98-34306. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Pulp and Paper Production

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71385-71389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34306]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6210-5]
RIN 2060-AH74


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories: Pulp and Paper Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the EPA 
has promulgated standards (63 FR 18504, April 15, 1998) to reduce 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from the pulp and paper 
production source category. This rule is known as the Pulp and Paper 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) and 
is the air component of the integrated air and water rules for the pulp 
and paper industry, commonly known as the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rules. 
The rule applies to pulp and paper production processes included under 
the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 26.
    In this action, the EPA is taking direct final action amending the 
interim NESHAP for chloroform emissions from mills which have enrolled 
in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP) to 
include, as a compliance alternative, meeting the baseline Best 
Available Technology (BAT) requirements for 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and adsorbable organic halides (AOX). This 
standard could apply instead of the present, exclusive requirement of 
no increase in application rate of chlorine or hypochlorite above a 
specified baseline.

DATES: Effective Date. These amendments will be effective without 
further notice on February 26, 1999, unless the EPA receives adverse 
comments by January 27, 1999. Should the Agency receive such comments, 
the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 
informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties having adverse comments on this 
action may submit these comments in writing (in duplicate, if possible) 
to Docket No. A-92-40 at the following address: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a 
separate copy of the comments also be sent to the contact person listed 
below.
    Today's document and other materials related to this direct final 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket. Copies of this 
information may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling 
[phone]. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket 
materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Silverman, Office of 
General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number [phone]. For 
technical information regarding the NESHAP, contact Mr. Stephen Shedd, 
Emissions Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number [phone] or e-
mail at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. Entities potentially 
regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
             Category                SIC code           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.........................           26  Pulp mills and
                                                 integrated mills (mills
                                                 that manufacture pulp
                                                 and paper/paperboard)
                                                 that chemically pulp
                                                 wood fiber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in the 
amendments to the regulation affected by this action. This table lists 
the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be 
regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is 
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in part 63, subparts A and S of Title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.
    Information contacts. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of

[[Page 71386]]

this action to a particular situation or questions about compliance 
approaches, permitting, enforcement, and rule determinations, please 
contact the appropriate regional representative below.

Region I

Greg Roscoe, Chief, Air Pesticides and Toxics Enforcement Office, 
Office of Environmental Stewardship, U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal 
Building (SEA), Boston, MA 02203, [phone]. Technical Contact for 
Applicability Determination, Susan Lancey, [phone], (617) 565-
4940 (Fax)

Region II

Mosey Ghaffari, Air Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, [phone], [phone] (Fax)

Region III

Makeba Morris, U.S. EPA, Region III, 3AT10, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103, [phone]

Region IV

Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 100 Alabama 
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, [phone]

Region V

Christina Prasinos (AE-17J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 West Jackson 
Street, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, [phone], [phone] (Fax)

Region VI

Michelle Kelly, Air Enforcement Branch (6EN-AA), U.S. EPA, Region VI, 
Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, [phone], 
[phone] (Fax)

Region VII

Gary Schlicht, Air Permits and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 
ARTD/APCO, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, [phone]

Region VIII

Tami Thomas-Burton, Air Toxics Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 
Suite 500, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466, [phone], 
[phone] (Fax)

Region IX

Ken Bigos, U.S. EPA, Region IX, A-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105, [phone]

Region X

Andrea Wallenweber, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ-107, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, [phone], [phone] 
(Fax)

    Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
is a network of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. Information regarding the basis and purpose of this rule and 
other relevant documents can be found on the pulp and paper page of the 
EPA's Unified Air Toxics website (UATW) at ``www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/
pulppg.html''. For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line at 
[phone].
    Docket. Docket A-92-40 contains the supporting information for the 
original NESHAP and this action. Today's notice and other materials 
related to this proposal are available for review in the docket. The 
docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. 
and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays at the 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, 
Washington, DC 20460. Copies of docket information also may be obtained 
by request from the Air Docket by calling [phone]. A reasonable 
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

I. Description of Amendments

    In today's action, the EPA is amending certain regulatory text in 
the NESHAP regarding the interim standard for chloroform emissions from 
bleaching systems at mills that have enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced 
Technology Incentives Program (VATIP). The EPA is publishing this rule 
without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial 
amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the PROPOSED 
RULES section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal to this action if adverse 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on February 26, 1999 
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 27, 
1999. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute 
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting must do so at this time.
    Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, the EPA 
has promulgated standards (63 FR 18504, April 15, 1998) to reduce HAP 
emissions from the pulp and paper production source category. This rule 
is known as the Pulp and Paper NESHAP and is the air component of the 
integrated air and water rules for the pulp and paper industry, 
commonly known as the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rules. Both the air and 
effluent standards work together to reduce pollutant releases to air 
and water. There are close connections throughout the rule between the 
CAA NESHAP for air emissions and the Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent 
limitations guidelines for aqueous discharges.
    An instance where this connection is particularly close is the 
standards for bleaching systems. Reducing chlorine used to bleach pulp 
will reduce HAP emissions from the bleach plant equipment vents and the 
wastewater treatment system, and will also reduce pollutants discharged 
in the water. The maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard 
for bleaching system chloroform emissions requires mills to achieve the 
BAT requirements for dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic 
compounds, and AOX, in order to ensure that the removals represented by 
the MACT technology are attained. See 40 CFR 63.445(d)(1)(ii); 63 FR 
18527 and 18551. This is because the control technologies upon which 
the BAT effluent limitations guidelines are based are identical to the 
control technologies used to comply with MACT; therefore, compliance 
with BAT will control air emissions to the MACT level of control. Id.
    The CWA rules also create a voluntary incentive program--the 
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program--to encourage mills to 
install systems to achieve pollutant reductions at levels surpassing 
BAT requirements. The MACT standards, in a number of instances, 
establish alternatives to encourage mills to make this election. Of 
direct relevance here, the MACT standards for chloroform emissions from 
bleaching systems are structured to accommodate mills that have made 
the binding election to participate in the incentives program. Thus, 
MACT for chloroform emissions from participating fiber lines at such 
mills' bleaching systems is established in two parts. Under the 
incentives program, mills must achieve, among other requirements, the 
ultimate VATIP limitations for the tier they select by the dates 
prescribed in the rule, as well as enforceable interim milestones 
imposed

[[Page 71387]]

by the permit writer. See 40 CFR 430.24(b) (2), (3), and (4). For 
example, by April 16, 2004, all VATIP mills must achieve interim BAT 
limitations equivalent to the baseline BAT limitations. See 40 CFR 
430.24(b)(3). As explained above, achievement of those limitations 
equals MACT. See 63 FR 18528 and Sec. 63.440(d)(ii)(A). There is also 
an interim MACT standard which takes effect on April 15, 2001 (and is 
in effect until the ultimate MACT standard takes effect on April 15, 
2004): VATIP fiber lines are not allowed to increase their application 
rates of chlorine or hypochlorite above the average rates determined 
for the 3-month period prior to June 15, 1998 (so called ``anti-
backsliding'' provision). See Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) at 63 FR 18617. 
It is this last provision that is affected by the present rule.
    This amendment creates a third alternative to the interim MACT 
standards in Sec. 63.440(d)(3) for chloroform emissions from bleach 
plants at VATIP facilities. Specifically, the amendment provides an 
alternative to the current exclusive requirement of no increase in 
chlorine or hypochlorite application rate. Under the alternative, mills 
participating in the incentives program would be required to comply 
with the baseline BAT provisions for two of the regulated pollutant 
parameters, specifically the chlorinated dioxin regulated under the 
rules (namely, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD) and AOX. 
The CWA requirements would be expressed as permit conditions imposed as 
a form of best professional judgment milestones required by 40 CFR 
430.24(b)(2). (If the permitting authority determines that the mill can 
achieve the baseline limitations for TCDD and AOX sooner than April 15, 
2001, then it may impose a more expeditious deadline.) Section 
430.24(e) requires compliance with the baseline BAT limit for TCDD to 
be demonstrated at the bleach plant itself, and requires that TCDD be 
below the analytical minimum level of 10 parts per quadrillion. 
Compliance with the baseline AOX limitation is measured at end-of-pipe, 
and must reflect the end-of-pipe AOX contribution from pulp production 
bleached in the participating fiber line.
    Control of TCDD and (to a lesser degree) AOX in bleaching plant 
effluent will likewise assure that chloroform air emissions are 
incidentally controlled during the transition period prior to April 15, 
2004. This is because, first, control of TCDD and AOX will likewise 
control formation of other chlorinated compounds given the similarities 
of formation mechanisms of chlorinated organic compounds. Second, as 
the EPA noted when promulgating the Cluster Rules, control of 
chlorinated chemicals to BAT levels will almost certainly mean that 
mills will be applying some type of MACT technology such as process 
substitution. See 63 FR 18528. This conclusion holds true for control 
of TCDD (and AOX) to BAT levels. The Agency thus expects that to 
achieve the TCDD limit, there will have to be at least reduced usage, 
if not elimination, of hypochlorite usage, and very careful control and 
minimized use of elemental chlorine, or use of chlorine dioxide, or 
other alternative bleaching chemicals. This process substitution will 
in turn control chloroform formation and hence potential emission. See 
63 FR 18527.
    Thus, today's amendment is consistent with the basis for the 
existing bleaching system MACT standards for chloroform emissions: MACT 
and BAT to control bleaching system emissions are the same. By applying 
BAT-types of technologies to TCDD and AOX, therefore, will also achieve 
interim control of chloroform emissions. Although elemental chlorine 
usage could increase under this alternative, the EPA does not expect 
that it will increase significantly, since other chlorinated 
constituents in water discharges similarly would increase and the TCDD 
or AOX limits could be exceeded.
    In addition, and importantly, this amendment achieves BAT level of 
control for TCDD and AOX, and interim control of chloroform emissions 
during the transition period leading to the ultimate VATIP limits. As 
explained earlier, mills participating in the incentives program are 
not required to achieve the baseline BAT level control for TCDD or AOX 
until April 15, 2004. Mills wishing to use the alternative in today's 
rule would have to meet baseline BAT limitations for TCDD and AOX no 
later than April 15, 2001. Chloroform emissions will necessarily be 
limited incidentally at the same time. The EPA believes that this more 
rapid compliance with BAT for TCDD and AOX, make this an appropriate 
alternative from an environmental standpoint. Although bleaching 
systems at such mills could increase chlorine or hypochlorite usage 
(until April 15, 2004 when the final MACT standard takes effect), the 
EPA believes the alternative is appropriate in light of the earlier 
compliance with BAT limits for TCDD and AOX, as well as the interim 
incidental control of chloroform emissions these limits will provide.
    Finally, the EPA believes that this amendment is justified to 
encourage plants to participate in the incentives program. As noted 
throughout the rulemaking, this program has the potential to lead to 
significant and long-term decreases in pollutant discharges beyond the 
significant reductions required by BAT. See 63 FR 18514. One company 
which has stated that it otherwise would elect to participate in the 
program has identified the anti-backsliding provision in the MACT rules 
as an impediment to doing so because the provision may foreclose 
desirable business opportunities. The company has already achieved 
control surpassing baseline BAT on a portion of its production so that 
the company is in a good position to comply with the conditions 
established in this rule, as well as the Tier I VATIP provisions. Since 
the EPA views today's amendment as environmentally desirable in the 
long term in any case, and also wishes to encourage maximum 
participation in the incentives program in order to achieve further 
reductions in pollutant discharges, the Agency believes amending the 
rules to encourage the VATIP election further supports today's 
amendment. The EPA emphasizes that today's amendment is generally 
applicable so that any mill meeting the conditions specified can take 
advantage of the new MACT compliance alternative.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket, except for certain interagency documents, 
will serve as the record in case of judicial review. See CAA 
Sec. 307(d)(7)(A).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information requirements of the previously promulgated NESHAP 
were submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) on April 27, 1998 under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been 
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

[[Page 71388]]

Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 
20460 or by calling [phone]. The information requirements are 
not effective until OMB approves them.
    Today's amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on the 
information collection burden estimates made previously. The amendments 
establish no new information collection requirements. Consequently, the 
ICR has not been revised.

C. Executive Order 12866: ``Significant Regulatory Action'' 
Determination

    Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB 
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines a 
``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments 
or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    The NESHAP subpart S rule published on April 15, 1998 was 
considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and EPA accordingly 
prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). Today's amendments provide 
an additional means of complying with one of the rule's requirements. 
The OMB has evaluated this action and determined it to be 
nonsignificant; thus, it did not require OMB review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. The EPA determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this action. These 
amendments would not result in increased impacts to small entities and 
the changes to the rule in today's action do not add new control 
requirements to the April 15, 1998 rule. The amendments in fact create 
a compliance alternative and to that degree lessen the impact of the 
April 15, 1998 rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), the EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any 
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the 
rule.
    The EPA has determined that today's action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or 
to the private sector. The action in fact somewhat lessens the impacts 
of the rule, as explained above. Therefore, the requirements of the 
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to today's action.

F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a 
State, local, or tribal government unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. 
If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA 
to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of the EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    While the final rule published on April 15, 1998 does not create 
mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, the EPA involved 
State and local governments in its development. Because today's action 
amends the existing rule to establish more compliance flexibility to 
achieve MACT, today's action does not impose any mandate upon State, 
local, or tribal governments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines 
(1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 
does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety 
risks that may disproportionately affect children.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officals and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of

[[Page 71389]]

regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published on 
April 15, 1998 does not create mandates upon tribal governments. 
Because today's action amends the rule to establish another means of 
complying with MACT standards, today's action does not create a mandate 
on tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations 
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like the EPA to provide 
Congress, through the OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve any new technical standards or the 
incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore, 
consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to this 
action.

J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

III. Legal Authority

    These regulations are amended under the authority of sections 112, 
114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7412, 
7414, and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: December 18, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

    2. Amend Sec. 63.440 by revising paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) introductory 
text and (d)(3)(ii)(B), as follows:


Sec. 63.440  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Comply with paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A), (d)(3)(ii)(B), and 
(d)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.
* * * * *
    (B) The owner or operator of a bleaching system shall comply with 
the requirements specified in either paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B)(1) or 
(d)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section.
    (1) Not increase the application rate of chlorine or hypochlorite 
in kilograms (kg) of bleaching agent per megagram of ODP, in the 
bleaching system above the average daily rates used over the three 
months prior to June 15, 1998 until the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section are met and record application rates as 
specified in Sec. 63.454(c).
    (2) Comply with enforceable effluent limitations guidelines for 
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin and adsorbable organic halides at 
least as stringent as the baseline BAT levels set out in 40 CFR 
430.24(a)(1) as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 
April 16, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-34306 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P