Regulated process              --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Existing             New             Existing           New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPPA Line..................................           0.020            0.0135              0.020       0.0135
SPA Line...................................           0.010            0.00870             0.010       0.00870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All limits expressed as lbs/ton P2O5 feed.

    With this proposal, we are seeking comment on finalizing the HF
limit for regulating HF emissions using the target HAP (HF), instead of
the long-standing surrogate for HF, total F. We invite comment on
determining and setting a standard for HF in lieu of the existing total
F standard. We solicit comment on our proposed decision.
    We also seek comment on the use of EPA Method 320 for the
compliance demonstration test method. Additionally, we solicit comment
on the use of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) HF CEMS as
an optional continuous monitoring compliance approach within the rule.
We also invite comment on the use of an HF emission standard where a
source using an HF CEMS would comply with a 30-day rolling average
emission limit, and annual relative accuracy test audit (RATA)
certifications of CEMS. A technical memorandum, ``Hydrogen Fluoride
Continuous Emission Monitoring and Compliance Determination with EPA
Method 320,'' in the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522 outlines
technical detail on the use of HF CEMS and is provided as guidance for
comments regarding details of a continuous HF monitoring option.
    To allow facilities flexibility in demonstrating compliance, we are
also considering an option to maintain the existing total F limits as
an alternative addition to the proposed HF limits. Facilities would be
required to comply with all of the provisions in this proposed
rulemaking, including the emission standards, and the operating,
monitoring, notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
however, facilities would have the option to comply with either the
proposed HF limits using EPA Method 320, or the current total F limits
using EPA Method 13B. This option would be implemented by revising 40
CFR 63.602(a) and Tables 1, 1a, 2 and 2a to subpart AA to include both
HF and total F limits; all other provisions would remain as proposed in
subpart AA. We solicit comment on allowing facilities to demonstrate
compliance with the current total F limits as an alternative to the
proposed HF limits.

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category?

    In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to increase the
ease and efficiency of submitting performance test data while improving
data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities submit electronic
copies of required performance test and performance evaluation reports
by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-provided
software. The direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer is
accomplished through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is
the EPA's portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided
software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which is used
to generate electronic reports of performance tests and evaluations.
The ERT generates an electronic report package that facilities will
submit using CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the
CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA's public database
called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to all reports and
data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and data will be very
straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval
link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A description and
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site
(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the WebFIRE database is available
at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the
EPA applies only to those performance tests and/or performance
evaluations conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT.
The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA reference test methods.
A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
    We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach
to electronic data submittal. Specifically, by using this approach,
industry will save time in the performance test submittal process.
Additionally, the standardized format that the ERT uses allows sources
to create a more complete test report, resulting in less time spent on
backfilling data if a source failed to submit all required data
elements. Also through this proposal, industry may only need to submit
a report once to meet the requirements of the applicable subpart
because stakeholders can readily access these reports from the WebFIRE
database. This also benefits industry by reducing recordkeeping costs
as the performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using
CEDRI are no longer required to be retained in hard copy, thereby,
reducing staff time needed to coordinate these records.
    Because the EPA will already have performance test data in hand,
another benefit to industry of electronic reporting is that fewer or
less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with
prospective required residual risk assessments or technology reviews
will be needed. This would result in a decrease in staff time needed to
respond to data collection requests.
    State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies may also
benefit from having electronic versions of the reports they are now
receiving. For example, state, local and tribal air pollution control
agencies may be able to conduct a more streamlined and accurate review
of electronic data submitted to them. For example, the ERT would allow
for an electronic review process, rather than a manual data assessment,
therefore, making their review and evaluation of the source-provided
data and calculations easier and more efficient. In addition, the
public stands to benefit from electronic reporting of emissions data
because the electronic data will be easier for the public to access.
The methods and procedures for collecting, accessing and reviewing air
emissions

data will be more transparent for all stakeholders.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. The ERT
clearly states the information required by the test method and ERT has
the ability to house additional data elements that might be required by
a delegated authority.
    In addition, the EPA must have performance test data to conduct
effective reviews of CAA sections 112 standards as well as for many
other purposes including compliance determinations, emission factor
development and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting
these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source
owners and operators, to locate, collect and submit performance test
data. Also, in recent years, stack testing firms have typically
collected performance test data in electronic format, making it
possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data
accessibility.
    A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that
emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular
source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from
most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that emission
factors, when updated, represent the most current range of operational
practices. Finally, another benefit of the proposed electronic data
submittal to WebFIRE is that these data would greatly improve the
overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing
the pool of emissions test data that the EPA evaluates to develop
emissions factors.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the
EPA significant time, money and effort while also improving the quality
of emission factors and inventories and air quality regulations.

G. What compliance dates are we proposing for the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing source category?

    We are proposing that facilities must comply with the proposed Hg
limits for existing rock calciners no later than 3 years after the
effective date of this rule. We are proposing a 3-year compliance lead
time so that facilities with existing rock calciners have adequate time
to design and install additional controls and demonstrate compliance,
including the time necessary to: construct control devices; seek bids,
select a vendor and install and test the new equipment; and purchase
and install compliance monitoring equipment and implement quality
assurance measures. We believe that three years are needed for
facilities with existing rock calciners to complete the steps described
above and achieve compliance with the proposed standards. For new rock
calciners that commence construction or reconstruction after December
27, 1996, and on or before the effective date of this rule, we are
proposing that facilities must comply with the proposed Hg limits no
later than 1 year after the effective date of this rule. New rock
calciners that commence construction or reconstruction after the
effective date of this rule would comply with the proposed Hg limits
immediately upon startup. We are also proposing the compliance date for
HF work practice standards for all (existing and new) rock calciners is
the effective date of this rule. Based on the data that the EPA has
received, all rock calciners are meeting the HF work practice standard;
therefore, no additional time would be required to achieve compliance
with this HF work practice standard. We specifically seek comment on
the compliance dates proposed for regulating Hg and HF from new and
existing phosphate rock calciners.
    In addition, for existing gypsum dewatering stack or cooling ponds,
we are proposing that facilities must prepare and comply with a gypsum
dewatering stack and cooling pond management plan to control fugitive
HF emissions no later than 1 year after the effective date of this
rule. For new gypsum dewatering stack or cooling ponds, we are
proposing that facilities must prepare and comply with a gypsum
dewatering stack and cooling pond management plan to control fugitive
HF emissions beginning on the effective date of this rule.
    We are also proposing that for existing and new wet-process
phosphoric acid process lines and superphosphoric acid process lines
that commence construction or reconstruction on or before the effective
date of this rule, the facility must comply with the proposed HF limits
no later than 1 year after the effective date of this rule. Facilities
will continue to conduct the annual performance test, but will be
required to use a different test method. Therefore, we are proposing a
one-year compliance lead time so that facilities have adequate time to
coordinate performance testing with the new test method. We do not
anticipate that any facilities will need to install a new control
device to meet the proposed HF limits. For new wet-process phosphoric
acid process lines and superphosphoric acid process lines that commence
construction or reconstruction after the effective date of this rule,
the facility must comply with the proposed HF limits beginning on the
effective date of this rule. Prior to these compliance dates (for HF
limits), we are proposing that facilities continue to comply with the
current total F standards.
    We are also proposing that the compliance date for the amended SSM
requirements is the effective date of this rule.

V. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions for the Phosphate
Fertilizer Production Source Category

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for the
Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category?

    The preamble sections below summarize the results of the risk
assessments for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category.
The complete risk assessment, Draft Residual Risk Assessment for
Phosphate Fertilizer Production and Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing, is
available in the docket for this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    The basic chronic inhalation risk estimates presented here are the
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk, the maximum chronic HI and the
cancer incidence. We also present results from our acute inhalation
impact screening in the form of maximum HQs, as well as the results of
our preliminary screening for potential non-inhalation risks from PB-
HAP. Also presented are the HAP ``drivers,'' which are the HAP that
collectively contribute 90 percent of the maximum cancer risk or
maximum HI at the highest exposure location.
    The inhalation risk results for this source category indicate that
maximum lifetime individual cancer risks are less than 1-in-1 million.
The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.001
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 1,000 years.
The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value for the source category
could be up to 0.1 associated with emissions of manganese, indicating
no significant potential for chronic non-cancer impacts.

    We analyzed the potential differences between actual emissions
levels and calculated the maximum emissions allowable under the MACT
standards for every emission process group for this source category.
Based upon the above analysis, we multiplied the modeled actual risks
for the MIR facility with site-specific process multipliers to estimate
allowable risks under the MACT. We deemed this approach sufficient due
to the low actual modeled risks for the source category. The maximum
lifetime individual cancer risks based upon allowable emissions are
still less than 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
value is also estimated at an HI of 0.1.
2. Acute Risk Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP that has an
acute benchmark. There were no phosphate fertilizer production
facilities identified with HQ values greater than 1.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    For the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category, the EPA
conducted a Tier I screening-level evaluation of the potential human
health risks associated with emissions of PB-HAP. The PB-HAP emitted by
facilities in this category include Hg compounds (11 facilities), Pb
compounds (11 facilities), and cadmium compounds (11 facilities). We
compared reported emissions of PB-HAP to the Tier I screening emission
thresholds established by the EPA for the purposes of the RTR risk
assessments. One facility emitted Hg\2+\ above the Tier I screening
threshold level, exceeding the screening threshold by a factor of 20.
Consequently, we found it necessary to conduct a Tier II screening
assessment.
    For the Tier II screening assessment, we refined our Hg\2+\
analysis with additional site-specific information. The additional
site-specific information included the land use around the facilities,
the location of fishable lakes and local meteorological data such as
wind direction. The result of this analysis was the development of a
site-specific emission screening threshold for Hg\2+\. This assessment
uses the assumption that the biological productivity limitation of each
lake is 1 gram of fish per acre of water, meaning that in order to
fulfill the adult ingestion rate, the fisher will need to fish from 373
total acres of lakes. The result of this analysis was the development
of a site-specific emission screening threshold for Hg\2+\. We compared
this Tier II screening threshold for Hg\2+\ to the facility's Hg\2+\
emissions. The facility's emissions exceeded the Tier II screening
threshold, by a factor of 3.
    To refine our Hg Tier II Screen for this facility, we first
examined the set of lakes from which the angler ingested fish. Any
lakes that appeared to not be fishable or publicly accessible were
removed from the assessment, and the screening assessment was repeated.
After we made the determination the three critical lakes were fishable,
we analyzed the hourly meteorology data from which the Tier II
meteorology statistics were derived. Using buoyancy and momentum
equations from literature, and assumptions about facility fenceline
boundaries, we estimated by hour the height achieved by the emission
plume before it moved laterally beyond the assumed fenceline. If the
plume height was above the mixing height, we assumed there was no
chemical exposure for that hour. The cumulative loss of chemical being
released above the mixing height reduces the exposure and decreases the
Tier II screening quotient. The refined Tier II analysis for mercury
emissions indicated a 23-percent loss of emissions above mixing layer
due to plume rise, this reduction still resulted in an angler screening
non-cancer value equal to 2.
    For this facility, after we performed the lake and plume rise
analyses, we reran the relevant Tier II screening scenarios for the
travelling subsistence angler in TRIM.FaTE with the same hourly
meteorology data and hourly plume-rise adjustments from which the Tier
II meteorology statistics were derived. The utilization of the time-
series meteorology reduced the screening value further to a value of
0.6. For this source category our analysis indicated no potential for
multipathway impacts of concern from this facility.
    For the other PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the source category,
no facilities emit cadmium above the Tier I screening threshold level.
Lead is a PB-HAP, but the NAAQS value (which was used for the chronic
noncancer risk assessment) takes into account multipathway exposures,
so a separate multipathway screening value was not developed. Since we
did not estimate any exceedances of the NAAQS in our chronic noncancer
risk assessment, we do not expect any significant multipathway exposure
and risk due to Pb emissions from these facilities. For more
information on the multipathway screening assessment conducted for this
source category, see the memorandum, ``Draft Residual Risk Assessment
for Phosphate Fertilizer Production and Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing''
provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    As described in section III.A.5 of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Production source category. In the Tier I screening analysis for PB-HAP
(other than Pb, which was evaluated differently as noted in section
III.A.5 of this preamble) none of the individual modeled concentrations
for any facility in the source category exceeds any of the ecological
benchmarks (either the LOAEL or NOAEL). Therefore, we did not conduct a
Tier II assessment. For Pb, we did not estimate any exceedances of the
secondary Pb NAAQS.
    For acid gases, the average modeled concentration around each
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark (either
the LOAEL or NOAEL). HCl emissions were not identified from the
category. For HF, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site
data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks
for all facilities. We did not identify an adverse environmental effect
as defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) from HAP emissions from this source
category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    The facility-wide MIR and TOSHI are based on emissions, as
identified in the NEI, from all emissions sources at the identified
facilities. The results of the facility-wide analysis indicate that all
11 facilities with phosphate fertilizer production have a facility-wide
cancer MIR less than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-
wide TOSHI for the source category is 0.2. The risk results are
summarized in Table 7 of this preamble.

                                        Table 7--Human Health Risk Assessment for Phosphate Fertilizer Production
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Cancer MIR  (in 1                                             Max chronic  non-cancer
                                              million)             Cancer     Population   Population             HI
  Category & number  of facilities   --------------------------  incidence    with risks   with risks --------------------------  Worst-case  max acute
               modeled                  Based on     Based on    (cases per   of 1-in-1    of 10-in-1    Based on     Based on        non-cancer HQ
                                         actual     allowable      year)     million  or   million or     actual     allowable
                                       emissions    emissions                    more         more      emissions    emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphate Fertilizer................          0.5          0.5        0.001            0            0         0.02         0.02  HQREL = 0.4 (elemental
(11 facilities).....................                                                                                Hg).
                                      ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  HQAEGL-1 = 0.09
                                                                                (hydrofluoric acid).
                                      ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility-wide (11 facilities).......          0.5          0.5        0.001            0            0          0.2          0.3  --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?

    To determine whether or not to conduct a demographics analysis, we
look at a combination of factors including the MIR, non-cancer TOSHI,
population around the facilities in the source category, and other
relevant factors. For the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
category, the MIR is less than 1-in-1 million, and the HI is less than
1 and, therefore, we did not conduct an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups for this rulemaking. However, we did
conduct a proximity analysis, which identifies any overrepresentation
of minority, low income or indigenous populations near facilities in
the source category. The results of this analysis are presented in
section IX.J of this preamble.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety and adverse environmental effects for the Phosphate
Fertilizer Production source category?

1. Risk Acceptability
    The results of both the source category and facility-wide risk
assessments indicate that all phosphate fertilizer production
facilities have a cancer MIR less than 1-in-1 million. The maximum
source category and facility-wide TOSHI are both less than 1, and the
maximum worst-case acute non-cancer HQ is less than 1. We propose that
the risks posed by emissions from this source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and Proposed Controls
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate the cost and
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures and costs evaluated under the
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to
further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment, as well as the health impacts of such potential additional
measures. As noted in our discussion of the technology review in
section V.C of this preamble, no measures (beyond those already in
place) were identified for reducing HAP emissions from the Phosphate
Fertilizer source category. In addition, because our analyses show that
the maximum baseline chronic cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million, the
maximum chronic non-cancer HI is less than 1, and the worst-case acute
HQ is less than the CA-REL, minimal reductions in risk could be
achieved even if we identified measures that could reduce HAP emissions
further. Based on the discussion above, we propose that the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Though we did not identify any new technologies to reduce risk from
this source category, we are specifically requesting comment on whether
there are additional control measures that may be able to reduce risks
from the source category. We request any information on potential
emission reductions of such measures, as well as the cost and health
impacts of such reductions to the extent they are known.
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
    Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from the Phosphate Fertilizer
Production source category. We are proposing that it is not necessary
to set a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental
effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety and other
relevant factors.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category?

1. NESHAP Technology Review
    In order to fulfill our obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6), we
conducted a technology review to identify new developments that may
warrant revisions to the current NESHAP standards applicable to the
Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category (i.e., NESHAP subpart
BB). In conducting our technology review for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Production source category, we utilized the RBLC database and the data
submitted by facilities in response to the April 2010 CAA section 114
request.
    Based on our review of the RBLC, we did not find any new
developments in practices, processes and control technologies that have
been applied since the original NESHAP to reduce emissions from
phosphate fertilizer production plants.
    Based on our review of the CAA section 114 data (see memorandum,
``CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) Reviews for the Phosphoric
Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source
Categories,'' which is available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522),
we determined that the control technologies used at phosphate
fertilizer production plants have not changed since the EPA published
the 1996 memorandum, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers
Production; Proposed Rules--Draft Technical Support Document and
Additional Technical Information,'' which is available in Docket ID No.
A-94-02.
    In general, the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category
continues to use wet scrubbing technology to control HF emissions from
the APF processes. We did not identify any technical

developments in wet scrubbing methods used at phosphate fertilizer
production plants. As noted in the memorandum discussed above, the type
and configuration of the wet scrubbing technology varies significantly
between facilities and between process lines within a facility. In
order to determine the differences in effectiveness of control device
technologies we identified, we reviewed the emissions data submitted by
facilities in response to the April 2010 and January 2014 CAA section
114 requests.
    For APF process lines, we identified four control technology
configurations from the CAA section 114 data. However, based on the
available emissions data, we could not distinguish one configuration
that clearly achieved greater emissions reductions than the other
configurations. The emissions data for the four configurations we
identified cover a wide range of emissions and do not show that a
particular configuration achieves greater emission reductions. We
believe that observed differences in facility emissions are likely the
result of factors other than control technology (e.g., subtle
differences in sampling and analytical techniques, age of control
equipment and differences in facility operation).
    For TSP processes, none of the 11 facilities with APF processes
have active operations for TSP production or storage based on the CAA
section 114 responses. While one facility is permitted to store GTSP,
we do not anticipate that the facility will resume GTSP operations at
any point in the future because according to the International
Fertilizer Industry Association, North American production of GTSP
ceased in 2007. However, if a facility were to start producing and
storing TSP, the control technologies would be the same as those
already used at APF process lines because the same, or very similar,
equipment is used to produce and store TSP as what is used to produce
and store APF (see the 1996 memorandum, ``National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and
Phosphate Fertilizers Production; Proposed Rules--Draft Technical
Support Document and Additional Technical Information,'' which is
available in Docket ID No. A-94-02). Given the lack of TSP production
in the U.S., and the lack of new control technologies for the similarly
controlled APF process lines, no new technologies were identified
during this review of TSP production and storage processes.
    Therefore, neither these data nor any other information we have
examined show that there has been a significant improvement in the add-
on control technology or other equipment since promulgation of NESHAP
subpart BB.
    We also reviewed the CAA section 114 responses to identify any work
practices, pollution prevention techniques and process changes at
phosphate fertilizer production manufacturing plants that could achieve
emission reductions. We did not identify any developments regarding
practices, techniques, or process changes that affect point source
emissions from this source category. See the memorandum, ``CAA Section
111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) Reviews for the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source Categories,''
which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.
    In light of the results of the technology review, we conclude that
additional standards are not necessary pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) and we are not proposing changes to NESHAP subpart BB as part
of our technology review. We solicit comment on our proposed decision.
2. NSPS Review
    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), we conducted a review to
identify new developments that may advise revisions to the current NSPS
standards applicable to the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
category (i.e., NSPS subparts V, W and X). This review considered both
(1) whether developments in technology or other factors support the
conclusion that a different system of emissions reduction has become
the ``best system of emissions reduction'' and (2) whether emissions
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the
standards are achieved in practice.
a. NSPS Subpart V Review
    Based on a search of the RBLC database, CAA section 114 data, and
other relevant sources, we did not find any new developments that have
been applied since the original NSPS subpart V to reduce total F
emissions from a DAP plant. Additionally, based on our review of the
CAA section 114 data provided by this industry, we determined that the
technologies used to control stack emissions at DAP plants have not
changed since the original NSPS subpart V. As discussed in more detail
in the memorandum, ``CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) Reviews for
the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production
Source Categories,'' which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0522, we observed some differences in total F emissions from DAP
plants. However, we did not find any patterns in emissions reductions
based on control technology used. Although we identified four control
technology configurations that are being used at DAP plants, based on
the available emissions data, we could not distinguish one
configuration that clearly achieved greater emissions reductions than
the other configurations. The emissions data for the four
configurations we identified cover a wide range of emissions and do not
show that a particular configuration achieves greater emission
reductions. We believe that observed differences in facility total F
emissions are likely the result of factors other than control
technology (e.g., subtle differences in sampling and analytical
techniques, age of control equipment and differences in facility
operating parameters). Therefore, neither these data nor any other
information we have examined show that there has been a significant
improvement in the add-on control technology or other equipment since
promulgation of NSPS subpart V. Finally, we also reviewed the CAA
section 114 responses to identify any work practices, pollution
prevention techniques and process changes at DAP plants that could
achieve greater emission reductions than is required under the current
NSPS. We did not identify any developments regarding practices,
techniques, or process changes that affect point source emissions from
DAP plants. For these reasons, we do not see any basis for concluding
that the ``best system of emissions reduction'' has changed.
    Therefore, we are proposing that additional revisions to NSPS
subpart V standards are not appropriate pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). We solicit comment on our proposed determination.
b. NSPS Subparts W and X Reviews
    As previously discussed in section V.C.1 of this preamble, none of
the 11 facilities with APF processes have active operations for TSP
production or storage based on the CAA section 114 responses. While one
facility is permitted to store GTSP, we do not anticipate that the
facility will resume GTSP operations at any point in the future
because, according to the International Fertilizer Industry
Association, North American production of GTSP ceased in 2007. However,
if a facility were to start producing and storing TSP, the control

technologies would be the same as those already used at APF process
lines because the same, or very similar, equipment is used to produce
and store GTSP as what is used to produce and store APF (see the 1996
memorandum, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers
Production; Proposed Rules--Draft Technical Support Document and
Additional Technical Information,'' which is available in Docket ID No.
A-94-02). Given the lack of TSP production in the U.S., and the lack of
new developments for the similarly controlled APF process lines, no new
developments were identified during this review of TSP production and
storage processes. For these reasons, we do not see any basis for
concluding that the ``best system of emissions reduction'' has changed.
    Therefore, we are proposing that additional revisions to NSPS
subpart W and subpart X standards are not appropriate pursuant to CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B). We solicit comment on our proposed determination.

D. What other actions are we proposing for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Production source category?

    In addition to the amendments described above, we reviewed NESHAP
subpart BB, NSPS subpart V, NSPS subpart W and NSPS subpart X to
determine whether we should make additional amendments. From this
review, we are proposing several additional revisions or
clarifications. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of
NESHAP subpart BB in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement
to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission
standards during periods of SSM. In addition, we are proposing
clarifications to the applicability of NESHAP subpart BB. We also are
proposing various other changes to testing, monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in NESHAP subpart BB, NSPS subpart V, NSPS
subpart W and NSPS subpart X. Our analyses and proposed changes related
to these issues are discussed in this section of this preamble.
1. What are the SSM requirements?
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to appendix A of subpart BB (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example,
we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the requirement in
the General Provisions that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are
proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    For the reasons explained below, we are proposing work practice
standards for periods of startup and shutdown in lieu of numerical
emission limits. CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator
may promulgate a design, equipment or operational work practice
standard in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it
is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. CAA
section 112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term ``not feasible'' in this
context to apply when ``the application of measurement technology to a
particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations.''
    Startup and shutdown periods at phosphate fertilizer production
facilities generally only last between 30 minutes to 6 hours. Because
of the variability and the relatively short duration compared to the
time needed to conduct a performance test, which typically requires a
full working day, the EPA has determined that it is not feasible to
prescribe a numerical emission standard for these periods. Furthermore,
according to information provided by industry, it is possible that the
feed rate (i.e., equivalent P2O5 feed) can be
zero during startup and shutdown periods. During these periods, it is
not feasible to consistently enforce the emission standards that are
expressed in terms of lb of pollutant/ton of feed.
    Although we requested information on emissions and the operation of
control devices during startup and shutdown periods in the CAA section
114 survey issued to the Phosphoric Fertilizer Production source
category, we did not receive any emissions data collected during a
startup and shutdown period, and we do not expect that these data
exist. However, based on the information for control device operation
received in the survey, we concluded that the control devices could be
operated normally during periods of startup or shutdown. Also, we
believe that the emissions generated during startup and shutdown
periods are lower than during steady-state conditions because the
amount of feed materials introduced to the process during those periods
is lower compared to normal operations. Therefore, if the emission
control devices are operated during startup and shutdown, then HAP
emissions will be the same or lower than during steady-state operating
conditions.
    Consequently, we are proposing a work practice standard rather than
an emissions limit for periods of startup or shutdown. Control devices
used on the various process lines in this source category are effective
at achieving desired emission reductions immediately upon start-up.
Therefore, during startup and shutdown periods, we are proposing that
sources begin operation of any control device(s) in the production unit
prior to introducing any feed into the production unit. We are also
proposing that sources must continue operation of the control device(s)
through the shutdown period until all feed material has been processed
through the production unit.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new
sources must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the
best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation

``achieved'' by the best-performing 12 percent of sources in the
category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the EPA to
consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the best
performing sources when setting emission standards. As the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the
performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in section 112 requires the EPA to consider malfunctions as
part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. For these reasons, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (the EPA typically has
wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to
solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed
on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to
``invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99 percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations, and the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good-faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement action
against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted,
the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action
and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions.
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative
penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations.
    In several prior CAA section 112 rules, the EPA had included an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by
malfunctions in an effort to create a system that incorporates some
flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many
types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while
simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts,
emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond
the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its case-
by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these
circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a more
formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co.
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an
informal case-by-case enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but
see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977)
(requiring a more formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets
beyond the control of the permit holder.''). Under the EPA's regulatory
affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a
judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements
of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not
be assessed. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in one of
the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C.
Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 112
rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The
court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative
defense for private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the
authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies
exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the court
found: ``As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts
determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are
`appropriate.' '' See NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (``[U]nder
this statute, deciding whether penalties are `appropriate' in a given
private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.'').\30\ In light
of NRDC, the EPA is not including

a regulatory affirmative defense provision in the proposed rule. As
explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions
standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-
case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as appropriate.
Further, as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen enforcement action,
the court has the discretion to consider any defense raised and
determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. App.
LEXIS 7281 at *24 (arguments that violation were caused by unavoidable
technology failure can be made to the courts in future civil cases when
the issue arises). The same is true for the presiding officer in EPA
administrative enforcement actions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The court's reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil judicial
actions. The court noted that ``EPA's ability to determine whether
penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends
only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by
a court.'' Id.
    \31\ Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA's authority
to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available
in administrative enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an
affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As explained above, such
an affirmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of
penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative
proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. CF. CAA
section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the court to
take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. 40 CFR 63.628(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii) in the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the
``yes'' in column three to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes
the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that
section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.628(b) that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) in the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing
the ``yes'' in column three to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant of the general duty requirement being added
at 40 CFR 63.628(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) in the
General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in column
three to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of
an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the
SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are
no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f) in the
General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in column
three to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6 (f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.626 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) in the
General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in column
three to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.626(d). The performance testing requirements
we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance
testing provisions in several respects. The proposed regulatory text
does not allow testing during startup, shutdown, or malfunction. The
proposed regulatory does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)
that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes
of performance testing. Furthermore, as in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of operating conditions.
    We are proposing that sources conduct performance tests during
``maximum representative operating conditions for the process''.
Specifically, we are proposing that sources must operate their process
during the performance test in such a way that results in the flue gas
characteristics that are the most difficult for reducing emissions of
the regulated pollutant(s) by the control device used. In an effort to
provide more flexibility to owners and operators regarding the
identification of the proper testing conditions, the most difficult
condition for the control device may include, but is not limited to,
the highest HAP mass loading rate to the control device, or the highest
HAP mass loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of
solubility for scrubbing media. The EPA understands that there may be
cases where efficiencies are dependent on other characteristics of
emission streams, including the characteristics of components and the
operating principles of the devices. For example, the solubility of
emission stream components in scrubbing media, or emission stream
component affinity in carbon adsorption systems can also define the
most difficult condition for a particular control device. The EPA is
also proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to
record the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent maximum representative operating
conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make
available to the Administrator upon request such records ``as may be
necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,'' but did
not specifically require the owner or operator to record the
information. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add builds on
that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and
(c)(1)(iii) in the General Provisions table by changing the ``yes'' in
column three to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and
SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light
of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control

program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) in the
General Provisions table by changing the ``yes'' in column three to a
``no.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement, which is no longer applicable. The
EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.628(c) text that is
identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), except that the final sentence is
replaced with the following sentence: ``You must include the program of
corrective action required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2) in the plan.''
f. 40 CFR 63.627 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) in
the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in
column three to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) in
the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in
column three to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.627(b). The regulatory text we
are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is
replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control and monitoring equipment.
The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet
an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the
date, time and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.''
The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.627 a requirement that
sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the applicable
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available or
engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) in
the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in
column three to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.627.
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) in
the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in
column three to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) in the
General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in column
three to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. 40 CFR 63.627 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) in the
General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in column
three to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for SSM. To replace the General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40
CFR 63.627. The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the excess emission report,
already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must
contain the number, date, time, duration and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions (e.g., product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, direct measurements, or engineering judgment based on
known process parameters). The EPA is proposing this requirement to
ensure that adequate information is available to determine compliance,
to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an
applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to
meet an applicable standard.
    The proposed rule eliminates the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously-required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements. We are proposing that owners or operators no
longer be required to determine whether actions taken to correct a
malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan because the plans would no
longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) in
the General Provisions table (appendix A) by changing the ``yes'' in
column three to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an
immediate report for SSM when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
the plans would no longer be required.
2. Clarifications to Applicability and Certain Definitions
a. NESHAP Subpart BB
    We are proposing clarifications to the applicability section (40
CFR 63.620) of the Phosphate Fertilizer Production

NESHAP (subpart BB). The requirements of the current Phosphate
Fertilizer Production NESHAP (subpart BB) apply to diammonium and/or
monoammonium phosphate process lines, granular triple superphosphate
lines and granular triple superphosphate storage buildings only. In
this action, we are proposing clarifications to the applicability of
the NESHAP to include any process line that produces a reaction product
of ammonia and phosphoric acid. Based on facility responses to the CAA
section 114 survey issued to the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
category, EPA learned that the phosphate fertilizer products produced
by facilities changes over time (e.g., no facility currently produces a
granular triple superphosphate product). To ensure the emission
standards we are proposing reflect inclusion of HAP emissions from all
sources in the defined source category, as initially intended in the
rule promulgation, we believe it necessary to clarify the applicability
of the NESHAP to include reaction products of ammonia and phosphoric
acid, and not just diammonium and monoammonium phosphate. This revision
also further aligns the definition of the source category with the
current provisions in 40 CFR 63.620(a) which specify that the NESHAP
applies to each phosphate fertilizers production plant.
    Granular triple superphosphate is no longer produced in the United
States. However, in the unlikely event that a facility were to start
producing and storing GTSP, we are not proposing to remove requirements
for the triple superphosphate processes regulated by NESHAP subpart BB
(i.e., GTSP process lines and storage buildings).
    For consistency between NESHAP subpart AA and NESHAP subpart BB, we
are proposing the NESHAP subpart AA conditions that exclude the use of
evaporative cooling towers for any liquid effluent from any wet
scrubbing device installed to control HF emissions from process
equipment also be included in NESHAP subpart BB. For additional
consistency between NESHAP subpart AA and NESHAP subpart BB, we are
also proposing to amend the definitions of diammonium and/or
monoammonium phosphate process line, granular triple superphosphate
process line and granular triple superphosphate storage building to
include relevant emission points, and to remove text from the
applicability section that is duplicative of the revised definitions.
b. NSPS Subpart W
    We are proposing to change the word ``cookers'' as listed in 40 CFR
60.230(a) to ``coolers'' in order to correct the typographical error.
The term should be ``coolers,'' and background literature does not
indicate any equipment referred to ``cookers'' being used in the
manufacture of TSP.
3. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
a. NESHAP Subpart BB
    For wet scrubbers, we are proposing alternatives to the existing
requirement to monitor pressure differential through the scrubber. We
received input from industry that the pressure differential is not a
reliable method of determining the performance of a column because
fouling occurs over time, increasing the pressure differential. The
pressure differential immediately after cleaning will be much lower
than that after the scrubber has operated for some time. Therefore, to
provide flexibility, we have included a number of monitoring options as
alternatives to determining the performance of a column using pressure
differential. We are also adding flexibility in the existing
requirement to measure the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each
scrubber (i.e., the inlet liquid flow rate to a scrubber). We are
proposing that the inlet liquid-to-gas ratio may now be monitored in
lieu of the inlet liquid flow rate, which provides the ability to lower
liquid flow rate with changes in gas flow rate to the scrubber.
    We are removing the requirement that facilities may not implement
new operating parameter ranges until the Administrator has approved
them, or 30 days have passed since submission of the performance test
results. For the proposed requirements, facilities must immediately
comply with new operating ranges when they are developed and submitted.
New operating ranges must also be established using the most recent
performance test conducted by a facility, which allows for changes in
control device operation to be appropriately reflected.
    As described in section V.D.1.d of this preamble, we have also
modified the language for the conditions under which testing must be
conducted to require that testing be conducted at maximum
representative operating conditions for the process.
    For subpart BB we are proposing monitoring requirements for fabric
filters because two processes were identified that used fabric filters
rather than wet scrubbing as the control technology.
    In keeping with the general provisions for CMS (including CEMS and
CPMS), we are proposing the addition of a site-specific monitoring plan
and calibration requirements for CMS. Provisions are included for
electronic reporting of stack test data.
    We have also modified the format of the NESHAP to reference tables
for emissions limits and monitoring requirements.
b. NSPS Subpart V
    The EPA evaluated the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
currently required in NSPS subpart V to determine if they are adequate
for determining compliance. Currently under NSPS subpart V, an owner or
operator of a granular diammonium phosphate plant is required to
install, calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring device which
continuously measures and permanently records the total pressure drop
across the process scrubbing system. However, the current rule does not
require an owner or operator to establish, and demonstrate continuous
compliance with, an allowable range for the pressure drop through the
process scrubbing system. Therefore, we are proposing new monitoring
and recordkeeping requirements for any diammonium phosphate plant that
commences construction, modification or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] to ensure
continuous compliance with the standard.
    We are proposing that for any granular diammonium phosphate plant
that commences construction, modification or reconstruction after [date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] the owner or
operator establish an allowable range for the pressure drop through the
process scrubbing system. The allowable range would be established
during the performance test required in 40 CFR 60.8. We also propose
that the allowable range is 20 percent of the arithmetic
average of the three test runs conducted during the performance test.
In addition, the owner or operator would be required to maintain the
daily average pressure drop through the process scrubbing system within
the allowable range; and valid data points must be available for 75
percent of the operating hours in an operating day to compute the daily
average. We also propose that the owner or operator keep records of the
daily average pressure drop through the process scrubbing system, and
keep records of deviations. We are proposing

these monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in order to: Ensure
that the process scrubbing system is properly maintained over time;
ensure continuous compliance with standards; and improve data
accessibility.
    Finally, for consistency with terminology used in the associated
NESHAP subpart BB, we have changed the term ``process scrubbing
system'' to ``absorber''.
    We do not expect any costs to be associated with these proposed
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. These proposed requirements
will apply to all diammonium phosphate plants that reconstruct or
modify their plants; however, facilities that are subject to the NESHAP
are exempt from compliance with the NSPS. We are aware of only one
facility currently subject to the NSPS, but not the NESHAP. We do not
anticipate that this facility will modify their diammonium phosphate
plant over the next 3 years; therefore, this facility will not trigger
the proposed monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for NSPS subpart
V. Furthermore, pursuant to their Title V air permit compliance
assurance monitoring plan, this facility already conducts daily
monitoring of pressure drop through their process scrubbing system and
compares it against an established range. Therefore, any costs to
comply with these requirements would be negligible should the facility
become subject.
c. NSPS Subpart W
    The EPA evaluated the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
currently required in NSPS subpart W to determine if they are adequate
for determining compliance. Currently under NSPS subpart W, an owner or
operator of a triple superphosphate plant is required to install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring device which continuously
measures and permanently records the total pressure drop across the
process scrubbing system. However, the current rule does not require an
owner or operator to establish, and demonstrate continuous compliance
with, an allowable range for the pressure drop through the process
scrubbing system. Therefore, we are proposing new monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for any triple superphosphate plant that
commences construction, modification or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] to ensure
continuous compliance with the standard.
    We are proposing that for any triple superphosphate plant that
commences construction, modification or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] the owner or
operator establish an allowable range for the pressure drop through the
process scrubbing system. The allowable range would be established
during the performance test required in 40 CFR 60.8. We also propose
that the allowable range is 20 percent of the arithmetic
average of the three test runs conducted during the performance test.
In addition, the owner or operator would be required to maintain the
daily average pressure drop through the process scrubbing system within
the allowable range; and valid data points must be available for 75
percent of the operating hours in an operating day to compute the daily
average. We also propose that the owner or operator keep records of the
daily average pressure drop through the process scrubbing system, and
keep records of deviations. We are proposing these monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements in order to: Ensure that the process
scrubbing system is properly maintained over time; ensure continuous
compliance with standards; and improve data accessibility.
    Finally, for consistency with terminology used in the associated
NESHAP subpart BB, we have changed the term ``process scrubbing
system'' to ``absorber.''
    We do not expect any costs associated with these proposed
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, as we are not aware of any
facilities in the United States that manufacture TSP or that plan to
manufacture TSP in the next three years.
d. NSPS Subpart X
    The EPA evaluated the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
currently required in NSPS subpart X to determine if they are adequate
for determining compliance. Currently under NSPS subpart X, an owner or
operator of a granular triple superphosphate storage facility is
required to install, calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring
device which continuously measures and permanently records the total
pressure drop across the process scrubbing system. However, the current
rule does not require an owner or operator to establish, and
demonstrate continuous compliance with, an allowable range for the
pressure drop through the process scrubbing system. Therefore, we are
proposing new monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for any
granular triple superphosphate storage facility that commences
construction, modification or reconstruction after [date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register] to ensure continuous
compliance with the standard.
    We are proposing that for any granular triple superphosphate
storage facility that commences construction, modification or
reconstruction after [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] the owner or operator establish an allowable range
for the pressure drop through the process scrubbing system. The
allowable range would be established during the performance test
required in 40 CFR 60.8. We also propose that the allowable range is
20 percent of the arithmetic average of the three test runs
conducted during the performance test. In addition, the owner or
operator would be required to maintain the daily average pressure drop
through the process scrubbing system within the allowable range; and
valid data points must be available for 75 percent of the operating
hours in an operating day to compute the daily average. We also propose
that the owner or operator keep records of the daily average pressure
drop through the process scrubbing system, and keep records of
deviations. We are proposing these monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in order to: Ensure that the process scrubbing system is
properly maintained over time; ensure continuous compliance with
standards; and improve data accessibility.
    Finally, for consistency with terminology used in the associated
NESHAP subpart BB, we have changed the term ``process scrubbing
system'' to ``absorber.''
    We do not expect any costs associated with these proposed
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements as we are not aware of any
facilities that manufacture or store GTSP or plan to manufacture or
store GTSP in the next 3 years.
4. Translation of TF to HF Emission Limits
    As described in section IV.E.4 of this preamble, the EPA is
proposing to translate the current total F limit (lbs total F/ton
P2O5 feed) into an HF limit (lbs HF/ton
P2O5 feed). Please refer to section IV.E.4 of
this preamble for a detailed description of the methodology used to
translate the existing TF limits to HF limits.
    The resulting new and existing proposed HF emission limits are
summarized in Table 8 of this preamble:

      Table 8--Summary of Proposed HF Emission Limits for New and Existing Phosphate Fertilizer Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Current total F limits *                Proposed HF limits *
          Regulated process          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Existing             New              Existing             New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP/DAP Fertilizer Lines............              0.060             0.0580              0.060             0.0580
GTSP Process Line...................              0.150             0.1230              0.150             0.1230
GTSP Storage Building...............       5.0 x 10-\4\       5.0 x 10-\4\       5.0 x 10-\4\       5.0 x 10-\4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All limits expressed as lbs/Ton P2O5 feed.

    Also, as discussed in section IV.E.4 of this preamble, we are
seeking comment on finalizing HF limits for regulating HF rather than
total F, the use of EPA Method 320 for the compliance demonstration
test method, the use of FTIR HF CEMS as an optional continuous
monitoring compliance approach within the rule, the use of an HF CEMS
as a compliance option and reduced testing frequency for HF monitoring.
A more detailed discussion of these requests for comments is provided
in section IV.E.4 of this preamble.

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category?

    For the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category, we are
proposing the same electronic reporting requirements described in
section IV.F of this preamble.

F. What compliance dates are we proposing for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Production source category?

    We are proposing that for existing and new process lines that
produce a reaction product of ammonia and phosphoric acid (e.g.,
diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process lines), granular
triple superphosphate process lines and granular triple superphosphate
storage buildings that commence construction or reconstruction on or
before the effective date of this rule, the facility must comply with
the proposed HF limits no later than 1 year after the effective date of
this rule. Facilities will continue to conduct the annual performance
test, but will be required to use a different test method. Therefore,
we are proposing a 1-year compliance lead time so that facilities have
adequate time to coordinate performance testing with the new test
method. We do not anticipate that any facilities will need to install a
new control device to meet the proposed HF limits. For new process
lines that produce a reaction product of ammonia and phosphoric acid
(e.g., diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process lines),
granular triple superphosphate process lines and granular triple
superphosphate storage buildings that commence construction or
reconstruction after the effective date of this rule, the facility must
comply with the proposed HF limits beginning on the effective date of
this rule. Prior to these compliance dates (for HF limits), we are
proposing that facilities continue to comply with the current total F
standards.
    We are proposing that the SSM requirements compliance date is the
effective date of this rule.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that the 13 facilities currently operating in the
United States will be affected by these proposed amendments. One of the
13 facilities has indicated to the EPA that it plans on closing the
phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer processes when the gypsum
dewatering stack in use reaches the end of its capacity to accept
gypsum slurry. We do not expect any new facilities to be constructed or
expanded in the foreseeable future.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We have estimated the potential emissions reductions that may be
realized from the implementation of the proposed emission standards for
the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production
source categories. We estimated emission reductions by first
calculating emissions at the current level of control for each facility
(referred to as the baseline level of control), and at the proposed
level of control (i.e., the proposed beyond-the-floor emission standard
for Hg from phosphate rock calciners). We calculated emission
reductions as the difference between the proposed level and baseline
level of control. We estimate that the proposed subpart AA NESHAP will
result in emissions reductions of approximately 145 lb per year of Hg
from phosphate rock calciners as a result of beyond-the-floor emission
standards for Hg. The current estimated Hg emissions from the phosphate
rock calciners is approximately 169 lb per year. The memorandum,
``Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Phosphate Rock Calciners at Phosphoric
Acid Manufacturing Plants,'' which is available in the docket for this
action, documents the results of the beyond-the-floor analysis.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We have estimated compliance costs for all existing sources to add
the necessary controls and monitoring devices, perform inspections,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with the proposed
rule. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $4.9 million, with an associated total annualized cost of
approximately $2.0 million (using a discount rate of 7 percent), in
2013 dollars. We do not anticipate the construction of any new
phosphoric acid manufacturing plants or phosphate fertilizer production
facilities in the next 5 years. Therefore, there are no new source cost
impacts.
    We calculated costs to meet the proposed level of control. For
phosphate rock calciners, we estimated the cost of adding a fixed-bed
carbon adsorption system to meet the proposed Hg emission standard. For
all other emission sources, including phosphate rock calciners, we
calculated capital and annual costs for testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting. The memorandum, ``Control Costs and
Emissions Reductions for Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer
Production Source Categories,'' which is available in the docket for
this action, documents the control cost analyses.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, we also examine impacts on
other markets. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to
the rule. We estimated the total annualized

costs for the proposed rule to be $2.0 million. We project that only
one facility will incur significant costs. A global agrochemical
company with annual revenue estimated in the $100 million to $500
million range owns this facility. The facility itself would not be a
small business even if it were not owned by the larger entity. The
annualized control costs for this company would be 0.3 percent to 1.5
of percent revenues. We do not expect these small costs to result in a
significant market impact whether they are passed on to the consumer or
absorbed by the company.
    Because no small firms will incur control costs, there is no
significant impact on small entities. Thus, we do not expect this
regulation to have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

E. What are the benefits?

    We anticipate this rulemaking to reduce Hg emissions by
approximately 145 lb each year starting in 2016. These avoided
emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduced
negative health effects associated with exposure to air pollution of
these emissions; however, we have not quantified or monetized the
benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking because the
estimated costs for this action are less than $100 million.

VII. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling, including information on the appropriate acute
emissions factors for estimating emissions from the gypsum dewatering
stacks and cooling ponds. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VIII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility.
We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of
updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The EPA analyzed the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. The results are presented in
sections VI.C and E of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1790.06.
The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories in
the form of additional requirements for stack testing, performance
evaluations, and gypsum dewatering stacks.
    We estimate 12 regulated entities are currently subject to 40 CFR
part 63 subpart AA and 10 regulated entities are currently subject to
40 CFR part 63 subpart BB and each will be subject to all applicable
proposed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping
burden for these amendments to subpart AA and BB is estimated to be
$625,000 per year (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the standards). This includes 640 labor hours per year at a
total labor cost of $53,000 per year, and total non-labor capital and
operating and maintenance costs of $572,000 per year. This estimate
includes performance tests, notifications, reporting and recordkeeping
associated with the new requirements for emission points and associated
control devices. The total burden to the federal government is
estimated to be 326 hours per year at a total labor cost of $17,000 per
year (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standard). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule

(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522) which includes this ICR. Submit
any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to
the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after November 7, 2014, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by December 8, 2014. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities
because we do not project that any small entities will incur costs due
to these proposed rule amendments. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it does not contain regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this action
neither contains requirements that apply to such governments nor does
it impose obligations upon them.

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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by state governments, and nothing in
this proposal will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from state and local officials.

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

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), the EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications,
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not
required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal
governments, or the EPA consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal
summary impact statement.
    The EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal
implications, due to the close proximity of one facility to a tribe
(the Shoshone-Bannock). However, this action will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
tribal law.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. The agency provided an overview of the
source categories and rulemaking process during a monthly
teleconference with the National Tribal Air Association. Additionally,
we provided targeted outreach, including a visit to the Shoshone-
Bannock tribe and meeting with environmental leaders for the tribe. The
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866. This action's health and risk assessments are
contained in section V of this preamble.
    The proposed standards for Hg emissions from phosphate rock
calciners will reduce Hg emissions, thereby reducing potential exposure
to children, including the unborn. We invite the public to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects
of early life exposure to these pollutants.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The proposed changes to the emissions
limits may require one facility to install additional control for Hg in
the form of carbon adsorbers or ACI. These devices have minimal energy
requirements, and we do not expect these devices to contribute
significantly to the overall energy use at the facility. We have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law Number 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that

are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes to incorporate analytical methods of the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) and of the Association of
Fertilizer and Phosphate Chemists (AFPC). The EPA proposes to
incorporate by reference the following AOAC methods: AOAC Official
Method 957.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, Preparation of Sample
Solution, AOAC Official Method 929.01 Sampling of Solid Fertilizers,
AOAC Official Method 929.02 Preparation of Fertilizer Sample, AOAC
Official Method 978.01 Phosphorous (Total) in Fertilizers, Automated
Method, AOAC Official Method 969.02 Phosphorous (Total) in Fertilizers,
Alkalimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method, AOAC Official Method
962.02 Phosphorous (Total) in Fertilizers, Gravimetric Quinolinium
Molybdophosphate Method and Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method 958.01
Phosphorous (Total) in Fertilizers, Spectrophotometric
Molybdovanadophosphate Method. The EPA proposes to incorporate the
following AFPC methods for analysis of phosphate rock: No. 1
Preparation of Sample, No. 3 Phosphorus-P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A-
Volumetric Method, No. 3 Phosphorus-P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B-
Gravimetric Quimociac Method, No. 3 Phosphorus-P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2,
Method C-Spectrophotometric Method. The EPA proposes to incorporate the
following AFPC methods for analysis of phosphoric acid, superphosphate,
triple superphosphate and ammonium phosphates: No. 3 Total Phosphorus-
P2O5, Method A-Volumetric Method, No. 3 Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method
B-Gravimetric Quimociac Method and No. 3 Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method
C-Spectrophotometric Method.
    We did not identify any applicable VCS for EPA Methods 5, 13A, 13B
or 30B. We did identify one VCS, ASTM D6348-03(2010), as an acceptable
alternative for Method 320.
    During EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of
the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the
standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed
all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for
this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that
meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative
methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures
in EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
    The search identified 8 other VCS that were potentially applicable
for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, the EPA determined that 8 candidate VCS identified
for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important
technical and policy considerations. Additional information for the VCS
search and determinations can be found in the memorandum, ``Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and
Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR and Standards of Performance for
Phosphate Processing,'' which is available in the docket for this
action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such
standards in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practical and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. To gain a better understanding of
the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a
proximity analysis on phosphate facilities to identify any
overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous populations.
This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-
populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources; it
does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly
affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of
risk faced by those individuals or communities. More information on the
source categories risk can be found in section IV of this preamble.
    The proximity analysis reveals that most demographic categories are
below or within 20 percent of their corresponding national averages.
The two exceptions are the minority and African American populations.
The ratio of African Americans living within 3 miles of any source
affected by this rule is 131 percent higher than the national average
(29 percent versus 13 percent). The percentage of minorities living
within 3 miles of any source affected by this rule is 37 percent above
the national average (35 percent versus 28 percent). The large minority
population is a direct result of the higher percentage of African
Americans living near these facilities (the other racial minorities are
below or equal to the national average). However, as noted previously,
we found the risks from these source categories to be acceptable for
all populations.
    The proposed changes to the standard increase the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations by ensuring no
future emission increases from the source categories. Additionally, the
proposed standards for Hg emissions from phosphate rock calciners will
reduce Hg emissions, thereby reducing potential exposure to sustenance
fishers and other sensitive populations. The proximity analysis results
and the details concerning their development are presented in the
October 2012 memorandum, ``Environmental Justice Review: Phosphate
Fertilizer Production and Phosphoric Acid,'' a copy of which is
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fertilizers,
Fluoride, Particulate matter, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 21, 2014.
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 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--Standards of Performance for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants

0
2. Section 60.200 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.200  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The affected facility to which the provisions of this subpart
apply is each wet-process phosphoric acid plant having a design
capacity of more than 15 tons of equivalent P2O5
feed per calendar day.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.201 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows.

Sec.  60.201  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) Wet-process phosphoric acid plan means any facility
manufacturing phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid. A
wet-process phosphoric acid plant includes, but is not limited to:
reactors, filters, evaporators, hot wells, clarifiers, and
defluorination systems.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.203 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.203  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of any wet-process phosphoric acid plant
subject to the provisions of this part shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring device which continuously measures
and permanently records the total pressure drop across the absorber.
The monitoring device shall have an accuracy of 5 percent
over its operating range.
    (d) Any facility under Sec.  60.200(a) that commences construction,
modification or reconstruction after [date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register] is subject to the requirements of this
paragraph instead of the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
If an absorber is used to comply with Sec.  60.202, then the owner or
operator shall continuously monitor pressure drop through the absorber
and meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of
this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous monitoring system (CMS) that continuously measures
and permanently records the pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet
of the absorber. The pressure at the gas stream inlet of the absorber
may be measured using amperage on the blower if a correlation between
pressure and amperage is established.
    (2) The CMS must have an accuracy of 5 percent over the
normal range measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column),
whichever is greater.
    (3) The owner or operator shall establish an allowable range for
the pressure drop through the absorber. The allowable range is 20 percent of the arithmetic average of the three test runs
conducted during the performance test required in Sec.  60.8. The
Administrator retains the right to reduce the 20 percent
adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those
instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level
of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard.
However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than 10
percent under any instance.
    (4) The owner or operator shall demonstrate continuous compliance
by maintaining the daily average pressure drop through the absorber to
within the allowable range established in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section. The daily average pressure drop through the absorber for each
operating day shall be calculated using the data recorded by the
monitoring system. If the emissions unit operation is continuous, the
operating day is a 24-hour period. If the emissions unit operation is
not continuous, the operating day is the total number of hours of
control device operation per 24-hour period. Valid data points must be
available for 75 percent of the operating hours in an operating day to
compute the daily average.
0
5. Subpart T is amended by adding Sec.  60.205 to read as follows:

Sec.  60.205  Recordkeeping.

    Any facility under Sec.  60.200(a) that commences construction,
modification or reconstruction after [date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register] is subject to the requirements of this
section. You must maintain the records identified as specified in Sec.
60.7(f) and in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. All records
required by this subpart must be maintained on site for at least 5
years.
    (a) Records of the daily average pressure. Records of the daily
average pressure drop through the absorber.
    (b) Records of deviations. A deviation is determined to have
occurred when the monitoring data or lack of monitoring data result in
any one of the criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section being met.
    (1) A deviation occurs when the daily average value of a monitored
operating parameter is less than the minimum pressure drop, or greater
than the maximum pressure drop established in Sec.  60.203(d)(3).
    (2) A deviation occurs when the monitoring data are not available
for at least 75 percent of the operating hours in a day.

Subpart U--Standards of Performance for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Superphosphoric Acid Plants

0
6. Section 60.210 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.210  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The affected facility to which the provisions of this subpart
apply is each superphosphoric acid plant having a design capacity of
more than 15 tons of equivalent P2O5 feed per
calendar day.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 60.211 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.211  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) Superphosphoric acid plant means any facility which
concentrates wet-process phosphoric acid to 66 percent or greater
P2O5 content by weight for eventual consumption
as a fertilizer. A superphosphoric acid plant includes, but is not
limited to: evaporators, hot wells, acid sumps, oxidation reactors, and
cooling tanks.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 60.213 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.213  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner
or operator

of any superphosphoric acid plant subject to the provisions of this
part shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring
device which continuously measures and permanently records the total
pressure drop across the absorber. The monitoring device shall have an
accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.
    (d) Any affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.210(a) that
commences construction, modification or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] is subject to
the requirements of this paragraph instead of the requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section. If an absorber is used to comply with
Sec.  60.212, then the owner or operator shall continuously monitor
pressure drop through the absorber and meet the requirements specified
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous monitoring system (CMS) that continuously measures
and permanently records the pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet
of the absorber. The pressure at the gas stream inlet of the absorber
may be measured using amperage on the blower if a correlation between
pressure and amperage is established.
    (2) The CMS must have an accuracy of 5 percent over the
normal range measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column),
whichever is greater.
    (3) The owner or operator shall establish an allowable range for
the pressure drop through the absorber. The allowable range is 20 percent of the arithmetic average of the three test runs
conducted during the performance test required in Sec.  60.8. The
Administrator retains the right to reduce the 20 percent
adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those
instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level
of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard.
However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than 10
percent under any instance.
    (4) The owner or operator shall demonstrate continuous compliance
by maintaining the daily average pressure drop through the absorber to
within the allowable range established in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section. The daily average pressure drop through the absorber for each
operating day shall be calculated using the data recorded by the
monitoring system. If the emissions unit operation is continuous, the
operating day is a 24-hour period. If the emissions unit operation is
not continuous, the operating day is the total number of hours of
control device operation per 24-hour period. Valid data points must be
available for 75 percent of the operating hours in an operating day to
compute the daily average.
0
9. Subpart U is amended by adding Sec.  60.215 to read as follows:

Sec.  60.215  Recordkeeping.

    An affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.210(a) that commences
construction, modification, or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] is subject to
the requirements of this section. You must maintain the records
identified as specified in Sec.  60.7(f) and in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section. All records required by this subpart must be
maintained on site for at least 5 years.
    (a) Records of the daily average pressure drop through the
absorber.
    (b) Records of deviations. A deviation is determined to have
occurred when the monitoring data or lack of monitoring data result in
any one of the criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of
this section being met.
    (1) A deviation occurs when the daily average value of a monitored
operating parameter is less than the minimum pressure drop, or greater
than the maximum pressure drop established in Sec.  60.213(d)(3).
    (2) A deviation occurs when the monitoring data are not available
for at least 75 percent of the operating hours in a day.

Subpart V--Standards of Performance for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Diammonium Phosphate Plants

0
10. Section 60.223 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.223  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner
or operator of any granular diammonium phosphate plant subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device which continuously measures and permanently
records the total pressure drop across the scrubbing system. The
monitoring device shall have an accuracy of 5 percent over
its operating range.
    (d) Any affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.220(a) that
commences construction, modification, or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] is subject to
the requirements of this paragraph instead of the requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section. If an absorber is used to comply with
Sec.  60.222, then the owner or operator shall continuously monitor
pressure drop through the absorber and meet the requirements specified
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous monitoring system (CMS) that continuously measures
and permanently records the pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet
of the absorber. The pressure at the gas stream inlet of the absorber
may be measured using amperage on the blower if a correlation between
pressure and amperage is established.
    (2) The CMS must have an accuracy of  5 percent over
the normal range measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water
column), whichever is greater.
    (3) The owner or operator shall establish an allowable range for
the pressure drop through the absorber. The allowable range is 20 percent of the arithmetic average of the three test runs
conducted during the performance test required in Sec.  60.8. The
Administrator retains the right to reduce the 20 percent
adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those
instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level
of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard.
However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than 10
percent under any instance.
    (4) The owner or operator shall demonstrate continuous compliance
by maintaining the daily average pressure drop through the absorber to
within the allowable range established in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section. The daily average pressure drop through the absorber for each
operating day shall be calculated using the data recorded by the
monitoring system. If the emissions unit operation is continuous, the
operating day is a 24-hour period. If the emissions unit operation is
not continuous, the operating day is the total number of hours of
control device operation per 24-hour period. Valid data points must be
available for 75 percent of the operating hours in an operating day to
compute the daily average.
0
11. Section 60.224 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.224  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method
9 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17)

shall be used to determine the P2O5 content
(Rp) of the feed.
0
12. Subpart V is amended by adding Sec.  60.225 to read as follows:

Sec.  60.225  Recordkeeping.

    An affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.220(a) that commences
construction, modification, or reconstruction after [date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] is subject to
the requirements of this section. You must maintain the records
identified as specified in Sec.  60.7(f) and in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section. All records required by this subpart must be
maintained on site for at least 5 years.
    (a) Records of the daily average pressure drop through the
absorber.
    (b) Records of deviations. A deviation is determined to have
occurred when the monitoring data or lack of monitoring data result in
any one of the criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section being met.
    (1) A deviation occurs when the daily average value of a monitored
operating parameter is less than the minimum pressure drop, or greater
than the maximum pressure drop established in Sec.  60.223(d)(3).
    (2) A deviation occurs when the monitoring data are not available
for at least 75 percent of the operating hours in a day.

Subpart W--Standards of Performance for the Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Triple Superphosphate Plants

0
13. Section 60.230 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.230  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The affected facility to which the provisions of this subpart
apply is each triple superphosphate plant having a design capacity of
more than 15 tons of equivalent P2O5 feed per
calendar day. For the purpose of this subpart, the affected facility
includes any combination of: mixers, curing belts (dens), reactors,
granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, mills, and facilities which
store run-of-pile triple superphosphate.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 60.233 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.233  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) The owner or operator of any triple superphosphate plant
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a flow monitoring device which can be used to
determine the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing feed material to the
process. The flow monitoring device shall have an accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.
    (b) The owner or operator of any triple superphosphate plant shall
maintain a daily record of equivalent P2O5 feed
by first determining the total mass rate in Mg/hr of phosphorus-bearing
feed using a flow monitoring device meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section and then by proceeding according to Sec.
60.234(b)(3).
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner
or operator of any triple superphosphate plant subject to the
provisions of this part shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a monitoring device which continuously measures and permanently records
the total pressure drop across the absorber. The monitoring device
shall have an accuracy of 5 percent over its operating
range.
    (d) Any facility under Sec.  60.230(a) that commences construction,
modification, or reconstruction after [date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register] is subject to the requirements of this
paragraph instead of the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
If an absorber is used to comply with Sec.  60.232, then the owner or