   performance
                                   evaluation dates.
63.8(e)(5)......................  Reporting performance  Yes.............................
                                   evaluation results.
63.8(f).........................  Use of an alternative  Yes.............................
                                   monitoring method.
63.8(g).........................  Reduction of           Yes.............................
                                   monitoring data.
63.9(a).........................  Notification           Yes.............................
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability and general
                                   information.
63.9(b).........................  Initial notifications  Yes.............................
63.9(c).........................  Request for extension  Yes.............................
                                   of compliance.
63.9(d).........................  Notification that      Yes.............................
                                   source subject to
                                   special compliance
                                   requirements.
63.9(e).........................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   performance test.
63.9(f).........................  Notification of        Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   opacity and VE                                           contain any opacity
                                   observations.                                            or VE standards;
                                                                                            however, Sec.
                                                                                            63.864 specifies
                                                                                            opacity monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.

[[Page 47356]]

 
63.9(g)(1)......................  Additional             Yes.............................
                                   notification
                                   requirements for
                                   sources with CMS.
63.9(g)(2)......................  Notification of        Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   compliance with                                          contain any opacity
                                   opacity emissions                                        or VE emissions
                                   standard.                                                standards; however,
                                                                                            Sec.   63.864
                                                                                            specifies opacity
                                                                                            monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.9(g)(3)......................  Notification that      Yes.............................
                                   criterion to
                                   continue use of
                                   alternative to
                                   relative accuracy
                                   testing has been
                                   exceeded.
63.9(h).........................  Notification of        Yes.............................
                                   compliance status.
63.9(i).........................  Adjustment to time     Yes.............................
                                   periods or postmark
                                   deadlines for
                                   submittal and review
                                   of required
                                   communications.
63.9(j).........................  Change in information  Yes.............................
                                   already provided.
63.10(a)........................  Recordkeeping          Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.866.
                                   requirements--applic
                                   ability and general
                                   information.
63.10(b)(1).....................  Records retention....  Yes.............................
63.10(b)(2)(i)..................  Recordkeeping of       No..............................
                                   occurrence and
                                   duration of startups
                                   and shutdowns.
63.10(b)(2)(ii).................  Recordkeeping of       No..............................  See Sec.   63.866(d)
                                   failures to meet a                                       for recordkeeping of
                                   standard.                                                (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       No..............................
                                   minimize emissions
                                   during SSM.
63.10(b)(2)(vi).................  Recordkeeping for CMS  Yes.............................
                                   malfunctions.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)..........  Other CMS              Yes.............................
                                   requirements.
63.10(b)(3).....................  Records retention for  Yes.............................  Applicability
                                   sources not subject                                      requirements are
                                   to relevant standard.                                    given in Sec.
                                                                                            63.860.
63.10(c)(1)-(14)................  Additional             Yes.............................
                                   recordkeeping
                                   requirements for
                                   sources with CMS.
63.10(c)(15)....................  Use of SSM plan......  No..............................
63.10(d)(1).....................  General reporting      Yes.............................
                                   requirements.
63.10(d)(2).....................  Reporting results of   Yes.............................
                                   performance tests.
63.10(d)(3).....................  Reporting results of   Yes.............................  Subpart MM does not
                                   opacity or VE                                            include any opacity
                                   observations.                                            or VE standards;
                                                                                            however, Sec.
                                                                                            63.864 specifies
                                                                                            opacity monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
63.10(d)(4).....................  Progress reports.....  Yes.............................
63.10(d)(5)(i)..................  Periodic startup,      No..............................  See Sec.
                                   shutdown, and                                            63.867(c)(3) for
                                   malfunction reports.                                     malfunction
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).................  Immediate startup,     No..............................  See Sec.
                                   shutdown, and                                            63.867(c)(3) for
                                   malfunction reports.                                     malfunction
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
63.10(e)(1).....................  Additional reporting   Yes.............................
                                   requirements for
                                   sources with CMS--
                                   General.
63.10(e)(2).....................  Reporting results of   Yes.............................
                                   CMS performance
                                   evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iv).............  Requirement to submit  No..............................  Sec.   63.867(c)(1)
                                   excess emissions and                                     and (3) require
                                   CMS performance                                          submittal of the
                                   report and/or                                            excess emissions and
                                   summary report and                                       CMS performance
                                   frequency of                                             report and/or
                                   reporting.                                               summary report on a
                                                                                            semiannual basis.
63.10(e)(3)(v)..................  General content and    Yes.............................
                                   submittal dates for
                                   excess emissions and
                                   monitoring system
                                   performance reports.
63.10(e)(3)(vi).................  Specific summary       No..............................  Sec.   63.867(c)(1)
                                   report content.                                          specifies the
                                                                                            summary report
                                                                                            content.
63.10(e)(3)(vii)-(viii).........  Conditions for         No..............................  Sec.   63.867(c)(1)
                                   submitting summary                                       and (3) specify the
                                   report versus                                            conditions for
                                   detailed excess                                          submitting the
                                   emission report.                                         summary report or
                                                                                            detailed excess
                                                                                            emissions and CMS
                                                                                            performance report.
63.10(e)(4).....................  Reporting continuous   Yes.............................
                                   opacity monitoring
                                   system data produced
                                   during a performance
                                   test.
63.10(f)........................  Waiver of              Yes.............................
                                   recordkeeping and
                                   reporting
                                   requirements.
63.11...........................  Control device         No..............................  The use of flares to
                                   requirements for                                         meet the standards
                                   flares.                                                  in subpart MM is not
                                                                                            anticipated.
63.12...........................  State authority and    Yes.............................
                                   delegations.
63.13...........................  Addresses of State     Yes.............................
                                   air pollution
                                   control agencies and
                                   EPA Regional Offices.

[[Page 47357]]

 
63.14...........................  Incorporations by      Yes.............................
                                   reference.
63.15...........................  Availability of        Yes.............................
                                   information and
                                   confidentiality.
63.16...........................  Requirements for       Yes.............................
                                   Performance Track
                                   member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-21799 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


