We disagree that the 90 percent control requirement that EPA has identified as the MACT floor is incorrect. Our data indicate that several control devices achieve greater than 90 percent reduction. The 90 percent control requirement was proposed instead of a more stringent percent reduction to account for variability in control system performance over time and thus already accounts for reasonably foreseen adverse circumstances. Such variability in performance can be related to need for control device maintenance ( e. g., an RTO with 1 year old media may perform less effectively than an RTO with new media).

We have not required an OM& M plan because OM& M plans typically include all monitoring and reporting requirements, not just the requirements associated with routine control device maintenance. Inclusion of an OM& M plan in the final rule would have required rewriting large portions of the proposed rule. Given that we did not receive many requests to include an all inclusive OM& M plan, we felt it would cause confusion to rewrite the proposed rule to include an OM& M plan prior to promulgation.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 21, IV D 23, and IV D 27 argued that the downtime allowance periods are too short to allow for proper maintenance. Commenter IV D 23 stated that activities that are performed regularly could be performed in that time, but less frequent maintenance, such as catalyst replacement, will take longer than the allowed downtime. 2 210 Commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 argued that downtime allowance for rotary dryers needs to be changed to better represent floor technology. The 3 percent annual downtime allowance was based on the assumption that maintenance for the equipment is performed annually. However, there are events that only occur every 2 to 3 years and require an extensive amount of downtime, such as replacing the heat exchange media in the control device and replacing corroded structural parts. According to an NCASI database, the median life of RTO heat exchange media controlling emissions from rotary dryers is 1.5 years, and 80 percent of units replaced their media within 2 years. The survey that EPA used to set the downtime allowance only included data from 1999, and many facilities may have conducted non annual maintenance and repairs in the years preceding or following that year. The 1999 survey was also limited in that the majority of the RTOs included in the survey were less than 5 years old, and as the equipment ages over a lifetime of 5 to 15 years, performance will degrade below the levels seen in the 1999 survey. Facilities are likely to have underreported their actual downtime in the original survey, so increasing the downtime would be more representative of actual experience. The commenters argued that EPA should have used the 79th percentile of the annual unscheduled downtime data rather than the 50th percentile to set the downtime allowance. The 50th percentile does not adequately reflect the downtime needs for non annual activities, but the 79th percentile includes the downtime needed for that type of maintenance and repair while screening out the maintenance activities associated with catastrophic failures. Scheduled process downtime periods are too short for a maintenance activity that requires allowing a control device to cool, conducting internal repairs, and reheating the unit. The commenters suggested that EPA reexamine the downtime data and use the 79th percentile of the unscheduled downtime in the 1999 NCASI study to select a downtime allowance that represents the time needed for non annual events. Commenter IV D 27 stated that this approach is justified because the D. C. Circuit stated in Sierra Club v. EPA that the MACT floor should be an estimate of the best controlled sources under the worst conditions. For rotary dryers, the 79th percentile would result in a downtime allowance of 7.6 percent of annual operating hours. Commenter IV D 21 noted that, alternatively, EPA could allow facilities to accumulate unused downtime so that they would have time every 2 to 3 years for large maintenance activities.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that a 0.5 percent downtime allowance for softwood veneer dryers, reconstituted wood product presses, reconstituted wood product board coolers, hardboard 2 211 ovens, press predryers, and fiberboard mat dryers is not nearly enough. Assuming a plant is in operation a full 8,760 hours per year, 0.5 percent is only 43.5 hours. Annual inspection and maintenance for small control units may be accomplished within the allowed period, but larger units will not be able to complete all maintenance activities within this downtime allowance period. The commenter estimated that the annual maintenance on control devices that serve veneer dryers and press vents would take 41 hours for a small ( 2 chamber) unit, while the maintenance for a large ( 6 chamber) unit would take 60 hours. Some of the steps involved in that estimate include removing the control device from the process, cooling, performing various maintenance activities, reheating the unit, and reconnecting the unit to the process. Again referring to Sierra Club v. EPA, the commenter stated that the proposed downtime for veneer dryers and presses is not a reasonable estimate of the best controlled units at the worst conditions.

Also, some of the maintenance can be performed during process downtime, but when one control device controls the emissions for multiple dryers or presses, scheduling becomes more difficult.

The commenter suggested that EPA increase the downtime allowance for maintaining operation of RTO units treating emissions from veneer dryers and press vents to 60 hours or 1 percent of operating uptime, whichever is greater. This value represents the practical minimum amount of time that is needed to perform required annual maintenance on a typical combustion APCD.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that biofilters used to control press emissions should have a greater downtime allowance than the 0.5 percent allowed for other control units for presses. The replacement of the bed media is the most significant maintenance activity for a biofilter. Because the volume of a biofilter bed is often many times larger than the heat exchange media used in an oxidizer, and the media is equally difficult to handle, an increase in the downtime exemption is justified. An industry survey indicates that it takes about 10 minutes/ cubic yard to replace biofilter media, so replacing a 2,000 cubic yard bed would take approximately two weeks.

Fortunately, while bed replacements are certainly major maintenance events, they only occur every two to four years, not on an annual basis. To accommodate the needs of a biofilter, the commenter suggested that the routine control device maintenance exemption for a biofilter be 3 percent of operating time. In addition, EPA should provide some flexibility in this section that would better accommodate such a major maintenance activity by allowing a facility to accumulate unused maintenance time or develop a rolling three year average. That flexibility would 2 212 encourage facilities to better manage their downtime and maintenance schedules, resulting in improved equipment uptime and performance.

Response: In 2001, the PCWP industry submitted to EPA results of a survey of plants operating RTO, RCO, and biofilters to determine the amount of process unit downtime plants incur as a result of control device downtime. 28 These data were used by industry and EPA in developing the proposed downtime allowance. 29 In the industry's downtime analysis, six routine maintenance downtime categories were considered: media plugging, media degradation,

corrosion, washouts, offline bakeouts, and other cleaning. Based on the 1999 data reported by survey respondents for 30 RTO and RCO controls, the industry recommended that a downtime allowance of 3.6 percent of process unit uptime per year is reasonable for all PCWP process units.

In analyzing the downtime data, the industry attempted to eliminate the effect of outliers by viewing the 79th percentile value as representative of the largest amount of downtime needed by the best controlled sources. The industry also considered downtime allowances for different process units: rotary dryers with and without WESP ( 7.6 percent), veneer dryers ( 0.2 percent),

presses ( 0.9 percent), and tube dryers ( 3.4 percent).

The EPA conducted a separate analysis of the industry's downtime survey data using the same six downtime categories because these categories reflect routine maintenance activities. We agreed that APCD downtime as a percentage of process unit uptime was the most appropriate format for a downtime allowance. Like the industry, we also used the 1999 downtime data for the 30 RTO and RCO controls. These downtime data represented all types of maintenance activities in the six routine maintenance downtime categories ( media plugging, media degradation,

corrosion, washouts, offline bakeouts, and other cleaning), and therefore all types of maintenance activities ( including major events) were represented with the 1999 downtime data. The downtime survey requested only 1999 process uptime, which made it impossible to determine downtime as a percentage of process uptime for years other than 1999. Instead of the 79th percentile downtime value, we used central tendencies including the mean, median, and the mean without the bottom and top 20 percent of the data ( i. e., average of the middle 60 percent of the data). The 79th percentile excludes the highest of the reported downtime values, but still represents the higher end of the range of downtime needs. We believe that the 79th percentile downtime value would overpredict the downtime needed for two reasons. First, the 1999 downtime for the six routine maintenance categories was reported for only 30 ( roughly half) of the RTO and RCO control 2 213 devices included in the downtime survey. Thus, it appears that up to half of the RTO and RCO included in the survey had zero downtime in 1999 while the process units controlled were operating. It is difficult to know why survey respondents did not report 1999 downtime ( e. g.,

because the control device had zero downtime, or the control device was not operating because of long process shutdown). In some cases, the production uptime was not reported and could not be used in determining a downtime percentage. Given these uncertainties, the 0 percent downtime values were not evaluated. Second, the downtime allowance must apply to RTOs and RCOs installed in the future, which should require less downtime than their predecessors because of design improvements.

Based on our analysis ( and also apparent from the industry analysis), we determined that there are differences in the percentages of downtime needed for various types of equipment. The RTO and RCO used on veneer dryers and presses require much less downtime for routine maintenance than the RTO and RCO used on rotary dryers and tube dryers, because particulate plugging and salt deposition problems are more common for some rotary and tube dryers than for presses and veneer dryers. Most of the central tendency values we calculated were close together for each type of process unit. Therefore, all three of the central tendencies were considered in arriving at downtime allowances. Reasonable downtime allowances appeared to be 3 percent for rotary/ tube dryers ( 0.03 x 8,760 = 263 hr/ yr) and 0.5 percent for presses/ veneer dryers ( 0.005 x 8,760 = 44 hr/ yr). Biofilters were not included in the analysis of 1999 downtime. Biofilters are typically used to control press emissions. The annual hours of downtime required for the biofilters in the downtime data base generally match well with the 0.5 percent downtime allowance for presses/ veneer dryers.

There are process units with control requirements in the PCWP NESHAP other than rotary dryers, tube dryers, presses, and veneer dryers. The 3 percent downtime allowance was selected for APCDs controlling green rotary dryers, tube dryers, strand dryers, pressurized refiners, and combinations of any of these equipment with other process units. The 0.5 percent downtime allowance was selected for APCDs controlling equipment that is less susceptible to particulate and salt deposition, including veneer dryers, presses, board coolers, hardboard ovens,

press predryers, and fiberboard mat dryers. Application of the downtime allowance is per process unit ( i. e., the downtime allowance is calculated separately for each process unit controlled using the operating hours for each process unit). 2 214 In a letter dated June 28, 2001, commenter IV D 27 specifically requested that an annual basis be used for determining routine control device downtime because " Oftentimes, activities associated with routine maintenance of the RTOs and RCOs ( offline bakeouts, washouts, valve cleaning, and other activities to keep control device pressure drops in acceptable operating range) occur only once per year. This is particularly true for those units with relatively light particulate loadings such as veneer dryers and presses." 30 We note that, based on our MACT survey results and Attachment O to comment IV D 27,

several routine maintenance activities ( e. g., bakeouts, washouts) occur much more frequently than once per year. Nevertheless, we proposed to calculate the percentage of APCD downtime on an annual basis and we maintain that using an annual basis for calculation of the downtime allowance is appropriate. We question whether activities that occur less frequently than once per year are really " routine" maintenance activities. To answer this question, we reviewed the downtime survey data for the 30 APCDs used in setting the downtime allowance. We found that 12 of these 30 APCDs had downtime associated with media plugging or media degradation that resulted in either partial or full replacement of the media. Therefore, we disagree with the commenters that the media replacement was not included in the derivation of the downtime allowance. In addition,

we note that the commenters are incorrect in stating that the 3 percent downtime allowance was based on an assumption that maintenance is performed annually because the data used in determining the 3 percent downtime allowance included multiple events per year. Furthermore,

because the same data sets were used in both the industry's 79th percentile and our central tendencies analysis, we disagree with the commenters that basing the downtime allowance on the 79th percentile instead of central tendencies would better account for non annual activities.

Based on our analysis of the downtime data, we maintain that the percentage downtime we proposed ( 3 percent for some units and 0.5 percent for others) calculated on an annual basis is appropriate for the final PCWP rule. The downtime allowance allowed under the RCDME is intended to allow facilities limited time to perform routine maintenance on their APCDs without shutting down the process units being controlled by the APCD. We included the downtime allowance in the rule because we recognize that frequent maintenance must be performed to combat particulate and salt buildup in RTOs and RCOs for PCWP drying processes. The downtime allowance is not intended to cover every APCD maintenance activity, only those maintenance activities that are routine ( e. g., bakeouts, washouts, partial or full media 2 215 replacements) and do not coincide with process unit shutdowns. Most APCD maintenance should occur during process unit shutdowns; the RCDME is a downtime allowance in addition to the APCD maintenance downtime that occurs during process unit shutdowns. We note that most PCWP plants do not operate 8,760 hours per year without shutdowns. For example, the MACT survey responses indicate that softwood plywood plants operate for an average 7,540 hours per year, which would allow 1,220 hours for control device maintenance without the RCDME. 10 Furthermore, the RCDME is allowed in addition to APCD downtime associated with SSM events covered by the SSM plan ( e. g. electrical problems, mechanical problems, utility supply problems,

pre filter upsets).

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Three commenters ( IV D 21, IV D 23, and IV D 27) objected to the requirement that the maintenance be scheduled at the beginning of the semiannual period.

Commenter IV D 21 stated that routine maintenance can easily be scheduled in advance, but equipment breakdowns are never scheduled, and it is unreasonable for a facility to wait until the beginning of the next semiannual period to fix the equipment. Also, facilities should have the flexibility to change the control device maintenance schedule more than twice a year so that it corresponds with process maintenance.

Commenter IV D 23 stated that facilities should be able to schedule their own maintenance periods so that they correspond with process downtime, as long as the maintenance is performed on a regular basis. With this change, facilities would not have to worry that process units are not being appropriately controlled, and they would be able to schedule large scale maintenance, such as bakeouts, on holidays when the entire plant is shut down.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that the requirement in section 63.2251( e) to schedule maintenance activities at the beginning of each semiannual period is neither consistent with industry practice nor practical. It is reasonable to schedule maintenance during process downtime, but even process downtime is not scheduled on a semiannual basis. Downtime for maintenance is scheduled as the need arises, and downtime schedules change with need and production requirements. Most facilities will have a general idea of when they intend to conduct routine maintenance activities and will schedule those activities whenever possible to coincide with process downtime as it approaches. It is unclear under the proposed PCWP rule as to what would happen if maintenance was necessary before the scheduled date. If facilities are forced to follow the schedule to perform the maintenance, then they would likely be out of compliance in 2 216 the meantime. In addition, facilities often perform maintenance of APCDs in advance of a scheduled time to take advantage of unexplained process outages. To eliminate confusion and better represent industry practice, EPA should remove the requirement for sources to schedule their control device maintenance schedules at the beginning of each semiannual compliance period.

Response: We have revised § 63.2251( e) to delete the requirement to record your control device maintenance schedule for the semiannual period. We agree that this requirement would be impractical because process unit shutdowns are not scheduled semiannually. Also, the SSM provisions do not require scheduling of maintenance, and therefore, requiring scheduling of routine maintenance covered under the RCDME would be more restrictive than the requirements for SSM. To the extent possible, APCD maintenance should be scheduled at the same time as process unit shutdowns. Thus the revised § 63.2251( e) retains the requirement that startup and shutdown of emission control systems must be scheduled during times when process equipment is also shut down.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 stated that in addition to regular periodic maintenance, the control devices that form the basis for the MACT floor are inappropriate for wood products sources and have proven to be subject to " catastrophic failure." Extended emission control equipment downtime, at times up to several months, is needed to replace major system components when a control device experiences a failure such as rapid disintegration of the heat exchange bed, rapid irreversible plugging of the heat exchange bed, corrosion and collapse of major internal structural components, or an explosion. Instead of forcing a facility to shut down during this time, the commenter requested that EPA minimize the substantial economic impact by stating in the preamble that state enforcement officials have the discretion to recognize the industry's current inability to control the occurrence of such events through a variance or a consent decree or similar enforcement provision.

Response: Catastrophic failures are infrequent and unique situations that are best handled be the applicable enforcement authority. With any catastrophic failure, the enforcement authority must participate in evaluating the cause of the failure and the decision making relative to whether the plant should be allowed to continue operation under consent agreement. If, for example, the catastrophic failure is the result of an accident or was unavoidable, then the enforcement authority may decide to handle the situation differently than if the failure was the result of poor APCD 2 217 maintenance. Facilities generally have not been forced to shut down in those rare instances when catastrophic failures have occurred and enforcement authorities have used their discretion in these situations. We strongly disagree that it is appropriate for us to conclude that all catastrophic failures are unavoidable, and we further disagree that enforcement officials need to be reminded of their discretion for handling such events.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 stated that the statement in section 63.2251( d)

( What are the requirements for the routine control device maintenance exemption?) that facilities must " minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible" during maintenance periods is somewhat misleading. Facilities should make reasonable efforts to minimize emissions during control device downtime, but the wording of the proposed rule could be interpreted to mean that sources should limit production or shut down entirely during maintenance periods. That interpretation would negate any benefit to having an equipment downtime exemption and it would not be consistent with the MACT floor. The second sentence of section 63.2251( d) should be either removed or modified to require that facilities " establish a maintenance downtime program that addresses reasonable efforts to minimize emissions" during routine control device maintenance periods.

Response: We agree with the commenter that the wording of § 63.2251( d) could cause misinterpretation of EPA's intentions. We note that in the proposal, § 63.2251( a) also required a facility requesting an RCDME to describe its plan for minimizing emissions to the greatest extent possible. To address the commenter's concern, we have modified the second sentence of § 63.2251( d) as suggested, and we have revised § 63.2251( a) as follows:

Your request must... describe how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible make reasonable efforts to minimize emissions during the maintenance...

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 argued that the difference between the routine maintenance downtime allowance and SSM events should be clearly defined in the rule. Section III. I of the preamble states There will also be instances when a control device is offline for correction of malfunctions such as electrical problems, mechanical problems, utility supply problems, pre filter upsets, production malfunctions ( e. g., dryer fires), and weather related problems. Because these malfunctions are sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable, they would be covered under the SSM provisions of today's proposed rule. ( 1295) 2 218 The commenter requested that this language, including the examples of malfunctions, be repeated in the body of the rule. Specifically, EPA should incorporate the SSM provisions from the MACT General Provisions into the rule, along with the examples listed above of SSM events specific to the wood products source category.

Response: The SSM provisions from the General Provisions are already incorporated into the PCWP rule. Section 63.2250( c) and Table 10 to subpart DDDD both state that § 63.6( e)( 3)

of the General Provisions for writing SSM plans does apply to subpart DDDD. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to classify all of the events in the categories identified by the commenter as malfunctions because some occurrences of these events may be reasonably preventable. However, we do agree with the commenter that further clarification is needed to help facilities distinguish between SSM events and routine control device maintenance. To achieve that goal, we have provided examples of events that would be covered by the RCDME in § 63.2251( a) of the final rule.

2.8.2 Veneer dryer burner relights <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 requested an exemption for situations where emissions from veneer dryers must bypass control devices to avoid damage to personnel or equipment. These situations include relighting the burner, opening the dryers to clear jams, and stopping the dryers to avoid fire or explosion. The commenters argued that provisions for these regular emission bypass events need to be written into the MACT performance standards to avoid unsafe conditions and to allow the facility to operate in compliance with the MACT regulations. Commenter IV D 21 stated that the bypass of control devices in these situations existed when EPA was developing the rule, and they were therefore incorporated into the MACT floor.

The commenters explained that anytime a veneer dryer is shut down for any reason,

scheduled or unscheduled, the emissions from that dryer must be vented directly to the atmosphere, or purged, for three minutes to avoid a buildup of explosive gases before the burner can be relit. The emissions cannot pass through an RTO, an RCO, or another dryer because these devices could ignite the explosive gas mixture. In addition, cold air must be purged to avoid condensation of flammable condensed organic material. Finally, if water or other firefighting chemicals enter the system, the air must be purged before relight to avoid combustion of these chemicals. Relighting the burner is necessary after these frequent shutdowns and when starting a 2 219 dryer from cold shutdown. Burner relights occur on average from 6 to 12 times per 8 hour shift.

Commenter IV D 27 assumed that purging the dryers while production is stopped in unscheduled events would be allowed, but noted that including an exemption in the rule for all relighting situations is important to keep the plant safe.

Commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 stated that as the proposed rule stands now, bypassing control devices when a veneer dryer burner is relit is not completely covered. The General Provisions state that a facility must either comply with the emissions standard or follow the SSM plan, but the proposed PCWP rule is more restrictive. The exemption provided in the rule only covers scheduled startups, such as weekly startups after routine maintenance, not relights after temporary shutdowns. Also, the SSM plan does not include an exemption from the emission requirements. The language of the proposed rule about minimizing emissions to the greatest extent possible during unscheduled shutdowns could be interpreted to mean that purging is not acceptable, even if it is necessary to avoid fire. The commenters argued that the language of the PCWP rule could be changed to reflect the General Provisions wording, and purging could be included in the SSM plan to maintain safety. The commenters also pointed out that minimizing the emissions to the level of PBCO limits does not qualify as ` minimizing emissions to the levels required by the relevant standards' because the proposed language prohibits using multiple compliance options for a single process unit. Commenter IV D 27 added that emissions during burner startup may or may not be lower than emissions when the dryers are operating at the maximum capacity. The emissions are expected to be lower the longer the burners are off because the dryer will cool when not heated.

As a result of this situation, commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 suggested revisions to the proposed rule. First, SSM events should not be labeled as " deviations" since the General Provisions do not define them that way. See comment No. <IP_ADDRESS> under Deviations for more details. Startups of the gas fired burners in direct fired veneer dryers should not be classified as deviations either. If these events need to be reported, then EPA should define a different category for reporting them. Second, the word " scheduled" should be removed from section 63.2250( d)

( What are the requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?). See comment No. <IP_ADDRESS> under SSM Plan for more information. Alternatively, if making that change is determined to be too broad, EPA could specifically develop an exemption for periods when 2 220 direct fired burners are shut off and/ or are being relit by adding wording to the regulation that reads The compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements in § 63.2240 do not apply during times when process gases from direct fired processes are vented to atmosphere for safety purposes during periods when process burners are shut off or during start or re start of process heaters.

This revision specifically does not include the phrase " you must minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible" because such a phrase could be interpreted to require that dryers be cooled before restart to reduce emissions during purging. All of the direct fired veneer dryers in EPA's database that had thermal and catalytic emission control equipment practiced bypass of emissions during burner shutdown and restart, so these practices are part of the floor. Finally, the PCWP rule should specifically address direct fired veneer dryer starts, restarts, and partial restarts. The frequent nature of dryer relights should be considered separately from the infrequent occurrence of SSM events, and language should be added to section 63.2250( e) to specifically address and regulate this process. Suggested wording is:

( e) Shut off of direct fired burners resulting from partial and full production stoppages of direct fired veneer dryers or over temperature events shall be deemed shutdowns and not malfunctions. Lighting, or re lighting any one or all gas burners in direct fired veneer dryers shall be deemed start ups and not malfunctions.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that these changes are needed to prevent endless negotiation with states and nongovernmental organizations ( NGOs) about this issue. If the frequent line stoppages at veneer dryers were to be interpreted as malfunctions, additional rules would apply regarding the frequency of such events. A malfunction would have to fit the malfunction definition given by the General Provisions, and the line stoppages discussed in this section do not meet the " infrequent" term in the definition. Also, bypassing a control device could be challenged by administrator or public advocacy groups through citizen suit provisions, and according to section 63.6( e)( 3)( vii) of the General Provisions, EPA has the power to require modification of the SSM plan. To completely avoid this situation, the commenter argued that the rule must contain explicit language that allows control equipment bypass during these specific events, defines them as startups and shutdowns, and does not define them as deviations. 2 221 Response: We agree with the commenters that safety issues should be considered when attempting to minimize emissions. Recent amendments to § 63.6( e)( 1)( i) of the General Provisions have added safety considerations to the explanation of the general duty to minimize emissions. The version of the General Provisions that was available to the commenters when their comments were written ( the amendments to the General Provisions promulgated on April 5, 2002 ( 67 FR 16605)), state that " At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 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 to the levels required by the relevant standards, i. e., meet the emission standard or comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan." [ emphasis added]

The newest version, promulgated May 30, 2003 ( 68 FR 32586), states " At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 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. During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, this general duty to minimize emissions requires that the owner or operator reduce emissions from the affected source to the greatest extent which is consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices. The general duty to minimize emissions during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction does not require the owner or operator to achieve emission levels that would be required by the applicable standard at other times if this is not consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices, nor does it require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved." [ emphasis added]

The statement " meet the emission standard or comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan" is no longer a part of the general duty to minimize emissions in the General Provisions. In order to be consistent with the General Provisions, we have deleted the requirement that emissions must be minimized to the greatest extent possible in § 63.2250( d). A reference to § 63.6( e)( 1)( i) of the General Provisions was already included in the proposed PCWP rule in § 63.2250( b). Since purging of veneer dryers for burner relights is a safety issue, this change should help to alleviate the commenters' concern. Due to the frequent nature of veneer dryer burner relights, we agree that these events cannot be termed " malfunctions." Therefore, we have included language similar to the wording suggested for paragraph 63.2250( d) by the 2 222 commenter to further clarify this issue. See the response to Comment No. <IP_ADDRESS> for our position on deviations and the response to Comment No. <IP_ADDRESS> for our position on removing " scheduled"

from § 63.2250( d).

2.8.3 SSM plan <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 26 argued that the CAA requires EPA to set emission control standards on a continuous basis, and allowing SSM conditions to be exempt from these controls is an unlawful loophole. Compliance with the SSM plan does not make the condition lawful, since the SSM plans are generated by the facilities themselves. In addition,

Commenter IV D 26 stated that EPA's compliance provision is unlawful because it conflicts with § 304, which expressly allows citizens to enforce emission limitations. Under EPA's regulations, a source would be deemed in compliance, in spite of a deviation from the emission standards, if it demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction it was operating in compliance with its SSM plan during periods of SSM. The proposed regulations do not indicate how this provision would operate in enforcement suits brought by citizens rather than the Administrator.

Response: We disagree with the commenter that compliance with emission limits must be maintained during periods of SSM. The NESHAP General Provisions provide some relief from emission standards during SSM conditions, but sources do not necessarily receive a blanket exemption from those emission limitations during all SSM conditions. Specifically, § 63.6( f)( 1) of the NESHAP General Provisions states that " The non opacity emission standards set forth in this part shall apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and as otherwise specified in an applicable subpart. If a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of one portion of an affected source does not affect the ability of particular emission points within other portions of the affected source to comply with the nonopacity emission standards set forth in this part, then that emission point must still be required to comply with the nonopacity emission standards and other applicable requirements."

Sections 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1) provide similar wording, and all three of the referenced sections are listed in Table 10 to subpart DDDD as being applicable to subpart DDDD. During periods of SSM, the facility must operate according to an SSM plan that satisfies the requirements of § 63.6( e)( 3). We also acknowledge the commenter's concern about a facility complying with an SSM plan that was developed by that facility. To address this very concern, we promulgated amendments to the NESHAP General Provisions ( 68 FR 32586, May 30, 2003). Under the 2 223 promulgated amendments, § 63.6( e)( 3)( v) requires owners or operators of affected sources subject to a part 63 standard to submit a copy of the SSM plan to the Administrator upon receiving a written request from the Administrator. Any time a member of the public submits a " specific and reasonable request" to view the SSM plan of an affected source, the Administrator has an obligation to submit that request to the affected source. In addition, § 63.6( e)( 1)( i) allows the Administrator to make a determination of the adequacy of the SSM plan, and § 63.6( e)( 3)( vii)

requires an affected source to make changes to the SSM plan if it is determined to be unacceptable. The language in section 63.6( e)( 1)( i) also makes it clear that during a period of SSM, the general duty to minimize emissions requires the owner or operator to reduce emissions to the greatest extent consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices. However,

during an SSM event, the general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to achieve levels required by the MACT standard during non SSM periods. As stated in the preamble to the final rule ( General Provisions), we believe we have discretion to make reasonable distinctions concerning those particular activities to which the emission limitations of a MACT standard apply, and note that exceedances of generally applicable emissions limitations will be limited to those instances where they cannot be reasonably avoided. ( See 38 FR 32589

3593, May 30, 2003.) We believe these amendments address the commenter's concerns. In addition, the criteria for writing and using SSM plans are covered in the NESHAP General Provisions.

We believe that our statutory standard setting obligations do not preclude the establishment of appropriate regulatory mechanisms to deal generally with issues such as SSM.

Therefore, enforcement actions during periods of SSM depend not on whether the facility is meeting the otherwise applicable emission standards, but whether the facility is operating in accordance with an adequate SSM plan. To the extent that anyone can pursue enforcement actions for violations during periods of SSM, such violations will consist of failure to comply with the applicable SSM plan ( as required by § 63.6( e)( 3)( ii)) or substantive inadequacies in the SSM plan itself that amount to violations of the § 63.6( e)( 3) plan requirements. In circumstances where such violations occur, citizens may pursue enforcement action under § 304 of the CAA, just as they may pursue enforcement actions when a facility violates an emission standard or any other NESHAP requirement during normal plant operation. However, for violations during SSM, such a suit would focus on whether the facility was operating according to its SSM plan and/ or 2 224 whether the SSM plan itself was adequate according to the requirements of § 63.6( e)( 3). Thus,

there is no inconsistency between EPA's SSM requirements and the statute's provisions regarding citizen's rights to enforce EPA's regulations.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 21 pointed out that some of the sections of the proposal that deal with SSM do not specify whether the SSM applies to the control device, the process, or both. For example, section 63.2250( a) seems to indicate control device SSM, while section 63.2250( d) seems to indicate process SSM. Adding the phrase " control device" before both occurrences of the word " startup" in section 63.2250( a) would help to clarify that point. If SSM applicability was narrowed to the control device only, then the burden would be less on both the reporting and reviewing parties. Also, section 63.2281( c)( 4) of the proposal seems to require that every single SSM event be documented in the records, even the numerous minor occasions that would not affect the abilities of the control devices. If the reports were full of these minor situations, the major SSM events would tend to receive less notice. EPA should incorporate the comments of The Coalition for Clean Air Implementation on the " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: General Provisions" regarding SSM events that do not affect the control systems into this rule.

Response: We agree with the commenter that the explanation of periods when the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements do and do not apply is confusing. Our intention is for the SSM periods mentioned in § 63.2250( a) to apply to both process units and control devices. The circumstances listed in § 63.2250( d) are periods in addition to those listed in § 63.2250( a) during which the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements do not apply. Since SSM plans address all startups and shutdowns,

we wanted to specify that the amount of time taken for scheduled startups and shutdowns should be minimized. That statement does not mean that unscheduled startups and shutdowns are automatically subject to the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements; unscheduled startups and shutdowns should be covered to the greatest extent possible in the SSM plan. To clarify the SSM guidelines, we have combined § 63.2250( d) with § 63.2250( a) and revised the resulting § 63.2250( a).

To address the commenter's concern that § 63.2281( c)( 4) would require all SSM events to be documented, we point out that § 63.2281( c)( 4) states the following: 2 225 " If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i)."

At the time that the commenter wrote this comment, § 63.10( d)( 5)( i) of the General Provisions did require that " the number, duration, and a brief description of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction" be included in the report ( 67 FR 16605, April 5, 2002). Since then, the General Provisions have been revised, and that reporting burden has been reduced. According to the preamble of the amendments to the General Provisions promulgated on May 30, 2003 " In some industries, startup and shutdown events are numerous and routine. So long as the provisions of the SSM plan are followed, there does not appear to be any real utility in requiring that each individual startup and shutdown be reported or described... [ I] n those instances where a startup or shutdown includes actions which do not conform to the SSM plan and the standard is exceeded, the facility is otherwise required to promptly report these deviations from the plan... [ R] eporting of malfunctions would help permitting authorities determine whether sources are attempting to circumvent the standard by improperly defining events as malfunctions. To prevent this type of potential abuse, we do not think that all malfunctions need to be reported. Rather, we think this problem can be addressed by requiring that the affected source report only those malfunctions which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an emission limitation in the relevant standard to be exceeded. Thus, we have decided to retain the requirement that the owner or operator report malfunctions in the periodic report, but to limit its scope to those malfunctions which caused or may have caused an emission limitation in the relevant standard to be exceeded." ( 68 FR 32592) [ emphasis added]

As a result, § 63.10( d)( 5)( i) of the General Provisions now lists the following requirements for the periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports:

" If actions taken by an owner or operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source ( including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified in the source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( see § 63.6( e)( 3)), the owner or operator shall state such information in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. Such a report shall identify any instance where any action taken by an owner or operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction ( including actions taken to correct a malfunction) is not consistent with the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, but the source does not exceed any applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission standard. Such a report shall also include the number, duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded." ( 68 FR 32601)

The revised reporting requirements should help to minimize the commenter's concern. 2 226 <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 supported the exemptions from compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements during periods of SSM and made a suggestion to clarify the requirements. The EPA should use emission standards rather than operating limits for determining if an interruption in production is a malfunction or not.

Wood products facilities experience many sudden stops, starts, or other minor malfunctions during the course of a work day that do not affect the operation of the control device. Reporting each one of these interruptions detracts from the purpose and clarity of reporting. The EPA explains its interpretation of the malfunction definition at 67 FR 72881:

We recognize that some sources are concerned that the requirement to periodically report malfunctions may be interpreted to require reporting of minor problems that have no impact on emissions. However, we do not construe the provision in this manner. Under our regulations, ` malfunction' is defined as ` any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.' See 40 C. F. R. 63.2. Only those events that meet this definition would be subject to the reporting requirement. During an event that meets this definition, the facility is not required to comply with otherwise applicable emission limits, and the SSM plan must specify alternative procedures which satisfy the general duty to minimize emissions. Minor or routine events that have no appreciable impact on the ability of a source to meet the standard need not be classified by the source as a malfunction, addressed in the SSM plan, or included in periodic reports. Thus, if a source experiences a minor problem that does not affect its ability to meet the applicable emission standard, the problem need not be addressed by the SSM plan and would not be a reportable ` malfunction' under our regulations.

The commenter agreed with this interpretation and suggested that in order to evaluate the effect of the equipment on emissions, the definition of malfunction should be revised as follows ( addition in italics):

Any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner affecting the ability of the affected source to meet a relevant standard or of monitoring equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner.

This revision does not mean a source needs to have absolute knowledge that it exceeded emission levels to include a failure in a malfunction report. A source is permitted to report all such events if it chooses. The revision simply clarifies that if a source knows that its ability to comply was not affected, the event need not be reported as a malfunction. 2 227 Response: The definition of " malfunction" is included in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR 63, subpart A), not the PCWP NESHAP. The NESHAP General Provisions, including the definition of " malfunction," were recently revised and updated. Amendments to the NESHAP General Provisions concerning SSM procedures were proposed in 67 FR 72875 ( December 9,

2002) and promulgated in 68 FR 32585 ( May 30, 2003). The EPA noted in the preamble to the final amendments to the NESHAP General Provisions that " A number of commenters requested that we make this policy clear in the regulatory language, rather than only in the preamble. These commenters suggested that the definition of malfunction could be revised to accomplish this. We think this is a good idea, and we have revised the definition accordingly. We think that this change will make it clear that events that do not cause, or have the potential to cause, emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded need not be included either in the SSM plan or in periodic malfunction reports. ( 68 FR 32592 3, May 30, 2003) As a result, the first sentence of the most recent definition of " malfunction" reads as follows:

" Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded." ( 68 FR 32600, May 30, 2003)

Although the amendments to the NESHAP General Provisions regarding SSM plans are currently involved in litigation, the definition of " malfunction" promulgated on May 30, 2003, applies to the PCWP NESHAP unless EPA promulgates another revision. Therefore, we disagree that it is necessary or appropriate to make any further changes to the definition as suggested by the commenter or to include a separate definition of " malfunction" in the PCWP NESHAP.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 noted that the reference to the General Provisions in section 63.2250( b) is redundant. In addition, the General Provisions are under revision, so deleting the entire section would eliminate any potential conflicts with the revised general provisions.

Response: Section 63.2250( b) refers to § 63.6( e)( 1) of the General Provisions, which addresses the general duty to minimize emissions during SSM events. This section of the General Provisions was updated by an amendment promulgated on May 30, 2003 ( 68 FR 32585), and this revised version of § 63.6( e)( 1) of the General Provisions does apply to the PCWP NESHAP. We note that we cannot adequately address the commenter's concern about redundancy because the commenter did not clarify which section or reference is redundant with the reference to the General Provisions in § 63.2250( b). 2 228 <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 requested that the word " scheduled" be removed from section 63.2250( d) ( What are the requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?). Currently, the proposed PCWP rule only exempts scheduled startup and shutdown events, and some unscheduled startups and shutdowns are considered malfunctions, which are also exempt. However, many unscheduled process startups and shutdowns cannot be considered malfunctions because of their frequency. During these periods, facilities may find themselves in violation of compliance caused by little to no flow of HAP to the control device inlet, not by an inadequate control device. Deleting " scheduled" from the rule would help facilities avoid that situation.

Commenter IV D 21 stated that section 63.2250( d) should be changed to clarify that the SSM events apply to process SSM and not the control devices. Also, it is unnecessary to specify that only scheduled startup and shutdown periods are exempt, since some unscheduled startups and shutdowns could be considered malfunctions, which are exempt as well. The events that cannot be classified as malfunctions are generally the minor shutdowns and startups that do not affect the control device. Unless unscheduled startups and shutdowns are included in the exemption, many facilities are likely to be out of compliance with the rule for short periods of time every day.

Response: As explained in the response to Comment No. <IP_ADDRESS>, both § 63.2250( a) and § 63.2250( d) apply to process units and control devices. The circumstances listed in § 63.2250( d)

are periods in addition to those listed in § 63.2250( a) during which the compliance options,

operating requirements, and work practice requirements do not apply. Since SSM plans address all startups and shutdowns, we wanted to specify that the amount of time taken for scheduled startups and shutdowns should be minimized. That statement does not mean that unscheduled startups and shutdowns are automatically subject to the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements; unscheduled startups and shutdowns should be covered to the greatest extent possible in the SSM plan. To minimize confusion, § § 63.2250( a)

and 63.2250( d) have been combined and revised.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 noted that sections 63.2250( e)

and 63.2251( e) are exactly the same, and one of them should be removed to avoid unnecessary duplication. 2 229 Response: After reviewing the rule, we agree with the commenter that § 63.2250( e) is unnecessary duplication of § 63.2251( e), and we have removed § 63.2250( e) from the rule. See the response to Comment No. <IP_ADDRESS> for our position on recording the control device maintenance schedule at the beginning of each semiannual compliance period to receive the routine control device maintenance exemption.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 stated that section 63.2250( f) should be removed from the rule, mainly because EPA does not clarify what this section has to do with SSM. The requirement to operate and maintain RCO catalysts according to manufacturers'

specifications limits a facility's ability to react and respond to changing conditions. If a mill is to be held ultimately responsible for compliance to the standard, it should be given all reasonable opportunities to meet the requirements, including flexibility in operating and maintaining an RCO.

Some facilities may have situations in which they use catalysts from different manufacturers or the catalyst or RCO vendor has gone out of business. These factors could make it difficult to comply with this requirement. Because of the high costs of the equipment and compliance violations,

properly maintaining the equipment is in the facility's best interest. For all of these reasons,

section 63.2250( f) should be removed from the PCWP rule.

Response: We have eliminated the requirement for facilities to maintain the catalyst according to manufacturers' specifications and the proposed § 63.2250( f) from the rule. As discussed in response to Comment No. <IP_ADDRESS>, we have replaced this requirement with a requirement to perform an annual check of catalyst activity.

2.8.4 Deviations <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 suggested that section 63.2271( b) be revised to clearly state that SSM events are not considered deviations. EPA should clarify that SSM events are to be reported as deviations only when there is a deviation from the compliance options,

operating requirements, and work practice standards. Also, the reference to 63.6( e) should be deleted because it conflicts with this provision. The commenter argued that not all deviations result in violation of compliance, and recording all of these situations makes it harder to find the situations that were truly violations. The recommended revisions to 63.2271( b) are as follows ( added text in italics):

[ T] his includes periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction and periods of control device maintenance specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 3) of this section except for when 2 230 emission control equipment is being started up or shut down, when the production process generating the emissions to be controlled is not operating, or when the production process generating the emissions is started or shut down when the emission control equipment is meeting its operating requirements

Commenter IV D 27 requested that the final rule not identify SSM events as deviations. The commenter stated that in the proposed definition of deviation, all startups and shutdowns of emission control equipment would be considered deviations because it would not be possible to either start up or shut down a control device without being outside one of the operating requirements. As an example, the commenter pointed out that starting up an RTO or RCO usually requires that the temperature be raised to the proper operating range, and during this warm up period, the temperature will not meet the minimum operating temperature requirement,

nor will the pressure at the inlet be within the proper range. The commenter also noted that under normal conditions, the emission control devices are not receiving emissions when they are starting up or shutting down. Because the emissions do not start flowing to the control device until it is ready, startups and shut downs should not be defined as deviations. To address this issue, the commenter recommends that item ( 3) of the proposed definition of deviation be deleted as follows ( additions are in italics and deletions are in strikeout format):

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: ( 1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any at least one compliance option, operating requirement, or work practice requirement while the process is operating; or ( 2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or ( 3) Fails to meet any compliance option, operating requirement, or work practice requirement in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.

Also, a special exemption should be allowed for biofilter initial startup. EPA should require that emissions be introduced to biofilters during initial start up.

The commenter also recommended that a definition of " instance" be added to the final rule to clarify the meaning of this term as it is used in the definition of deviation, as follows:

Instance means any compliance block average, operating requirement block average, or work practice block average. 2 231 Response: The term " deviation" applies to events during which an affected source fails to meet a compliance option or comply with another requirement of the final rule. Deviations are not synonymous with violations; depending on the circumstances, a deviation may or may not be a violation of an applicable requirement. We agree with the commenter that an affected source need not be in compliance with compliance options, operating requirements, or work practice requirements during periods of SSM. Although we consider noncompliance with the compliance options during SSM to be deviations from the compliance options, we do not automatically consider these deviations to be violations of those compliance options. Section 63.7( e)( 1) of the General Provisions to Part 63 specifies that, " Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test,

nor shall emissions in excess of the level of the relevant standard during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation of the relevant standard unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard or a determination of noncompliance is made under 40 CFR 63.6( e)." As indicated in Table 10 of the final rule, this language of the General Provisions to part 63 does apply to subpart DDDD. The definition of " deviation" included in the final rule is consistent with how " deviation" is defined in other NESHAP, and has not been changed since proposal. Likewise, we do not agree with the commenter that EPA should clarify the term " instance," since adding this definition as the commenter recommended would narrow the scope of " deviation" to non SSM periods only.

2.9 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 2.9.1 Comment: Commenter IV D 27 noted that although it is helpful for EPA to explicitly state all the parameters that facilities are required to record and report, EPA's interpretation of the requirements of the general MACT provisions combined with the already considerable reporting and recordkeeping provisions required by the proposed PCWP NESHAP results in an enormous administrative burden. The commenter encouraged EPA to do whatever possible to reduce that burden, especially for smaller facilities that will be forced to make an incredible effort to make sure that all necessary data is collected, stored, and submitted accurately and on time. Since EPA has stated that reporting lapses are " knowing and willful violations," it 2 232 should do everything it can to make sure that the burden on smaller facilities is not unreasonable.

The EPA should give the Administrator flexibility in reviewing alternative reporting methods in the preamble to the final PCWP rule and recognize the need to tailor reporting and recordkeeping requirements to meet specific facility operating and control scenarios in appropriate sections of the final rule.

Response: We selected the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements based on requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). Except for some options specific to the PCWP source category ( e. g., emissions averaging options, work practices,

RCDME option), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements are the same as the requirements in the General Provisions. Therefore, we believe we have established the minimum reporting and recordkeeping requirements necessary to ensure enforcability of the rule. As indicated in § 63.2291( c)( 4), the Administrator can approve alternative reporting and recordkeeping approaches as specified in § § 63.10( f) and 63.90.

2.9.2 Comment: Commenter IV D 27 requested that section 63.2271( b) ( How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements?) should be revised to clearly state that the semiannual compliance report does not need to include extensive detail of each routine maintenance activity. It should be sufficient to list process uptime versus exempted maintenance downtime as a comparison to the relevant exemption percentage. Also, § 63.2281( c)( 5) ( What reports must I submit and when?)

should be updated to include the same revision as section 63.2271( b).

Response: Section 68.2271( b) indicates that each period of routine control device maintenance must be reported according to § 63.2281. Section 63.2281( c)( 5) requires reporting of routine control device maintenance. Facilities must report a description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and one or more of the process units controlled by the control device was operating. The description must include the date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted; identification of the process units that were operating and the number of hours that each process unit operated while the control device was offline; and a statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in the facility's approved RCDME. For control device maintenance covered under the RCDME,

facilities must report information on the amount of time that the control device was offline while each process unit routed to the control device was operating, and this information must be used in 2 233 calculating the annual percentage of process unit uptime during which the control device is down for routine control device maintenance. We disagree that changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the RDCME are necessary, because all of the information reported would be needed by permitting authorities to evaluate whether the maintenance performed fits under an approved request for an RCDME and to check calculations of the annual percentage of process unit uptime during which the control device is down for routine control device maintenance. We further note that use of an RCDME is optional, and facilities wishing to avoid reporting and recordkeeping associated with the RCDME can opt not to request the exemption.

2.9.3 Comment: Commenter IV D 27 noted that there is currently litigation on the MACT General Provisions regarding the requirement to report details for SSM events that follow an SSMP. Section 63.2281( c)( 4), as well as any other applicable section, should be revised to include the outcome of that litigation.

Response: The General Provisions were most recently updated in on May 30, 2003 ( 68 FR 32586). One of the sections that was revised was § 63.10( d)( 5)( i), which addresses the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for SSM events. As noted in our response to comment No. <IP_ADDRESS>, facilities are required to describe only malfunctions that may have caused the facility to exceed the relevant emission standards, not all SSM events. However, as the commenter pointed out, this section is involved in litigation, and the outcome of that litigation may require EPA to further revise the General Provisions. Because the PCWP NESHAP incorporates this section and other sections of the General Provisions by reference, the PCWP NESHAP will be considered to be revised if those sections of the General Provisions are revised as a result of the outcome of litigation.

2.9.4 Comment: Commenter IV D 27 requested that § 63.2281( e)( 1) through ( 11) be revised to include summary reporting as an option because the current requirements are excessive in view of the MACT General Provisions at § 63.10( e)( 3), which provide for the reporting of only summary information when continuous monitoring system ( CMS) downtime for the reporting period is less than 5 percent of the total operating time for the reporting period.

Response: Section 63.10( e)( 3) deals with excess emissions reports and does not apply for the PCWP NESHAP. We have superceded § 63.10( e)( 3) with § 63.2281( e), which requires reporting of deviations from compliance options or operating requirements when a CMS is used. 2 234 The reporting requirements included in § 63.2281( e)( 1) through ( 11) are similar to the summary report requirements listed in § 63.10( e)( 3). Section 63.2281( e) requests only summary information for deviations in all semiannual compliance reports, not just those reports where there is less than 5 percent CMS downtime during the reporting period.

2.9.5 Comment: Commenter IV D 27 recommended a change to section 63.2283( a) ( In what form and how long must I keep my records?). Currently, the section states that " records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review." However, the MACT General Provisions are not helpful in determining a " suitable" form, and due to the large amount of records that will be generated by the PCWP rule, many facilities may utilize technology to help with the recording and storage of these records. If these records happen to be computerized on the same systems that control the process operation, control devices, or other systems, then the records may not be readily available. The commenter suggested the following revision to this section: " Your records must be in a form which is constructively responsive to the relevant requirement of this rule and available for review within a reasonable length of time as determined by the scope and extent of the relevant records."

Response: Section 63.2283( a) references § 63.10( b)( 1) of the General Provisions, which also states that records must be kept " in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious inspection and review." Section 63.10( b)( 1) further states that the oldest three years of data files may be kept " on microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche." We disagree that the commenter's suggested revision to § 63.2283( a) provides more clarity than the General Provisions, and therefore, we have not incorporated the commenter's suggestion into § 63.2283( a). We further note that the General Provisions have been recently updated to clarify requirements as needed.

2.10 COST AND ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACTS 2.10.1 Cost and economic impacts <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 stated that EPA estimated an annual cost of $ 142 million with annual emission reductions of 11,000 tons of HAP, yielding an average cost effectiveness of $ 13,000 per ton of HAP removed. The commenter compared these estimates with the industry's estimates of an annual cost of $ 165 million with annual emission reductions of 2 235 approximately 9,000 tons of HAP, yielding an average cost effectiveness of $ 18,000 per ton of HAP removed. The commenter noted that, although their methodology and EPA's methodology for costing are substantially different, the total annual cost estimates are reasonably close and are assumed to be reasonable estimates. The commenter presents their cost analysis ( see section XII. A of comment IV D 27). The commenter noted that proposed options such as emissions averaging and PBCO limits and the commenter's suggested risk based and concentration cutoff options could lower costs for facilities. Also, biofilters or RCOs will likely be used by some facilities and these technologies may also lower industry cost.

Response: We acknowledge this comment agreeing that our cost estimates are reasonable estimates.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 02, IV D 15, IV D 17, IV D 36, IV D 38,

IV D 44, and IV D 40 argued that this rule is extremely expensive, forcing plants to choose between installing expensive controls and closing their doors. It is especially hard on plants in rural areas that do not pose much of a risk to human health or the environment. If plants are forced to close, then plant employees as well as those who depend on the plant for their living,

such as contractors, consultants, and suppliers, would lose their jobs. Local property values would decline severely, local businesses would close, and the areas would lose their chance to attract new residents and businesses.

Commenters IV D 15, IV D 16, IV D 53, IV D 50, IV D 39, and IV D 42 reiterated the costs estimated by EPA for installing and maintaining the necessary HAP controls and then compared that amount to the money that is already spent on the plant each year. Commenters IVD 16, IV D 50, and IV D 41 pointed out that the amount of money associated with HAP controls is almost triple the annual capital spending during the profitable late 1990s. Several commenters ( IV D 08, IV D 09, IV D 53, IV D 39, IV D 41, IV D 50, and IV D 42) stated that companies are considering shutting down plants because of the large capital and operating expenses associated with installing and maintaining HAP controls. Local economies would be severely impacted due to plant closures. Hundreds of people would lose their jobs, including the plant employees and employees at companies that rely on the plywood plant for business.

Commenters IV D 09, IV D 15, IV D 53, and IV D 42 stated that the PCWP industry has not been profitable lately; 20 percent of the plants that existed in 1999 have closed permanently and five more are temporarily idle. Commenters IV D 08, IV D 09, IV D 15, IV 2 236 D 16, IV D 53, IV D 39, IV D 50, IV D 41, and IV D 42 stated that the estimate that only one plant would be forced to close because of this rule was made during a profitable time in the industry, and many more than that would close in these less profitable times if the rule were finalized without changes. The PCWP industry has not been profitable lately, and the future is uncertain for many facilities. Several commenters also stated that it is safe to assume that Congress did not intend for this rule to result in the addition of exceptionally costly controls that would yield minimal, if any, health and environmental benefits, which is precisely what EPA's analysis indicates will be the most likely result if the proposed rule is implemented. Commenters IV D 09, IV D 16, and IV D 41 asked why EPA did not attempt to scuttle this burdensome and counterproductive rule when the analysis showed that compliance would be costly and would not have significant health or environmental effects.

Commenters IV D 08, IV D 09, IV D 15, IV D 16, IV D 39, IV D 41, IV D 42, IV D

53, and IV D 50 argued that foreign plants are becoming major competition in the United States.

These plants are not required to control their emissions, so if U. S. plants were forced to add unnecessary controls, they would no longer be competitive in the global market, and the domestic industry would suffer.

For perspective, commenter IV D 09 stated that their plant is one of the more efficient,

and it is still losing money due to current market conditions.

Commenter IV D 14 stated that one of its plywood mills was closed in 2000 and that the proposed rule would probably force its two remaining mills to close as well. All three mills are small to medium sized and located in small towns, and the closure of the first mill was harmful to the town's economy.

Commenter IV D 16 stated that their area is still dealing with the aftermath of the Mt.

Saint Helens eruption in 1980.

Commenter IV D 19 argued that EPA has not accurately assessed the effects of this rule on the industry, especially plants that are the major employer in rural areas. Some plants that would need controls have already closed in anticipation of the rule. The commenter presented a monetary cost estimate for the company of $ 100 million in capital costs and $ 10.6 million annually for natural gas and additional electricity.

Commenters IV D 34 and IV D 35 stated that more facilities will shut down than expected if this rule is finalized. If a facility is not making a profit before MACT standards are 2 237 applied, there is no way that the facility will be able to make a profit once MACT standards are enforced. The EPA predicted that only one plant would shut down, but many more facilities than that will be unable to afford the HAP controls and will be forced to close, disrupting the economies of the surrounding areas.

Commenter IV D 47 noted that they were already forced to claim Chapter 11 bankruptcy for several reasons, including environmental restraints, undercapitalization, and poor market conditions. If their one remaining plywood facility is affected by the PCWP rule, the company will no longer exist and the results will be devastating to the local economy. Many other plywood mills will be forced to close as well.

Response: Section 112( b) of the CAA contains a list of HAP that are pollutants that are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to humans or the environment. Section 112( c) of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major sources of HAP are those stationary sources or groups of stationary sources that are located within a contiguous area under common control that emit or have the potential to emit, considering controls, 9.07 Mg/ yr ( 10 tpy) or more of any one HAP or 22.68 Mg/ yr ( 25 tpy) or more of any combination of HAP. Area sources are those stationary sources or groups of stationary sources that are not major sources.

Plywood and particleboard manufacturing was listed as a category of major sources on the initial source category list published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). The name of the source category was changed to plywood and composite wood products ( PCWP) on November 18, 1999 ( 64 FR 63025) to more accurately reflect the types of manufacturing facilities covered by the source category. The PCWP source category, which includes major sources of HAP emissions, emits HAP including ( but not limited to) acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde,

methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. These six HAP are associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic health disorders ( e. g., damage to nasal membranes, reproductive disorders, and problems with pregnancies) and acute health disorders ( e. g., irritation of eyes,

throat, and mucous membranes; dizziness; headache; and nausea). Three of the six HAP listed above have been classified as probable or possible human carcinogens.

Because PCWP manufacturing is a source category containing major sources of HAP, we are required by the CAA to establish NESHAP for PCWP manufacturing. Standards for the 2 238 PCWP manufacturing source category were proposed in the Federal Register on January 9, 2003 ( 68 FR 1276). These PCWP standards implement section 112( d) of the CAA by requiring all major sources subject to the rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that ensures that all major sources achieve a level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards 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, section 112( d)( 2) of the CAA requires us to also consider any control options that are more stringent than the floor (" beyond the floor" options). We may establish beyond the floor options based on the consideration of cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

Section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA does not give EPA the discretion to consider costs,

domestic or foreign market conditions, non HAP air impacts, or energy use at the MACT floor control level. However, § 112( d)( 2) of the CAA requires EPA to consider cost, non air quality health impacts, environmental impacts, and energy requirements when reviewing beyond the floor control options. We acknowledge the commenters' concerns regarding the cost of the PCWP standards. However, there are many existing, well controlled PCWP process units that formed the basis for our MACT floor determinations. We determined that beyond the floor control measures would not be appropriate for most PCWP process units either because the control equipment that formed the basis of the MACT floor is the best control equipment available or because of cost. Thus, we have minimized the costs of this rule to the greatest extent allowed under the CAA.

We note that most of the above commenters manufacture softwood plywood. We acknowledge that softwood plywood is a sector of the PCWP industry that has been facing economic pressures associated with increased competition from another PCWP product ( OSB). 2 239 The softwood plywood market is declining for reasons other than this NESHAP. The CAA does not allow us to consider costs or the status of a product market when establishing emissions standards at the MACT floor control level. Because many existing softwood veneer dryers already have incineration based controls, softwood plywood plants are affected by the MACT floor requirement for softwood veneer dryer heated zones to meet an emission level achievable with incineration based controls. Unlike for reconstituted wood products, the PCWP rule does not require control of softwood plywood presses.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 05 requested that EPA re analyze the economic impact data to reflect current times rather than the late 1990s. Many of the data used in the original analysis came from plants that are now shut down. The ones that are left are dealing with high energy costs, competition from foreign markets that follow different rules, raw materials increases, high transportation costs, energy crises, and shrinking markets. Another review of the data could help to determine how many plants would close because of the high


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 51972]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3211-000]

Power Authority of the State of New York; Notice of Authorization
for Continued Project Operation

    The license for the Hinckley (Gregory B. Jarvis) Hydroelectric
Project No. 3211 was issued for a period ending July 31, 2022.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 3211 is issued to
the Power Authority of the State of New York for a period effective
August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023, or until the issuance of a new
license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever
comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does
not take place on or before July 31, 2023, notice is hereby given that,
pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1)
of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by
the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the Power Authority of the State of New York is
authorized to continue operation of the Hinckley (Gregory B. Jarvis)
Hydroelectric Project under the terms and conditions of the prior
license until the issuance of a new license for the project or other
disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.

    Dated: August 18, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18229 Filed 8-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P