[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89026-89034]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29236]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522; FRL-9956-00-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT14

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production
Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reconsideration; proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories.
The proposed amendments are in response to two petitions for
reconsideration filed by industry stakeholders on the rule revisions to
NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer
Production source categories that were promulgated on August 19, 2015
(80 FR 50386) (hereafter the ``August 2015 Final Rule''). We are
proposing to revise the compliance date by which affected sources must
include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance
with the total fluoride (TF) emission limits for superphosphoric acid
(SPA) process lines. We are also proposing to add a new option, and
clarify an existing option, to the monitoring requirements for low-
energy absorbers. In addition, we are proposing to revise the
compliance date for the monitoring requirements for low-energy
absorbers.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 23,
2017.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 14, 2016, we will hold a public hearing on
December 27, 2016 on the EPA campus at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0522. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested by
December 14, 2016, to accept oral comments on this proposed action. If
a hearing is requested, it will be held at the EPA's North Carolina
campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. The hearing, if requested, will begin at 10:00 a.m. (local time)
and will continue until the earlier of 5:00 p.m. or 1 hour after the
last registered speaker has spoken. To request a hearing, to register
to speak at a hearing, or to inquire if a hearing will be held, please
contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The last day to pre-register to speak at a
hearing, if one is held, will be December 22, 2016. Additionally,
requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing
registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be
able to be fulfilled. Please note that registration requests received
before the

hearing will be confirmed by the EPA via email.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing,
including whether or not a hearing will be held, will be posted online
at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. We ask that you
contact Pamela Garrett at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or monitor our Web site to determine if a
hearing will be held. The EPA does not intend to publish a notice in
the Federal Register announcing any such updates. Please go to https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/phosph/phosphpg.html for more information on the
public hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP or the new source performance standards to a particular entity,
contact Scott Throwe, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, Mail Code
2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RTR Risk and technology review
SPA Superphosphoric acid
TF Total fluoride
TFI The Fertilizer Institute
tpy Tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    E. What are the incremental cost impacts of this action?
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Issues Under Reconsideration
    A. What amendments are we proposing for oxidation reactors and
what is the rationale?
    B. What amendments are we proposing for absorber monitoring and
what is the rationale?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \a\
                  NESHAP and source category                      code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing................................     325312
Phosphate Fertilizer Production..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the proposed action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    The EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and
40 CFR part 63, subpart BB in response to two petitions for
reconsideration on the August 2015 Final Rule. One petition was filed
by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the other petition was filed by
Phosphate Corporation of Saskatchewan, including: PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.; White Springs Agricultural Chemical, Inc., d/b/a PCS
Phosphate-White Springs; and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P.,
(collectively ``PCS''). The standards for the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing source category are found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA,
and the standards for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
category are found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB.
    The petitions are available in the docket for this action (see
docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0084 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0085).
    For 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, we are proposing to:
     Revise the compliance date by which affected sources must
include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance
with the TF emission limits for SPA process lines from August 19, 2016,
to August 19, 2018.
    For both 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB,
we are proposing to:
     Clarify one option and include an additional option for
determining the liquid-to-gas ratio of low-energy absorbers; and
     Revise the compliance date for this monitoring requirement
from August 19, 2015, to August 19, 2017.
    In addition to the issues above, one petitioner, PCS, requested
that the EPA reconsider the TF emission limits for phosphate rock
calciners. However, PCS subsequently withdrew this request and this
issue is no longer part of this reconsideration.
    The rationale for these proposed amendments is provided in section
III of this preamble. This action is limited to the specific issues
raised in the petitions for reconsideration. Therefore, we will respond
only to comments addressing issues that were raised in the petitions

for reconsideration. There are no changes to emission limits as a
result of these proposed amendments, and we expect the proposed
additional compliance time for oxidation reactors will have an
insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall
emissions. As stated in the preamble to the August 2015 Final Rule, the
EPA's technology review revealed that SPA process lines at four
different facilities include an oxidation reactor to remove organic
impurities from the acid. Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process
lines including oxidation reactors account for less than 1 percent of
all hydrogen fluoride emissions from the source category. Consequently,
the risk assessment in the August 2015 final risk and technology review
(RTR) is unchanged by these proposed amendments.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action will also be available on the Internet through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents on this same Web
site.

D. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412
and 7607(d)(7)(B)).

E. What are the incremental cost impacts of this action?

    There are 12 facilities in the United States that manufacture
phosphoric acid; two of these make only phosphoric acid. There are 11
operating facilities that produce phosphate fertilizers; one of these
makes only fertilizer. While Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and
Phosphate Fertilizer Production are two different source categories, 10
facilities manufacture both phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer,
and are, therefore, considered to be in both source categories.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These are 2014 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we have revised the estimated incremental cost
impacts that were presented in the August 2015 Final Rule to reflect
new information provided by TFI that takes into account the
installation of an additional absorber at the Agrium Nu-West facility.
Agrium Nu-West's costs are in addition to those for PCS Aurora, whose
absorber installation costs were included in the August 2015 Final
Rule. Each of these two facilities are in both the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
categories. Table 2 of this preamble compares the overall total capital
investment (TCI) and associated total annualized cost (TAC) from the
August 2015 Final Rule and the revised total costs for the proposed
reconsideration. Detailed information about these revised costs are
provided in section IV of this preamble.

    Table 2--Comparison of Costs To Comply With August 2015 Final Rule, as Provided in 2015 and as Revised in
                                            Proposed Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      August 2015 final rule       2016 Proposed reconsideration
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                    Cost item                                          Total                           Total
                                                   Total capital    annualized     Total capital    annualized
                                                    investment         cost         investment         cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxidation Reactor Absorber......................        $270,500         $95,300        $541,000        $243,400
Bag Leak Detection System.......................          75,600          29,700          75,600          29,700
Testing.........................................               0          98,400               0          98,400
Recordkeeping and Reporting.....................               0          70,600               0          70,600
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         346,100         294,000         616,600         442,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31358), the EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AA for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category and 40
CFR part 63, subpart BB for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
category. On August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), the EPA published amended
rules for both of these source categories that took into consideration
the technology review and residual risk review required by sections
112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA, respectively. In addition to other
changes, the amendments revised the SPA process line definition in 40
CFR part 63, subpart AA to include oxidation reactors and revised the
monitoring provisions for low-energy absorbers in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AA and subpart BB to require monitoring of liquid-to-gas ratio
rather than pressure drop. For more information on the final
amendments, see 80 FR 50386.
    Following promulgation of the August 2015 Final Rule, the EPA
received two petitions for reconsideration. On October 15, 2015, and
October 16, 2015, TFI and PCS, respectively, requested administrative
reconsideration of amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and subpart BB
under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
    TFI requested that the EPA reconsider: (1) The compliance schedule
for requiring affected sources to include emissions from oxidation
reactors when determining compliance with the TF emission limits for
SPA process lines; (2) the compliance schedule for continuously
monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio for low-energy absorbers; (3) the
regulatory language describing the option for using design blower
capacity to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in
monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio; and (4) other available options to
determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in monitoring
the liquid-to-gas ratio. PCS requested an administrative
reconsideration of these same provisions, and also requested that the
EPA reconsider the monitoring requirements for different types of low-
energy absorbers.
    We considered all the petitioners' requests, consolidated the
similar issues

regarding alternative monitoring options for low-energy absorbers, and
grouped the issues into the following three distinct topics:
     Compliance deadlines for air oxidation reactors that are
within SPA lines;
     Monitoring options for low-energy absorbers;
     Compliance deadlines for low-energy absorbers.
    On December 4, 2015, the EPA granted reconsideration on all
petitioners' issues pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA (see
docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0086 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0087).
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that the EPA shall convene a
proceeding to reconsider a rule if a person raising an objection can
demonstrate: (1) That it was impracticable to raise the objection
during the comment period, or that the grounds for such objection arose
after the comment period, but within the time specified for judicial
review (i.e., within 60 days after publication of the final rulemaking
notice in the Federal Register), and (2) that the objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule. We granted
reconsideration on these specific issues because the grounds for
petitioner's objections arose after the public comment period (but
within the time specified for judicial review) and the objections are
of central relevance to the outcome of the final rule pursuant to CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B).

III. Discussion of the Issues Under Reconsideration

A. What amendments are we proposing for oxidation reactors and what is
the rationale?

    In response to TFI's and PCS's requests to reconsider the
compliance schedule for requiring affected sources to include emissions
from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the TF
emission limits for SPA process lines, we are proposing to revise the
compliance date from August 19, 2016, to August 19, 2018.\2\ As part of
their request for reconsideration, TFI stated that one facility (Agrium
Nu-West) had commenced an evaluation of how best to control its
oxidation reactor emissions. The petitioner stated that this evaluation
could result in Agrium Nu-West deciding to install an entirely new
absorber for the oxidation reactor, which would involve permitting,
budgeting, design, and construction. Agrium Nu-West subsequently
provided additional details about its evaluation project, stating that
they needed at least another 6 months to complete the installation of
ductwork to redirect the exhaust from their existing oxidation reactor
to an existing absorber. Agrium Nu-West also said that it would need
more time to conduct performance testing in order to determine if the
existing absorber could handle the additional emissions loading. If the
performance testing demonstrated that the absorber is unable to meet
the existing TF limits, Agrium Nu-West said it would need an additional
24 to 36 months to install a new absorber on its oxidation reactor.
Furthermore, both petitioners (TFI, the industry trade group, and PCS,
the affected company which is also represented by TFI) confirmed that
PCS Aurora will need to install a new absorber to achieve compliance
with the SPA process line TF emission limit. PCS Aurora stated that
they would need 24 months to install a new absorber on their oxidation
reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Refer to proposed footnote ``c'' of Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart AA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both PCS Aurora and Agrium Nu-West provided the EPA with timelines
(see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0088) detailing specific
permitting, budgeting, design, and construction milestones that each
facility would need to reach in order to comply with the requirement to
control emissions from oxidation reactors for SPA process lines. The
EPA determined that these milestones are necessary, and the estimated
timelines are reasonable and are consistent with the timing allowed by
CAA section 112(i)(3) (i.e., no more than 3 years after promulgation).
Therefore, in order to allow time for permitting, budgeting, design,
and construction, the EPA is proposing an additional 2-year compliance
period by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation
reactors when determining compliance with the TF emission limits for
SPA process lines. This extension provides a total of 3 years from
promulgation to comply with the rule. This compliance period is the
maximum amount of time that the CAA allows, and is consistent with
similar rulemakings where facilities comply by installing add-on
control equipment.

B. What amendments are we proposing for absorber monitoring and what is
the rationale?

    In today's action, we are clarifying why we are retaining the
requirement to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio for low-energy
absorbers. We have determined that liquid-to-gas ratio for low-energy
absorbers is the most appropriate option to ensure proper TF control.
For gaseous absorbers (such as those controlling TF), increasing the
scrubbing liquid flow maximizes the liquid surface area available for
absorption and normally favors a higher control efficiency (see docket
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0089). The requirement to develop the minimum
liquid-to-gas ratio during a performance test establishes the minimum
amount of scrubbing liquid that is necessary to absorb the TF at the
level necessary to achieve the standard under the operating conditions
at which the performance test was conducted. At a constant gas flow
rate, increasing the scrubbing liquid flow rate may result in better TF
control, but decreasing the liquid flow rate may lead to insufficient
absorption and reduce the control efficiency. The liquid-to-gas ratio
provides an indication of whether enough scrubbing liquid (e.g., water)
is present to provide adequate TF absorption for the amount of gas
flowing through the system. As such, if the liquid-to-gas ratio is not
monitored for low-energy absorbers, then sources cannot be certain an
absorber is sufficiently controlling TF.
    In response to TFI's and PCS's request for reconsideration of the
compliance schedule for continuously monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio
for low-energy absorbers, we are proposing to revise the compliance
date for existing sources to no later than August 19, 2017. We are
changing the compliance date in order to allow owners and operators
additional time to obtain and certify the instruments needed to monitor
liquid-to-gas ratio. Until this proposed compliance date, owners and
operators must continue to demonstrate compliance by monitoring the
influent absorber liquid flow rate and the pressure drop through the
absorber, and conform to the applicable operating limit or range
established using the methodologies in 40 CFR 63.605(d)(1) and 40 CFR
63.625(d)(1).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Refer to proposed footnote ``b'' of Table 3 of 40 CFR part
63, subpart AA and of Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in response to TFI's and PCS's request for
reconsideration of the regulatory language describing the option for
using design blower capacity to determine the gas flow rate through the
absorber for use in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio, we are
proposing to clarify the procedure for using measured pressure drop and
``design blower capacity'' to determine the gas flow rate through the
absorber. Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires
owners and operators to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio by measuring
both the absorber inlet liquid flow rate, and inlet or outlet gas flow
rate. However, the

rule also allows owners and operators the option to use measured
pressure drop and ``design blower capacity'' to determine the gas flow
rate through the absorber in lieu of direct measurement. Although we
are retaining the requirement to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio for
low-energy absorbers, we are proposing to clarify and change the term
``design blower capacity'' in Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63
and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to ``blower design
capacity.'' We are proposing other minor text edits to these tables in
order to use the phrase ``gas flow rate through the absorber'' more
consistently. We are also proposing to insert footnote ``c'' into Table
3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR
part 63 to clarify that the option to use blower design capacity is
available regardless of the location of the blower (influent or
effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the absorber can be
established. The blower design capacity option allows the owner or
operator to determine a maximum possible gas flow rate through the
absorber based on the blower's specifications. The owner or operator
can monitor the influent liquid flow rate and use the maximum possible
gas flow rate through the absorber to calculate the liquid-to-gas
ratio. This option allows the owner or operator to reduce the
monitoring requirements associated with the rule because the gas flow
rate through the absorber is not required to be continuously monitored.
However, if an owner or operator would like to have the flexibility to
decrease the liquid flow rate through the absorber, the owner or
operator can choose to monitor actual gas flow rate (along with liquid
flow rate). As the gas flow rate decreases below the maximum possible
gas flow rate, the minimum liquid flow rate required to achieve the
minimum liquid-to-gas ratio also decreases.
    Furthermore, the intent to allow ``appropriate adjustments for
pressure drop'' when blower design capacity is used, is to account for
the effect of pressure drop on gas flow when establishing the maximum
possible gas flow rate through the absorber under actual operating
conditions using manufacturer information (e.g., a performance curve).
The requirement is not intended to require continuous monitoring of the
blower pressure drop. Because the pressure drop of the system changes
the gas flow rate delivered by the blower, adjustments for pressure
drop are required in cases where gas flow rate increases. We determined
that it would not be technically appropriate to specify a single method
for making this adjustment, because the method would vary depending on
the design configuration of an individual gas handling system. However,
to provide clarification (and to allow sources the flexibility to use
best engineering judgment and calculations), we are proposing a
requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(e) and 40 CFR 63.628(e) to document, in
the site-specific monitoring plan, the calculations that were used to
make adjustments for pressure drop if blower design capacity is used to
establish the maximum possible gas flow rate through an absorber.
Additional details and background on monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio
are included in the docket (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0089
and the guidance document, ``Clarification of Absorber Monitoring
Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)--Subparts AA and BB'' which is also available in
the docket for this action).
    Also, in response to TFI's and PCS's requests for reconsideration
of other available options to determine the gas flow rate through the
absorber for use in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio, we are
proposing to provide an additional option for determining the liquid-
to-gas ratio. Petitioners (TFI and PCS) took issue with the fact that
the EPA did not consider other options (in lieu of direct measurement
or using blower design capacity) for determining gas flow rate through
the absorber. We acknowledge that there are other techniques for
determining gas flow rate through an absorber (e.g., use of a damper
setting to document a maximum gas flow rate through the absorber in
lieu of the blower design capacity; back-calculating the gas flow rate
by developing a correlation between static pressure and brake
horsepower of the blower; or use of amperage of the blower as a
surrogate). In particular, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Mosaic) submitted to
the EPA a case study (see ``Mosaic Case Study (Regression Model
Example)'' available in the docket for this action) which
simultaneously compared direct measurements of actual gas flow rate
through an absorber to gas flow rates calculated using a regression
model. The regression model that Mosaic used in this particular case
study was developed using a design fan curve that correlates gas flow
rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake
horsepower of the blower. A paired t-test \4\ of the test data used in
the case study reveals that there is a statistical difference between
the gas flow rates that were directly measured and the gas flow rates
that were calculated using the regression model; however, the
regression model predicts a higher gas flow rate than was determined
through direct measurement. A higher gas flow rate would require a
higher liquid flow rate in order to maintain an established influent
liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit; therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that the use of the regression model developed in this case
study, in lieu of direct measurement, is a conservative method for
determining gas flow rate through the absorber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A paired t-test is a statistical tool used to compare one
set of values with another set of values, by checking to see if
their means are equivalent at a specified confidence level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Regression Model Example that is available in the docket for
this action, the brake horsepower of a blower is calculated by
multiplying the blower amperage by the blower's voltage and efficiency
(which can both be determined from the blower's motor nameplate), a
power factor (which can be determined using tables that list typical
power factors for various size motors), a conversion factor, and, if
necessary, a constant to correct for 3-phase power. The calculated
brake horsepower is then used in the regression model along with the
blower static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) to determine gas
flow rate through an absorber. As a result of our considering the
Mosaic case study, we are proposing to include an option in Table 3 to
subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part
63 that allows facilities to develop and use a regression model, by way
of a design fan curve that correlates gas flow rate to static pressure
(i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of a blower, to
determine gas flow rate through an absorber (in lieu of direct
measurement or using blower design capacity). If this option is used,
we are proposing a requirement in footnote ``a'' of Table 4 to subpart
AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 4 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 that
requires continuous monitoring of blower amperage, blower static
pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure), and any other parameters used in
the regression model that are not constants.
    We have not included equations that must be used in the regression
model in order to allow owners and operators the flexibility to adjust
this approach as necessary on a site-specific basis. As such, we are
also proposing that the regression model must be developed using direct
measurements of gas flow rate during a performance test, and then

annually checked via performance testing in order to ensure the
correlation remains current and accurate. The annual regression model
verification could be conducted during, or separately from, the annual
performance testing that is required in the rule. To allow the
flexibility to use best engineering judgment and calculations, we are
proposing an annual requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(f) and 40 CFR
63.628(f) to document, in the site-specific monitoring plan, the
calculations that were used to develop the regression model and to
require that the site-specific monitoring plan be updated annually to
maintain accuracy and reflect data used in the annual regression model
verification.
    Lastly, in response to PCS's request for reconsideration of
monitoring requirements for different types of low-energy absorbers, we
are proposing to insert footnote ``a'' into Table 3 to subpart AA of 40
CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to remind
affected entities that they can request an alternative monitoring
method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f) on a site-specific basis.
Such a request should include enough information to demonstrate the
correlation between the selected operating parameter and gas flow rate
through the absorber. Similarly, the petitioners also took issue that
the EPA did not consider relevant design differences of low-energy
absorbers such that the requirement to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio
may not be possible. In such cases, we are also proposing that the
procedures at 40 CFR 63.8(f) be used to request to monitor an
alternative operating parameter.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    As part of their request for reconsideration (see docket item EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0084), TFI notified the EPA that another facility
(Agrium Nu-West) may also need to install an absorber in order to meet
the SPA process line TF standard, when oxidation reactor emissions are
included. The impacts for this other facility are in addition to those
for PCS Aurora, whose absorber installation costs were included in the
August 2015 Final Rule. Therefore, in this action, we are revising our
estimate for overall TCI and associated TAC to comply with the August
2015 Final Rule to take into account this additional absorber. Based on
this revised analysis, we anticipate an overall TCI of $616,600, with
an associated TAC of approximately $442,100. Similar to the August 2015
Final Rule, these compliance costs also include estimates for all
existing sources to add the necessary monitoring devices, conduct
performance tests, and implement recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to comply with the rules.
    Installing an absorber on the oxidation reactor at Agrium Nu-West
will result in additional hydrogen fluoride emissions reductions of
0.047 tons per year from the oxidation reactor (i.e., a reduction from
0.049 tons per year to 0.002 tons per year(tpy)) and TF emissions
reductions of 0.14 tpy from the oxidation reactor (i.e., a reduction
from 0.147 tpy to 0.007 tpy). The details of the cost analyses and
emissions reductions estimates are provided in the memorandum,
``Control Costs and Emissions Reductions for Phosphoric Acid and
Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories--Reconsideration,''
which is available in the docket for this action. The economic impact
associated with the revised cost estimate is an annualized control cost
of about 0.01 percent of the parent company's annual revenues. The
details on the economic impact analysis are provided in the memorandum,
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Reconsideration of the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Phosphoric
Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
categories,'' which is available in the docket for this action.
    This action will have no other cost, environmental, energy, or
economic impacts. This action primarily revises compliance dates
specific to oxidation reactors in the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
source category, and absorber monitoring in both the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories.
The clarifications and other revisions we are proposing in response to
reconsideration are cost neutral.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0361. With this action, the EPA is seeking comments
on proposed amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule
language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are
being made to allow more time for compliance. Therefore, the EPA
believes that there are no changes to the information collection
requirements of the August 2015 Final Rule, so that the information
collection estimate of project cost and hour burden from the final
rules have not been revised.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
seeks comments on proposed amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to
existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by
stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action seeks comments on proposed amendments to the 40
CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly
clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation
issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for
compliance. We expect the proposed additional compliance time for
oxidation reactors will have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric
acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions. Hydrogen fluoride
emissions from SPA process lines including oxidation reactors account
for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride emissions from the
source category. Therefore, the proposed amendments should not
appreciably increase risk for any populations.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve any new technical standards from those
contained in the August 2015 Final Rule. Therefore, the EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The environmental justice finding in the August 2015 Final Rule
remains relevant in this action, which seeks comments on proposed
amendments to these rules that are mainly clarifications to existing
rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders,
or are being made to allow more time for compliance. We expect the
proposed additional compliance time for oxidation reactors will have an
insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall
emissions. Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process lines including
oxidation reactors account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen
fluoride emissions from the source category. Therefore, the proposed
amendments should not appreciably increase risk for any populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 28, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants

0
2. Section 63.608 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.608   General requirements and applicability of general
provisions of this part.

* * * * *
    (e) If you use blower design capacity to determine the gas flow
rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as
specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the
site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this
section calculations showing how you determined the maximum possible
gas flow rate through the absorber based on the blower's specifications
(including any adjustments you made for pressure drop).
    (f) If you use a regression model to determine the gas flow rate
through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in
Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific
monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section the
calculations that were used to develop the regression model, including
the calculations you use to convert amperage of the blower to brake
horsepower. You must describe any constants included in the equations
(e.g., efficiency, power factor), and describe how these constants were
determined. If you want to change a constant in your calculation, then
you must conduct a regression model verification to confirm the new
value of the constant. In addition, the site-specific monitoring plan
must be updated annually to reflect the data used in the annual
regression model verification that is described in Table 3 to this
subpart.
0
3. Table 1 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by revising footnote
``c'' to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Existing Source Emission Limits a b
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ Beginning on August 19, 2018, you must include oxidation reactors in
  superphosphoric acid process lines when determining compliance with
  the total fluorides limit.

* * * * *
0
4. Table 2 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by revising footnote
``c'' to read as follows:

    Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63--New Source Emission Limits a b
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ Beginning on August 19, 2018, you must include oxidation reactors in
  superphosphoric acid process lines when determining compliance with
  the total fluorides limit.

0
5. Table 3 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the column headings ``And you must monitor. . .'' and
    ``And. . .'' by including a reference to footnote a;
0
b. Revising the entry ``Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the
inlet of the absorber''; and
0
c. Adding footnotes ``a'' through ``d'' to read as follows:

                   Table 3 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Monitoring Equipment Operating Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 And you must monitor .
            You must . . .                     If . . .                 . . \a\               And . . . \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow   Your absorber is         Liquid-to-gas ratio as   You must determine the
 at the inlet of the absorber \b\.      designed and operated    determined by dividing   gas flow rate through
                                        with pressure drops of   the influent liquid      the absorber by:
                                        5 inches of water        flow rate by the gas    Measuring the gas flow
                                        column or less; or       flow rate through the    rate at the absorber
                                       Your absorber is          absorber. The units of   inlet or outlet;
                                        designed and operated    measure must be         Using the blower design
                                        with pressure drops of   consistent with those    capacity, with
                                        5 inches of water        used to calculate this   appropriate
                                        column or more, and      ratio during the         adjustments for
                                        you choose to monitor    performance test.        pressure drop; \c\ or
                                        the liquid-to-gas                                Using a regression
                                        ratio, rather than                                model.\d\
                                        only the influent
                                        liquid flow, and you
                                        want the ability to
                                        lower liquid flow with
                                        changes in gas flow.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ To monitor an operating parameter that is not specified in this table (including process-specific techniques
  not specified in this table to determine gas flow rate through an absorber), you must request, on a site-
  specific basis, an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f).
\b\ For existing sources, if your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water
  column or less, the compliance date is August 19, 2017. In the interim, for existing sources with an absorber
  designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, you must install CPMS for
  pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and monitor pressure drop through the absorber.
\c\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.608(e). The option to use blower design
  capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available
  regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the
  absorber can be established.
\d\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.608(f). The regression model must be
  developed using direct measurements of gas flow rate during a performance test, and design fan curves that
  correlate gas flow rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower.
  You must conduct an annual regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate during a
  performance test to ensure the correlation remains accurate. The annual regression model verification may be
  conducted during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in Sec.   63.606(b).

0
6. Table 4 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by revising the entry
``Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream flow rate'' to read as
follows:

 Table 4 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
                                             Compliance Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      You must        And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous
  For the operating parameter      establish the          compliance using these minimum frequencies . . .
applicable to you, as specified      following     -------------------------------------------------------------
        in Table 3 . . .         operating limit .                                         Data averaging period
                                        . .          Data measurement    Data recording       for compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Influent liquid flow rate and    Minimum influent   Continuous.......  Every 15 minutes.  Daily.
 gas stream flow rate.            liquid-to-gas
                                  ratio \a\.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ If you select the regression model option to monitor influent liquid-to-gas ratio as described in Table 3 to
  this subpart, then you must also continuously monitor (i.e., record every 15 minutes, and use a daily
  averaging period) blower amperage, blower static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure), and any other
  parameters used in the regression model that are not a constant.

Subpart BB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants

0
7. Section 63.628 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.628   General requirements and applicability of general
provisions of this part.

    (e) If you use blower design capacity to determine the gas flow
rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as
specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the
site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this
section calculations showing how you determined the maximum possible
gas flow rate through the absorber based on the blower's specifications
(including any adjustments you made for pressure drop).
    (f) If you use a regression model to determine the gas flow rate
through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in
Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific
monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section the
calculations that were used to develop the regression model, including
the calculations you use to convert amperage of the blower to brake
horsepower. You must describe any constants included in the equations
(e.g., efficiency, power factor), and describe how these constants were

determined. If you want to change a constant in your calculation, then
you must conduct a regression model verification to confirm the new
value of the constant. In addition, the site-specific monitoring plan
must be updated annually to reflect the data used in the annual
regression model verification that is described in Table 3 to this
subpart.
0
8. Table 3 to subpart BB of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the column headings ``And you must monitor. . .'' and
``And. . .'' by including a reference to footnote a;
0
b. Revising the entry ``Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the
inlet of the absorber''; and
0
c. Adding footnotes ``a'' through ``d'' to read as follows:

                   Table 3 to Subpart BB of Part 63--Monitoring Equipment Operating Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 And you must monitor .
            You must . . .                     If . . .                  . .\a\                And . . .\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow   Your absorber is         Liquid-to-gas ratio as   You must determine the
 at the inlet of the absorber \b\.      designed and operated    determined by dividing   gas flow rate through
                                        with pressure drops of   the influent liquid      the absorber by:
                                        5 inches of water        flow rate by the gas    Measuring the gas flow
                                        column or less; or       flow rate through the    rate at the absorber
                                       Your absorber is          absorber. The units of   inlet or outlet;
                                        designed and operated    measure must be         Using the blower design
                                        with pressure drops of   consistent with those    capacity, with
                                        5 inches of water        used to calculate this   appropriate
                                        column or more, and      ratio during the         adjustments for
                                        you choose to monitor    performance test.        pressure drop; \c\ or
                                        the liquid-to-gas                                Using a regression
                                        ratio, rather than                                model.\d\
                                        only the influent
                                        liquid flow, and you
                                        want the ability to
                                        lower liquid flow with
                                        changes in gas flow.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ To monitor an operating parameter that is not specified in this table (including process-specific techniques
  not specified in this table to determine gas flow rate through an absorber), you must request, on a site-
  specific basis, an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f).
\b\ For existing sources, if your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water
  column or less, the compliance date is August 19, 2017. In the interim, for existing sources with an absorber
  designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, you must install CPMS for
  pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and monitor pressure drop through the absorber.
\c\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.628(e). The option to use blower design
  capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available
  regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the
  absorber can be established.
\d\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.628(f). The regression model must be
  developed using direct measurements of gas flow rate during a performance test, and design fan curves that
  correlate gas flow rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower.
  You must conduct an annual regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate during a
  performance test to ensure the correlation remains accurate. The annual regression model verification may be
  conducted during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in Sec.   63.626(b).

0
9. Table 4 to subpart BB of part 63 is amended by revising the column
headings and entry for ``Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream flow
rate'' to read as follows:

 Table 4 to Subpart BB of Part 63--Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
                                             Compliance Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      You must        And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous
                                   establish the          compliance using these minimum frequencies . . .
  For the operating parameter        following     -------------------------------------------------------------
applicable to you, as specified   operating limit
        in Table 3 . . .            during your                                            Data averaging period
                                  performance test   Data measurement    Data recording       for compliance
                                       . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Influent liquid flow rate and    Minimum influent   Continuous.......  Every 15 minutes.  Daily.
 gas stream flow rate.            liquid-to-gas
                                  ratio \a\.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ If you select the regression model option to monitor influent liquid-to-gas ratio as described in Table 3 to
  this subpart, then you must also continuously monitor (i.e., record every 15 minutes, and use a daily
  averaging period) blower amperage, blower static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure), and any other
  parameters used in the regression model that are not a constant.

[FR Doc. 2016-29236 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11814-11816]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0080]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bass Wedding Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
loading, transport, and launching of fireworks used to celebrate the
Bass Wedding Ceremony. The fireworks displays will be held on March 8,
2008, on San Francisco Bay. This safety zone is established to ensure
the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated
with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:59 a.m. on March 6, 2008, until
9:30 p.m. on March 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0080 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California,
94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. As such, the event would occur before the
rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator
craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety
concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations
in effect during the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

Background and Purpose

    The Bass Wedding Party is sponsoring a brief fireworks display on
March 8, 2008 to celebrate the wedding of Mr. and Mrs. Bass. The
fireworks display is scheduled to launch at 9 p.m., on March 8, 2008,
and last approximately twenty minutes. The safety zone is being issued
to establish a temporary regulated area on San Francisco Bay around the
fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the
transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks
display. The safety zone around the launch barge is necessary to
protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards
associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
specified waters of San Francisco Bay. During the loading of the
fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display
location, and until 8:45 p.m. on March, 8, 2008, the safety zone will
apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius of 100

feet. From 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on March 8, 2008, the area to which
the safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the
navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius
of 1,000 feet.
    Loading of pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge at 11:59 a.m. on
March 6, 2008, and will take place at Pier 20, 2900 Main Street, in
Alameda, CA. Towing of the barge from Pier 20 to the display location
is scheduled to take place between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on March 8, 2008.
During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at 9 p.m., the
fireworks barge will be located approximately 600 feet off of Treasure
Island in San Francisco, CA in position 37[deg]49'12.90'' N,
122[deg]22'37.93'' W (NAD83).
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict general
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks
are loaded at Pier 20 during the transit of the fireworks barge, and
until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. This safety zone is
needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the
fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and
transiting vessels.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum
impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around
the area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and
sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of San
Francisco Bay to engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this
safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not

require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165-T11-011 to read as follows:

Sec.  165-T11-011  Safety Zone; Bass Wedding Fireworks Display, San
Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established for the
waters of San Francisco Bay surrounding a barge used as a launch
platform for a fireworks display.
    (1) Loading of pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge will commence
at 11:59 a.m. on March 6, 2008, and will take place at Pier 20, 2900
Main Street, in Alameda, CA.
    (2) Towing of the barge from Pier 20 to the display location is
scheduled to take place between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on March 8, 2008.
    (3) During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at 9 p.m.,
on March 8, 2008, the barge will be located 600 feet from Treasure
Island in San Francisco, CA in position 37[deg]49'12.90'' N,
122[deg]22'37.93'' W (NAD83).
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 11:59
a.m. on March 6, 2008, to 9:30 p.m. on March 8, 2008. If the events
conclude prior to their scheduled termination times, the Coast Guard
will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring
within this safety zone by all vessels and persons is prohibited,
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San
Francisco, or his designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, San Francisco, or the designated
representative.
    (3) Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, and
petty officer of the Coast Guard onboard a Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, local, state, or federal law enforcement vessel who is
authorized to act on behalf of the Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed. Persons and vessels may request permission
to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or the 24-hour Command Center via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of this safety zone by local law enforcement as necessary.

    Dated: February 19, 2008.
P.M. Gugg,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. E8-4263 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P