[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39185-39189]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12544]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0493; FRL-10992-01-OCSPP]

Mefenoxam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
mefenoxam in or on multiple commodities identified and discussed in
this document. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 15, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2023,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0493, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Federal Register
Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0493 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 14, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0493, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.

     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 30, 2022 (87 FR 52868) (FRL-9410-
04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petitions (PP
1F8970 and 1F8971) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide,
mefenoxam, (methyl N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-D-
alaninate), in or on leafy greens subgroup 4-16A (except spinach) at 5
parts per million (ppm); Brassica leafy greens subgroup 4-16B at 5 ppm;
Brassica head and stem vegetable crop group 5-16 at 2 ppm; stalk and
stem vegetable subgroup 22A (except celtuce, florence fennel and
kohlrabi) at 7 ppm; celtuce at 5 ppm; florence fennel at 5 ppm;
kohlrabi at 2 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 5 ppm;
fruiting vegetables subgroup 8-10 at 1 ppm; succulent shelled pea and
bean crop subgroup 6B at 0.2 ppm; cottonseed crop subgroup 20C at 0.1
ppm; and sugarcane at 0.1 ppm (PP 1F8971). That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Two comments were received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in
accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA
is establishing the tolerances at different levels than requested. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for mefenoxam including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with mefenoxam follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections of the rule that repeat what
has been previously published in tolerance rulemakings for the same
pesticide chemical. Where scientific information concerning a
particular chemical remains unchanged, the content of those sections
would not vary between tolerance rulemakings, and EPA considers
referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide an explanation
of the information EPA considered in making its safety determination
for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for
mefenoxam in which EPA concluded, based on the available information,
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from
aggregate exposure to mefenoxam and established tolerances for residues
of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections
from those rulemakings as described further in this rule, as they
remain unchanged.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Mefenoxam (metalaxyl-m) is a systemic phenylamide fungicide which
inhibits protein synthesis in fungi. Mefenoxam is an R-isomer enriched
formulation. Metalaxyl is the racemic R/S isomer formulation. The
Agency compared the available chemistry and toxicity data for mefenoxam
and metalaxyl and concluded that metalaxyl data may be used in support
of mefenoxam regulatory actions because the two chemicals have similar
toxicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by mefenoxam as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in Unit III.A. of the
final rule published in the Federal Register of December 21, 2018 (83
FR 65541) (FRL-9985-52).

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mefenoxam used for
human health risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final
rule published in the Federal Register of December 21, 2018 (83 FR
65541) (FRL-9985-52).

C. Exposure Assessment

    Much of the exposure assessment remains the same although updates
have occurred to accommodate exposures from petitioned-for tolerances.
These updates are discussed in this section; for a description of the
rest of the EPA approach to and assumptions for the exposure
assessment, please reference Unit III.C of the December 2018
rulemaking.
    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. EPA's dietary exposure
assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure from
the petitioned-for tolerances of mefenoxam on the crops requested in
this action. In evaluating dietary exposure to mefenoxam, EPA
considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing mefenoxam and metalaxyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.546 and 40
CFR 180.408, respectively.
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. The acute dietary assessment
is based on tolerance levels adjusted to account for all of the
residues of concern and assumes 100 percent crop

treated (PCT). The assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02. EPA with 2005-2010 food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). Empirical processing factors were included
where available. Otherwise, DEEM-FCID default processing factors were
used.
    ii. Chronic exposure. There is no increase in toxicity from the
acute duration studies. Toxicity did not increase with an increase in
exposure duration. Therefore, a chronic dietary POD was not selected.
The acute endpoint and dietary exposure assessment are protective of
potential effects from chronic duration dietary exposures.
    iii. Cancer. EPA has concluded that mefenoxam does not pose a
cancer risk to humans based on no evidence of carcinogenicity observed
in the relevant studies. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for
the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Exposure modeling for
mefenoxam is not necessary because exposure estimates for metalaxyl are
expected to exceed those for mefenoxam and are therefore protective.
Maximum annual application rates for metalaxyl, up to 12.3 lb ai/A,
were modeled. These rates are approximately twice those of mefenoxam.
The maximum estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) based on
metalaxyl are 350 [mu]g/L for acute exposure (which is based on surface
water sources) and 135 [micro]g/L for chronic exposure (which is based
on groundwater sources).
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). There are no uses for
mefenoxam being proposed as part of this action or that have been added
since the most recent risk assessment that would impact the residential
(non-occupational) or residential post-application exposure and risk
estimates found in the most recent risk assessment of mefenoxam;
therefore, EPA relied on the previously assessed residential exposure
for assessing aggregate risk.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to mefenoxam and metalaxyl
with any other substances and mefenoxam and metalaxyl do not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that mefenoxam
and metalaxyl have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    EPA continues to conclude that there are reliable data to support
the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor
to 1X. See Unit III.D. of the December 2018 rulemaking for a discussion
of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing dietary exposure estimates to the aPAD
and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term aggregate risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated
total aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure (PODs) to ensure that an adequate
margin of exposure (MOE) exists.
    1. Acute risk. The acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water is
27% of the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) for the general U.S.
population, and 56% of the aPAD for the highest exposed population
group, children 1-2 years old. Because these levels are below the
Agency's level of concern (LOC) of 100% of the aPAD, the Agency
concludes that aggregate exposure to mefenoxam will not pose an acute
risk.
    2. Chronic risk. No hazard endpoint was selected for chronic
dietary exposure for mefenoxam; therefore, a chronic aggregate
assessment was not warranted. However, chronic dietary exposure was
estimated for inclusion in the aggregate analysis.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Mefenoxam is
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to mefenoxam.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 270 for children
1-2, the most highly exposed group. Because EPA's level of concern for
mefenoxam is 100, which means any MOE below 100 may indicate risks of
concern, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. There are no intermediate-term
residential exposures for mefenoxam, and therefore an intermediate-term
aggregate exposure assessment was not warranted.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Mefenoxam is
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'', therefore,
EPA concludes that exposure to mefenoxam will not pose an aggregate
cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Therefore, based on the risk
assessments and information described above, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
mefenoxam residues. More detailed information on this action can be
found in the document titled ``Metalaxyl, Mefenoxam (Metalaxyl-M).
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for Amendment of
Tolerances for Residues in/on Leafy Greens Subgroup, 4-16A (Except
Spinach), and Brassica Leafy Greens Subgroup 4-16B; Brassica Head and
Stem Vegetable Crop Group 5-16; Expansions of Crop Tolerances to Stalk
and Stem Vegetable Subgroup 22A and Leaf Petiole Vegetable Subgroup
22B; Fruiting Vegetables Crop Group 8-10; Succulent Shelled Pea & Bean
Subgroup 6B; and Cottonseed Crop Subgroup 20C. Establishment of an
Inadvertent Tolerance for Residues in/on Sugarcane.'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0493.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available enforcement analytical methods,
see Unit IV.A. of the December 21, 2018, rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    While Codex has not established MRLs for mefenoxam, it has
established tolerances for residues of metalaxyl. Since compliance with
U.S. tolerances for mefenoxam is determined by measuring metalaxyl
residues, EPA is evaluating harmonization of the mefenoxam tolerances
by comparing to the metalaxyl MRLs. Codex has not established MRLs for
metalaxyl for leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A; Brassica leafy greens,
subgroup 4-16B; stalk and stem vegetable, subgroup 22A; leaf petiole
vegetable, subgroup 22B; fruiting vegetables, group 8-10; succulent
shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6B and sugarcane; thus, harmonization
with Codex is not an issue for these commodities and groups/subgroups.
    Codex has established MRLs for metalaxyl on several members of the
Brassica head & stem vegetable, group 5-16: 2 ppm for Chinese cabbage
and cauliflower (members of Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables group 5-
16) and 0.5 ppm for residues in/on broccoli, cabbage, and Brussels
sprouts (members of Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables group 5-16). EPA's
tolerance for group 5-16 is harmonized with the higher Codex MRL for
commodities in this group. Codex has an MRL for residues in/on
cottonseed at 0.05 ppm while the U.S. tolerance is set at 0.1 ppm. EPA
is not harmonizing since the lower tolerance level may result in
residues exceeding the tolerance from application consistent with
approved labeling; however, this does not create a barrier to import as
the US tolerance is inclusive of the Codex MRL.

C. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received in response to the notice of filing. One
comment was received from an anonymous commenter applauding the
government's process to petition for new uses. The second comment
argued against the use of mefenoxam on greens and expressed concern
about the overall toxicity of pesticides. The commenter has provided no
information that would support a determination that these tolerances
are unsafe. Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals
believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the
existing legal framework provided by FFDCA section 408 authorizes EPA
to establish tolerances when it determines that the tolerance is safe.
Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of
the available data as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to
consider, EPA has determined that these mefenoxam tolerances are safe.
The commenter has provided no information supporting a contrary
conclusion.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing the tolerance on Leafy vegetable, Crop Group 4-
16 (except spinach) at 5 ppm rather than the petitioned-for Leafy
Greens Subgroup 4-16A (except spinach) and Brassica Leafy Greens
Subgroup 4-16B. The entire crop group 4-16 is inclusive of both
subgroups. Additionally, the Agency is not establishing separate
tolerances for Celtuce, Florence fennel and Kohlrabi and excepting them
from Stalk and Stem Vegetable Subgroup 22A. The proposed tolerance of 7
ppm for Stalk and Stem Vegetable Subgroup 22A is greater than the
proposed tolerances of 5, 5, and 2 ppm, for celtuce, Florence fennel,
and kohlrabi respectively, and is therefore inclusive of these
tolerances. Lastly, because the final Phase VI crop group rule has been
published, the commodity definition for Succulent Shelled Pea and Bean
Crop Subgroup 6B has been revised to be Vegetable, legume, bean,
succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22C and Vegetable, legume, pea, succulent
shelled, subgroup 6-22D. The Phase VI crop group rule was published on
September 21, 2022, and was effective on November 21, 2022 (87 FR
57627) (FRL-5031-13-OCSPP).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of mefenoxam,
[methyl N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-D-alaninate], in or on
Cottonseed, subgroup 20C at 0.1 ppm; Leaf petiole, subgroup 22B at 5
ppm; Leafy Vegetable, Crop Group 4-16 (except spinach) at 5 ppm;
Sugarcane at 0.1 ppm; Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at
2 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1 ppm; Vegetable, legume,
bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22C at 0.2 ppm; Vegetable, legume,
pea, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22D at 0.2 ppm; Vegetable, stalk and
stem, subgroup 22A at 7 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency

has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the
national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus,
the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order
13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this
action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty
or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 25, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.546:
0
a. In paragraph (a) amend table 1 by adding entries for the commodities
``Cottonseed, subgroup 20C'', ``Leaf petiole, subgroup 22B'', ``Leafy
Vegetable, Crop Group 4-16 (except spinach)'', ``Vegetable, Brassica,
head and stem, group 5-16'', ``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10'',
``Vegetable, legume, bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22C'',
``Vegetable, legume, pea, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22D'',
``Vegetable, stalk and stem, subgroup 22A'', in alphabetical order; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (d).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  180.546  Mefenoxam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                              million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonseed, subgroup 20C.....................................        0.1

                                * * * * *
Leaf petiole, subgroup 22B...................................          5
Leafy Vegetable, Crop Group 4-16 (except spinach)............          5

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16...............          2
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10..............................          1
Vegetable, legume, bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22C...        0.2
Vegetable, legume, pea, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22D....        0.2
Vegetable, stalk and stem, subgroup 22A......................          7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for indirect or inadvertent residues of mefenoxam in or on the food
commodities when present therein as a result of the application of
mefenoxam to growing crops listed in paragraph (a) of this section and
other non-food crops to read as follows:

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugarcane...................................................        0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-12544 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 10406]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03342]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34832; 812-15353]

Carlyle AlpInvest Private Markets Fund, et al.

February 13, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to
section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares of beneficial interest with varying sales loads and
to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees.

Applicants:  Carlyle AlpInvest Private Markets Fund (the ``Initial
Fund''), and AlpInvest Private Equity Investment Management, LLC (the
``Adviser'').

Filing Date:  The application was filed on June 16, 2022 and amended on
July 20, 2022, November 10, 2022 and January 24, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the Commission's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant Applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on March 10, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Cameron Fairall, Carlyle AlpInvest Private Markets Fund, One Vanderbilt
Avenue, Suite 3400, New York, NY 10017; Michael G. Doherty,
[email protected] and Gregory C. Davis,
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel or
Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' third amended and
restated application, dated January 24, 2023, which may be obtained via
the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at,
at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You
may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03342 Filed 2-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72142-72144]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0875; FRL-9495-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter
(PM) emissions from paved and unpaved roads and livestock operations
and aggregate and related operations. We are approving local rules that
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATE: Any comments must arrive by December 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0875, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that

you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or
email. http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system,
and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to
EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD................................            1157  PM10 Emission Reduction       09/06/2006      05/17/2010
                                                         from Aggregate and
                                                         Related Operations.
SCAQMD................................            1186  PM10 Emissions from           07/11/2008      12/23/2008
                                                         Paved and Unpaved Roads
                                                         and Livestock
                                                         Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2010 and April 20, 2009, EPA determined that the
submittals for SCAQMD Rule 1157 and Rule 1186, respectively, met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is no previous version of Rule 1157 in the SIP, although the
SCAQMD adopted an earlier version of this rule on January 7, 2005 which
was not submitted to us. Rule 1157 was amended on September 6, 2006,
and CARB submitted it to us on May 17, 2010. We approved an earlier
version of Rule 1186 into the SIP on November 14, 2005 (70 FR 69081).
The SCAQMD adopted a revision to the SIP-approved version on July 11,
2008 and CARB submitted it to us on December 23, 2008.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. Rule 1157 reduces fugitive dust PM10 emissions from
aggregate and related operations including loading and unloading
activities, process equipment, open storage piles, unpaved and paved
roads inside the facilities, and track out. Amended Rule 1186 controls
PM from paved and unpaved public roads, and livestock operations. The
rule was amended to require submission of data to demonstrate that the
street sweeper performance has not been affected by requirements in the
SIP-approved rule; and also to establish a process by which aftermarket
parts suppliers may qualify to sell replacement parts while maintaining
the original equipment certification. EPA's technical support documents
(TSDs) have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), in moderate PM nonattainment areas, and Best
Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), in serious PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). The SCAQMD regulates a PM nonattainment area
classified as serious (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 1157 and 1186 must
fulfill BACM.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACM or BACM requirements consistently include the
following:

1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas,
and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM, and SIP relaxations. The
TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: November 4, 2011.
 Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-30156 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58356-58362]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23616]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741; FRL-10001-62-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU53

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills; Standards of Performance for Kraft
Pulp Mill Affected Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After May 23, 2013

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,
Sulfite, and Stand-alone Semichemical Pulp Mills and the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Kraft Pulp Mills constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after May 23, 2013. This proposed rule
clarifies how operating limits are required to be established for smelt
dissolving tank scrubbers and corrects cross-reference errors in both
rules.

DATES:
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2019.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before November 5, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-stand-alone-semichemical-pulp-mills-mact-ii. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0741, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0741 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0741.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a hearing, to register
to speak at the hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing
will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly

available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0741. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ADI Applicability Determination Index
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFLA percent full load amperage
PM particulate matter
RPM revolutions per minute
SDT smelt dissolving tank

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

I. General Information
    A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed action?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Proposed Amendments
    A. What are the proposed amendments to the NESHAP?
    B. What are the proposed amendments to the NSPS?
III. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
IV. Request for Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed action?

    This document proposes to amend the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at
Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills (40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM), and the Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp
Mill Affected Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After May 23, 2013 (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa). We are proposing this action to clarify how smelt dissolving tank
(SDT) scrubber fan

amperage limits should be determined and amend these rules to correct
cross-reference errors. We explain our reasons for this action in this
preamble.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP, NSPS, and associated
regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this
proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is
likely to affect. The proposed amendments, once promulgated, will be
directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and
tribal government entities will not be affected by this proposed
action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR
31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992),
the Pulp and Paper Production source category is any facility engaged
in the production of pulp and/or paper. This category includes, but is
not limited to, integrated mills (where pulp alone or pulp and paper or
paperboard are manufactured on-site), non-integrated mills (where paper
or paperboard are manufactured, but no pulp is manufactured on-site),
and secondary fiber mills (where waste paper is used as the primary raw
material). Examples of pulping methods include kraft, soda, sulfite,
semi-chemical, and mechanical. The pulp and paper production process
units include operations such as pulping, bleaching, and chemical
recovery. A kraft pulp mill is defined as a facility engaged in kraft
pulping and includes digester systems, brown stock washer systems,
multiple-effect evaporator systems, condensate stripper systems,
recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns.

             Table 1--Regulations and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source category                            Name of action                      NAICS code \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp and Paper Production..............  Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at    32211, 32212, 32213
                                          Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone
                                          Semichemical Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 63,
                                          subpart MM).
Kraft Pulp Mills.......................  Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp    3221
                                          Mill Affected Sources for Which
                                          Construction, Reconstruction, or
                                          Modification Commenced After May 23,
                                          2013 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-stand-alone-semichemical-pulp-mills-mact-ii and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/kraft-pulp-mills-new-source-performance-standards-nsps-40-cfr-60. Following publication in
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of
the proposal at this same website.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).

II. Proposed Amendments

A. What are the proposed amendments to the NESHAP?

    With this action, the EPA is proposing to clarify how SDT scrubber
fan amperage operating limits should be determined. A technical-
feasibility issue with implementing the residual risk and technology
review amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, published in 2017 (82
FR 47328, October 11, 2017) was brought to the EPA's attention through
alternative monitoring requests the Agency received.
    The 2017 NESHAP amendment that added the fan amperage \1\
alternative parameter to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(10)(iii) was based on the
EPA's review of alternative monitoring requests for SDTs available in
the EPA's Applicability Determination Index (ADI) (81 FR 97074,
December 30, 2016). In these previously approved alternative monitoring
requests, the EPA acknowledged that pressure drop is not the best
indicator of particulate matter (PM)/hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
control device performance when the SDT scrubber is a low-energy
entrainment scrubber or a dynamic scrubber that operates near
atmospheric pressure. Low-energy entrainment scrubbers use the rotation
of the fan blade to shatter the scrubbing liquid into fine droplets,
while at the same time accelerating the particles into the airstream.
The PM removal efficiency of these scrubbers is a function of the
number of liquid droplets produced (to create a large contacting
surface area) and the velocity of the particulates imparted by the fan
blade, which in turn is a function of the amount of scrubbing liquid
introduced and the tip speed of the fan blade. Therefore, the most
important parameters to continuously monitor are the scrubbing liquid
flow rate and the fan rotational speed (as indicated by the amperage of
the fan motor or revolutions per minute (RPM)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fan amperage refers to the amperage delivered to the fan
motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 NESHAP amendment also specified a method in 40 CFR
63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) for setting the fan motor amperage operating limit,
requiring that the minimum fan amperage operating limit be set as the
lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated with each
run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit. The
intent of establishing the operating limit as the lowest 1-hour average
fan amperage was to demonstrate that the scrubber was operating as
intended and removing HAP accordingly, because fan amperage values can
be correlated with fan speed. This seemed reasonable during the
development of the 2017 NESHAP amendments because the fan on these
units are constant speed fans and changes in the load to the fan motor
(e.g., changes in gas density/pressure or fan belt issues) result in
changes in the amperage needed to maintain the constant speed. For
example, a scrubber operating without any scrubbing liquid or exhaust
gas would pull a certain amount of amperage on the fan motor to
maintain a constant speed. When the exhaust gas and scrubbing liquid
are added, the fan motor amperage will increase to maintain that speed.
Based on this concept, the basis for the fan motor amperage operating
limit in the 2017 NESHAP amendments was that a drop in fan motor
amperage below a certain point showed that the motor

would no longer turn the fan properly (because, for example, the belt
that connects the motor to the fan was slipping or broken), which in
turn would mean the scrubber was not operating as well as it was during
the emissions performance test.
    As facilities began to plan their repeat performance test required
by the 2017 NESHAP amendments and determine the appropriate operating
parameters, they discovered that the method dictated to set the fan
motor amperage did not accurately represent proper scrubber performance
and submitted alternative monitoring requests. The alternative
monitoring requests that EPA has received explained that setting the
fan amperage operating limit as outlined in the 2017 NESHAP amendments
at 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could result in a minimum limit that does
not correlate with scrubber emissions-reduction performance and cannot
be achieved at all times, leading to deviations of the amperage
operating parameter even when the fan is turning as designed and the
scrubber is operating properly to achieve the required HAP reduction.
More details on these alternative monitoring requests are available in
the memorandum titled Smelt Dissolving Tank Scrubber Operating
Parameter Review, in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
    After reviewing how the SDT scrubbers in question operate, the EPA
agrees that use of the average fan motor amperage measured during the
performance test to establish the fan amperage limit as dictated in 40
CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) of the 2017 NESHAP amendments can be problematic
because it does not necessarily correlate with proper operation of the
scrubber. The EPA's intent with adding the fan motor amperage
alternative as part of the 2017 NESHAP amendments was to add regulatory
flexibility while ensuring proper scrubber operation, not to
arbitrarily set an operating limit that may not be met, even while the
SDT scrubber is operating properly. The requirement for determining the
fan motor amperage during the performance test to set the minimum limit
was included in the 2017 NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM) amendments
for new and existing sources and in the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa) promulgated in 2014 (79 FR 18952, April 4, 2014) which applies to
new sources only. The issue was not identified in public comments on
either rule but was discovered as existing sources began to implement
the 2017 NESHAP amendments.
    Upon further review of the EPA's responses to historical
alternative monitoring requests included in the ADI, recent requests
for alternative monitoring and other available information, we
recognize that the requirement to monitor fan amperage directly and
establish a minimum fan amperage limit based on the average amperage
measured during the performance test may result in deviations even when
the scrubber is properly operating. Some facilities were approved by
the EPA to use indicators of fan operation closely related to fan
amperage (e.g., RPM) and engineering design considerations when setting
the site-specific fan amperage limit indicative of proper scrubber
operation. For more details, see the memorandum titled Smelt Dissolving
Tank Scrubber Operating Parameter Review, in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
    To continue with our original intent to measure scrubber
performance with an alternative method in these rules, this action is
proposing to modify the language at 40 CFR 63.864(e)(10)(iii) and
(j)(5)(i) to clarify how wet scrubber parameter limits are to be
established and that fan amperage or RPM can be used to demonstrate
compliance for the SDT scrubbers in question. Specifically, we are
proposing to replace 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) with a requirement to
set the minimum scrubbing liquid flow rate operating limit as the
lowest of the 1-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate values
associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit. This requirement was inadvertently left out
of the 2017 NESHAP amendment but was required by other sections of the
rule. Additionally, we are proposing to add a new subsection, 40 CFR
63.864(j)(5)(i)(B) to clarify how wet scrubber fan amperage operating
limits should be established.
    The proposed text in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B) would have the same
requirements that were previously in the 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)
introductory paragraph, which states the scrubber pressure drop
operating limit must be set as the lowest of the 1-hour average
pressure drop values associated with each test run demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limit and provides alternatives
for determining parameters for dynamic or low energy entrainment
scrubbers. The proposed new 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(1) would clarify
that, for SDT dynamic wet scrubbers operating at ambient pressure or
for low energy entrainment scrubbers where fan speed does not vary, the
minimum fan amperage operating limit must be set as the midpoint
between the lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated
with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable
emission limit and the no-load amperage value. Additionally, the
proposed regulatory text specifies that the no-load amperage value must
be determined using manufacturers specifications or by performing a no-
load test of the fan motor, and that it must be verified that the
scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the design RPM during the
emissions performance test. The proposed 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(2)
would allow for the use of percent full load amperage (PFLA) to
demonstrate compliance. The minimum PFLA to the fan motor must be set
as the percent of full load amps under no-load, plus 10 percent.
Because the no-load value represents the amperage pulled by the motor
without a fan belt (i.e., the fan is not engaged), the additional 10
percent will ensure that the belt has not broken and the fan is engaged
during operation. This proposed subsection also would require
verification that the scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the
design RPM during the emissions performance test. Further, we are
proposing 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(3) to allow the use of RPM to
demonstrate compliance. The minimum RPM must be set at 95 percent of
the design RPM. Finally, we are proposing a conforming amendment in 40
CFR 63.867(c)(3)(iii)(C)(1) to incorporate this language.
    In addition to clarifying how to set SDT fan amperage operating
limits, the EPA is also proposing to correct the following cross-
reference errors in the promulgated Combustion Source NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM):
     An incorrect paragraph reference in the definition of
``modification'' in 40 CFR 63.861;
     An incorrect paragraph reference in 40 CFR
63.864(e)(10)(iii), referring to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(3)(i) instead of 40
CFR 63.864(e)(10)(i) as intended;
     Incorrect paragraph references in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(1),
(3), and (5) which cross-referenced requirements that were proposed (81
FR 97046, December 30, 2016) but not finalized for establishing site-
specific electrostatic precipitator (ESP) operating limits. Instead,
the EPA finalized a requirement to maintain proper operation of the
ESP's automatic voltage control (82 FR 47328, October 11, 2017), but
inadvertently kept the cross-references to the proposed requirements in
the final rule; and
     Omission of reference to wet scrubber liquid flow rate in
40 CFR 63.864(j)(5) which specifies how to establish operating limits.

B. What are the proposed amendments to the NSPS?

    With this action, the EPA is proposing similar amendments to the
fan amperage requirements as discussed in section II.A of this preamble
to 40 CFR 60.284a(b)(2)(iii), (c)(4), and (d)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR
60.287(b)(4)(i) for consistency between the two rules that apply to the
same scrubbers. Additionally, the EPA is also proposing to correct a
cross-reference error in the promulgated Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart BBa). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend
incorrect paragraph references in 40 CFR 60.285a(b)(1) and
60.285a(d)(1) intended to cross-reference the rule's oxygen correction
equation.

III. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The sources affected by this proposal are chemical pulp mills that
use SDTs equipped with low-energy entrainment scrubbers or dynamic
scrubbers that operate near atmospheric pressure. We estimate that
there are 54 facilities that utilize these types of scrubbers.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    There are no air quality impacts associated with the proposed
amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    No cost impacts are estimated to be associated with this proposed
action because the proposal serves only to provide regulatory clarity.
This proposed action reduces the likelihood that facilities will choose
to submit site-specific alternative monitoring requests but does not
change the scope of any regulatory requirements.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    There are no economic impacts associated with the proposed
amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did
not estimate any emission reductions associated with the proposal, we
did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.

IV. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this action, we are also interested in any additional SDT
scrubber performance data that may improve the parameter calculations
needed to determine compliance. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63,
subpart MM) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0377. This action
does not change the information collection requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
does not create any new requirements or burdens, and no costs are
associated with this proposed action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any pulp mills owned or
operated by Indian tribal governments or located within tribal lands.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Monitoring
requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 22, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 60 and 63 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 BBa--Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected
Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification
Commenced After May 23, 2013

0
2. Section 60.284a is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii),
(c)(3)(i), (c)(4), and (d)(4)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.284a   Monitoring of emissions and operations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to pressure drop measurement under
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, a monitoring device for
measurement of fan amperage or revolutions per minute (RPM) may be used
for smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubbers that operate at ambient
pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where the fan speed
does not vary.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Calculate 12-hour block averages from the recorded measurements
of wet scrubber pressure drop (or smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan
amperage or RPM) and liquid flow rate (or liquid supply pressure), as
applicable.
* * * * *
    (4) During the initial performance test required in Sec.  60.285a,
the owner or operator must establish site-specific operating limits for
the monitoring parameters in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this
section by continuously monitoring the parameters and determining the
arithmetic average value of each parameter during the performance test.
The arithmetic average of the measured values for the three test runs
establishes your minimum site-specific operating limit for each wet
scrubber or ESP parameter (except for smelt dissolving tank scrubber
fan amperage or RPM). For smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage,
see 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B). For smelt dissolving tank scrubber RPM,
the minimum RPM must be set as 5 percent lower than the design RPM.
Multiple performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of
parameter values. The owner or operator may establish replacement
operating limits for the monitoring parameters during subsequent
performance tests using the test methods in Sec.  60.285a.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) All 12-hour block average scrubber pressure drop (or fan
amperage or RPM, if used as an alternative under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)
of this section) measurements below the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing during times when BLS or lime
mud is fired (as applicable), except during startup and shutdown.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.285a is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (d)(1)
to read as follows:

Sec.  60.285a   Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Method 5 of appendix A-3 of this part must be used to determine
the filterable particulate matter concentration. The sampling time and
sample volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm
(31.8 dscf). Water must be used as the cleanup solvent instead of
acetone in the sample recovery procedure. The particulate concentration
must be corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration according to
Sec.  60.284a(c)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Method 16 of appendix A-6 of this part must be used to
determine the TRS concentration. The TRS concentration must be
corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration using the procedure
in Sec.  60.284a(c)(1)(iii). The sampling time must be at least 3
hours, but no longer than 6 hours.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.287a is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(i) to read
as follows:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Records of the pressure drop of the gas stream through the
control equipment (or smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage or
RPM), and
* * * * *

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

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

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

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

0
6. Section 63.861 is amended by revising the definition of
``modification'' and adding in alphabetical order the definition of
``no-load fan amperage'' to read as follows:
* * * * *
    Modification means, for the purposes of Sec.
63.862(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1), any physical change (excluding any routine part
replacement or maintenance) or operational change that is made to the
air pollution control device that could result in an increase in PM
emissions.
    No-load fan amperage means, for purposes of this subpart, the
amperage pulled by the fan motor when the fan is operating under no-
load, specifically the amperage value the motor would use if the fan
belt was removed.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.864 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(10)(iii),
(j)(1), (3), and (5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.864  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to pressure drop measurement under
paragraph (e)(10)(i) of this section, a monitoring device for
measurement of fan amperage or fan revolutions per minute (RPM) may be
used for smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubbers that operate at
ambient pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where the fan
speed does not vary.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) During the initial or periodic performance test required in
Sec.  63.865, the owner or operator of any affected source or process
unit must establish operating limits for the monitoring parameters in
paragraphs (e)(2) and (10)

through (14) of this section, as appropriate; or
* * * * *
    (3) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit may
establish expanded or replacement operating limits for the monitoring
parameters listed in paragraphs (e)(2) and (10) through (14) of this
section and established in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section
during subsequent performance tests using the test methods in Sec.
63.865.
* * * * *
    (5) New, expanded, or replacement operating limits for the
monitoring parameter values listed in paragraphs (e)(2) and (10)
through (14) of this section should be determined as described in
paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit
that uses a wet scrubber must set minimum operating limits as described
in paragraph (j)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Set the minimum scrubbing liquid flow rate operating limit as
the lowest of the 1-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate values
associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.862.
    (B) Set the minimum scrubber pressure drop operating limit as the
lowest of the 1-hour average pressure drop values associated with each
test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in
Sec.  63.862; or for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic wet scrubber
operating at ambient pressure or for low energy entrainment scrubbers
where fan speed does not vary, set the minimum operating limit using
one of the methods in paragraph (j)(5)(i)(B)(1) through (3) of this
section.
    (1) The minimum fan amperage operating limit must be set as the
midpoint between the lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values
associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.862 and the no-load amperage
value. The no-load amperage value must be determined using
manufacturers specifications, or by performing a no-load test of the
fan motor for each smelt dissolving tank scrubber. It must be verified
that the scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the design RPM
during the emissions performance test; or
    (2) The minimum percent full load amperage (PFLA) to the fan motor
must be set as the percent of full load amps under no-load, plus 10
percent. The PFLA is calculated by dividing the no-load amperage value
by the highest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated
with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.862 multiplied by 100. The no-load amperage
value must be determined using manufacturers specifications, or by
performing a no-load test of the fan motor for each smelt dissolving
tank scrubber. It must be verified that the scrubber fan is operating
within 5 percent of the design RPM during the emissions performance
test; or
    (3) The minimum RPM must be set as 95 percent of the design RPM.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.867 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C)(1) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.867   Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) The operating limits established during the performance test
for scrubbing liquid flow rate and pressure drop across the scrubber
(or alternatively, fan amperage or RPM if used for smelt dissolving
tank scrubbers).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-23616 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P