[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51734-51735]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2048]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before November 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2048, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the

floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Dyer County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 18-04-0035S Preliminary Date: September 26, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dyersburg......................  City Hall, 425 West Court
                                          Street, Dyersburg, TN 38024.
Unincorporated Areas of Dyer County....  Dyer County Building and
                                          Zoning, 1910 Pioneer Road,
                                          Dyersburg, TN 38024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Orange County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 15-06-1153S Preliminary Date: March 31, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bridge City....................  City Hall, 260 Rachal Avenue,
                                          Bridge City, TX 77611.
City of Orange.........................  Planning and Community
                                          Development, 303 North 8th
                                          Street, Orange, TX 77630.
City of Pine Forest....................  Pine Forest City Hall, 305
                                          Nagel Street, Vidor, TX 77662.
City of Pinehurst......................  Pinehurst City Hall and
                                          Municipal Court, 2497 Martin
                                          Luther King Jr. Drive, Orange,
                                          TX 77630.
City of Rose City......................  City Hall, 370 South Rose City
                                          Drive, Rose City, TX 77662.
City of Vidor..........................  City Hall, 1395 North Main
                                          Street, Vidor, TX 77662.
City of West Orange....................  City Hall, 2700 Western Avenue,
                                          West Orange, TX 77630.
Unincorporated Areas of Orange County..  Orange County Environmental
                                          Health and Code Compliance
                                          Department, 11475 FM 1442,
                                          Orange, TX 77630.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-18418 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 98)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29095]
[DOCID:fr20my08-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 50

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735; FRL-8563-7]
RIN 2060-AN83

Public Hearings for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing two public hearings to be held for the
proposed rule ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead'' which
is published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The hearings will be
held concurrently in Baltimore, Maryland and St. Louis, Missouri on
Thursday, June 12, 2008.
    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA describes making
revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for lead to provide requisite protection of public
health and welfare, respectively, to make corresponding revisions in
data handling procedures and ambient air monitoring and reporting
requirements for lead, and to provide guidance on its proposed approach
for implementing the proposed revised primary and secondary standards
for lead.

DATES: The public hearings will be held on June 12, 2008. Please refer
to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the public
hearings.

ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at the following locations:
    1. Baltimore: Tremont Grand Historic Venue, 225 North Charles
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
hearing will be held in The Marble Room on the First Floor of the
hotel.
    2. St. Louis: Omni Majestic Hotel, 1019 Pine Street, St. Louis,
Missouri 63101, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The hearing will be held in
Salon A and B.
    Written comments on this proposed rule may also be submitted to EPA
electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/
courier. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the
addresses and detailed instructions for submitting written comments.
    A complete set of documents related to the proposal is available
for public inspection at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Documents are also available
through the electronic docket system at http://www.regulations.gov.
    The EPA Web site for the rulemaking, which includes the proposal
and information about the public hearings can be found at: http://
www.epa.gov/air/lead/actions.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the
public hearings or have questions concerning the public hearings,
please contact Ms. Tricia Crabtree at the address given below under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Questions concerning the ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Lead'' proposed rule should be addressed to Dr. Deirdre Murphy,
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C504-06), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which EPA is holding the
public hearings is published elsewhere in this Federal Register and is
also available on the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/
actions.html.
    The public hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity
to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rules. The
EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but
will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements
and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearings. Written comments must be
received by the last day of the comment period, as specified in the
proposal.
    The two public hearings will be held concurrently in Baltimore,
Maryland and St. Louis, Missouri on June 12, 2008. The public hearings
will begin each day at 9 a.m. and continue into the evening until 9
p.m. (local time) or later, if necessary, depending on the number of
speakers wishing to participate. The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers that arrive and register before 9 p.m. The EPA
is scheduling lunch breaks from 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m. and dinner
breaks from 6 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. If you would like to present oral
testimony at the hearings, please notify Ms. Tricia Crabtree (C504-02),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The preferred method for
registering is by e-mail (crabtree.tricia@epa.gov). Ms. Crabtree may be
reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. She will arrange a general time
slot for you to speak. The EPA will make every effort to follow the
schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearings.
    Oral testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes for each
commenter to address the proposal. We will not be providing equipment
for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide
presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters
should notify Ms. Crabtree if they will need specific audiovisual (AV)
equipment. Commenters should also notify Ms. Crabtree if they need
specific translation services for non-English speaking commenters. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide written versions of their oral
testimonies either electronically on computer disk or CD ROM or in
paper copy.
    The hearing schedules, including lists of speakers, will be posted
on EPA's Web site for the proposal at http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/
actions.html prior to the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the
hearings and written statements will be included in the rulemaking
dockets.

How Can I Get Copies Of This Document and Other Related Information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. The EPA has also developed a Web site for
lead NAAQS materials, including the notice of proposed rulemaking, at
the address given above. Please refer to the notice of proposed
rulemaking for detailed information on accessing information related to
the proposal.

    Dated: April 29, 2008.
Jennifer Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 [FR Doc. E8-10812 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45193-45202]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20171]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522; FRL-9968-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT14

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production
Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories.
These final amendments are in response to two petitions for
reconsideration filed by industry stakeholders on the rule revisions to
the NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate
Fertilizer Production source categories that were promulgated on August
19, 2015. We are revising the compliance date by which affected sources
must include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining
compliance with the total fluoride emission limits for superphosphoric
acid (SPA) process lines. In addition, we are revising the compliance
date for the monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. We are
also clarifying one option and adding a new option, to the monitoring
requirements for low-energy absorbers.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information 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 form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of
acronyms and abbreviations are used in this preamble. While this may
not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined:

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

    Organization of this Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
    A. Compliance Deadline for Air Oxidation Reactors Used in SPA
Lines
    B. Compliance Deadlines for Revised Low-Energy Absorber
Monitoring Provisions
    C. Monitoring Options for Low-Energy Absorbers
    D. Restoration of the 20-Percent Minimum Liquid Flow
Rate Variability Allowance
IV. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this
reconsideration action include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble.

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

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

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?

    The docket number for this final action regarding the NESHAP for
the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production
source categories is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this document will also be available on the Internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a

copy of this final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post
the Federal Register version and key technical documents on this same
Web site.

C. Judicial Review

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
Court) by November 27, 2017. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.

II. Background Information

    On June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31358), the EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AA for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category and 40
CFR part 63, subpart BB for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source
category. On August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), the EPA published amended
rules for both source categories that took into consideration the
technology review and residual risk review required by sections
112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA, respectively. Following promulgation
of the August 2015 rule revisions, the EPA received two petitions for
reconsideration from The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the Phosphate
Corporation of Saskatchewan, including: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.;
White Springs Agricultural Chemical, Inc., DBA PCS Phosphate-White
Springs; and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P., (collectively ``PCS''),
requesting administrative reconsideration of amended 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AA and subpart BB under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
    In response to the petitions, the EPA reconsidered and requested
comment on three distinct issues:
     Compliance deadline for air oxidation reactors used in SPA
lines;
     Compliance deadlines for low-energy absorber monitoring
provisions; and
     Monitoring options for low-energy absorbers.
    The EPA proposed a notice of reconsideration including proposed
rule amendments in the Federal Register on December 9, 2016 (81 FR
89026). We received public comments from two parties. Copies of all
comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room. Comments are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.
    In this document, the EPA is taking final action with respect to
the reconsideration and proposed amendments. Section III of this
preamble summarizes the public comments received on the proposed notice
of reconsideration, presents the EPA's responses to the comments, and
explains our rationale for the rule revisions published here.
    We are also restoring a provision of the 1999 maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) rules that was inadvertently omitted from the
risk and technology review (RTR) amendments to those rules. That
provision, related to compliance monitoring, allowed sources a 20-percent variability in the minimum liquid flow rate to the
absorber.

III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered

    The three reconsideration issues for which amendments are being
finalized in this rulemaking are: (1) Compliance deadlines for air
oxidation reactors used in SPA lines; (2) compliance deadlines for
revised low-energy absorber monitoring provisions; and (3) monitoring
options for low-energy absorbers. A fourth issue, which was identified
after the close of the public comment period, is also being addressed
in this action. This is the restoration of the 20-percent
variability allowance for the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber.
Each of these issues is discussed in detail in the following sections
of this preamble.

A. Compliance Deadline for Air Oxidation Reactors Used in SPA Lines

    In the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA,
the EPA revised the SPA process line definition to include oxidation
reactors. The EPA received petitions requesting the compliance schedule
be changed to allow more time for affected sources to include emissions
from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the total
fluoride (TF) emission limits for SPA process lines. In response to the
petitions, on December 9, 2016, we proposed to revise the compliance
date from August 19, 2016, to August 19, 2018. We did not receive
adverse comments on this change. Instead, both commenters stated that
they supported this change. Therefore, in this action, the EPA is
finalizing the compliance date revision as proposed. The compliance
date by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation
reactors when determining compliance with the TF emission limits for
SPA process lines is August 19, 2018.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Refer to finalized footnotes ``c'' of Table 1 and Table 2 to
subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Compliance Deadlines for Revised Low-Energy Absorber Monitoring
Provisions

    In the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB, the EPA changed the compliance
monitoring requirement for low-energy absorbers (i.e., absorbers that
are designed to operate with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column
or less) to require monitoring of liquid-to-gas ratio in lieu of
monitoring influent liquid flow and pressure drop through the absorber.
The EPA received petitions requesting the compliance schedule be
changed to allow more time for affected sources to comply with these
monitoring requirements. In response to the petitions, on December 9,
2016, we proposed to revise the compliance dates from August 19, 2016,
to August 19, 2017, to allow owners and operators additional time to
obtain and certify the instruments needed to monitor liquid-to-gas
ratio. However, in this action, the EPA is revising the compliance
dates to no later than August 19, 2018, for existing sources as well as
for those sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015. We are also
clarifying that new sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after August 19, 2015, must comply with the monitoring
requirements for absorbers immediately upon startup.
    Both commenters said that the proposed compliance date (i.e.,
August 19, 2017) for monitoring liquid-to-gas ratio on low-energy
absorbers only allows approximately seven months to achieve compliance
from the date public comments were due (i.e., January 23, 2017). These
commenters asserted that a duration of 7 months may not be sufficient
to acquire, engineer, test, and install the requisite technologies. One
of the commenters specified that 7 months is not enough time to
complete and begin implementing gas flow monitoring plans for at least
20 of their low-energy absorbers. Additionally, the commenter

asserted that for at least some of their low-energy absorbers, gas flow
meters are likely not feasible due to the saturated (and sometimes
supersaturated) conditions of the gas streams that these absorbers
handle; therefore, the commenter contended they need more time to
assess liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring options and to establish
operating limits. The commenter stated that each liquid-to-gas ratio
monitoring option requires complicated, time-consuming, and absorber-
specific evaluations. For example, to develop regression models, new
instrumentation to monitor fan suction pressure and blower amperage
must be installed for some absorbers, and facilities need to make
changes to their computer programs. Moreover, the commenter stated that
once a regression model is developed, they need additional time to
establish the liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by conducting a
performance test. This commenter also maintained that for some of their
low-energy absorbers they may need to use an Alternative Monitoring
Plan (AMP) to comply with the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring
requirements and 7 months may not be enough time to get approval for
the AMP. The commenter cited a specific example where the EPA Region is
in the tenth month of reviewing one of the company's AMP requests.
Additionally, one commenter suggested that the EPA revise the
``existing source'' definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BB to extend the compliance date (for the liquid-to-
gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers) to those
new sources that were in operation on the date the technology review
and residual risk review were proposed.
    Based on these comments, we agree that more time beyond what we
proposed is needed to achieve compliance with the liquid-to-gas ratio
monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. To allow time to
evaluate all monitoring options, obtain and certify instruments,
establish operating limits, and, in certain cases, develop a regression
model or AMP, the EPA is finalizing a compliance date that is no later
than August 19, 2018.\2\ This extension provides a total of 3 years
from promulgation (of the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part
63, subparts AA and BB) for sources to comply with the rule, and is the
maximum compliance period allowed by the CAA. We also agree with the
commenter that the compliance date should apply to certain new sources.
This was an error in the December 9, 2016, proposal as we did not
intend for the compliance date to apply to only existing sources.
Therefore, in this action, the EPA is correcting this error at footnote
b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table
3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 such that the compliance date for the
liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers
applies to both existing sources and those new sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or
before August 19, 2015. We are also clarifying that new sources that
commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, must
comply with the monitoring requirements for absorbers immediately upon
startup. Instead of revising the ``existing source'' definition as
requested by the commenter, we determined it will be clearer and more
straightforward to make the corrections in these footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Refer to finalized footnote b of Table 3 to subpart AA of 40
CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, one commenter requested that the EPA add more
compliance options for low-energy absorbers in advance of the
compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements.
The commenter asserted that footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40
CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63
are too narrowly drafted because they do not allow facilities to use
liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current monitoring strategies,
such as monitoring in accordance with an already approved AMP or an
applicable monitoring provision of a permit issued under 40 CFR part
70, in advance of the compliance date. This commenter suggested edits
to footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote
b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 (see docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0522-0097) to allow compliance with any one of the following:
(i) The monitoring requirements in Table 3 for absorbers designed and
operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii)
the applicable monitoring provisions of a permit issued under 40 CFR
part 70 or an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to 40 CFR
63.8(f); or (iii) the installation of continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS) for pressure at the gas stream inlet or outlet of the
absorber, and monitoring pressure drop through the absorber. We agree
with the commenter that facilities should be allowed to use liquid-to-
gas ratio monitoring or their current approved monitoring strategy (in
lieu of monitoring pressure drop through the absorber), in advance of
the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements
for low-energy absorbers. Therefore, for the most part, we included the
commenter's edits to footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR
part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 in
the final rules. However, we added language to the commenter's edits to
ensure that if an owner or operator were to use a part 70 monitoring
provision, it would be a federally enforceable provision. We also split
the option to use a part 70 monitoring provision and the option to use
an AMP such that it is one or the other. The final rule allows an owner
or operator to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current
approved monitoring strategy (in lieu of monitoring pressure drop
through the absorber), in advance of the compliance date for the
liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers.
    Finally, one commenter requested that the EPA include language in
the final rules to authorize compliance with an AMP that is still under
review by an EPA Regional office beyond the compliance date for the
liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements, provided the AMP request
was submitted to the Region more than 30 days in advance of the
compliance deadline. The commenter maintained that without this type of
category-specific provision, owners or operators are not entitled
(based on the existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1)) to rely on AMPs
in advance of the EPA's approval. The commenter stated that although 40
CFR 63.8(f)(5)(i) calls for the Agency to respond to AMP requests
within 30 days of receipt, the EPA sometimes needs more than 30 days to
grant or deny such requests. The commenter asserted they are unable to
predict or control the response time of the EPA; therefore, they should
not be required to carry the risk and uncertainty of relying on an AMP
that is still under EPA review after the compliance deadline. The
commenter also stated that facility-specific extensions may not be
available under CAA section 112(i)(3)(B), which authorizes a 1-year
extension if ``necessary for the installation of controls.'' The
commenter contended that liquid-to-gas monitoring may require new
equipment for some low-energy absorbers, but the new equipment will
likely be for absorber

monitoring and not control of pollutants.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to authorize compliance
with AMPs that are still under the EPA review beyond the compliance
date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements. As stated
previously, we are revising and finalizing the compliance date for the
liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers to
no later than August 19, 2018, which is 3 years from promulgation of
the final rule, and is the maximum allowed under the CAA for phosphoric
acid and phosphate fertilizer manufacturers to comply with the rule. We
believe this is an ample amount of time for any outstanding AMPs to be
approved. Furthermore, the existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1) has
been in place for more than 20 years. During this time, the process for
review and resolution of AMP requests has functioned satisfactorily
within the established timelines. The concern raised by the commenter
involves one unique case currently under consideration. We concluded
that adopting a blanket exemption from the procedures of 40 CFR 63.8(f)
for all owners or operators of the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and
Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories is inappropriate.
This one unique case is more appropriately handled by the EPA Regional
office continuing to review the technical merits of the AMP application
and applying enforcement discretion to ensure equitable treatment of
the company.

C. Monitoring Options for Low-Energy Absorbers

    In response to the petitions the EPA received regarding monitoring
requirements for low-energy absorbers, we proposed to clarify an
existing monitoring option (i.e., the blower design capacity option)
and to add a new option (i.e., the regression model option) to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB. We also proposed
language reminding affected entities that they can request an
alternative monitoring method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f) on
a site-specific basis. Refer to the preamble to the proposed rule (81
FR 89026) for more details on each of these changes.
    With exception of the items discussed in the following paragraphs,
commenters stated that they supported these changes. Therefore, unless
discussed below, we are finalizing the changes regarding monitoring
requirements for low-energy absorbers as proposed.
Blower Design Capacity Option
    In response to petitioner requests for clarification of the
regulatory language describing the blower design capacity option for
determining the gas flow rate through the absorber (for use in
monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio), we clarified in the preamble to
the proposed rulemaking how this option can be used. Additionally, we
proposed changing the term ``design blower capacity'' in Table 3 to
subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part
63 to ``blower design capacity'' and made other minor text edits to
these tables in order to use the phrase ``gas flow rate through the
absorber'' more consistently. We also proposed footnote c for Table 3
to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote c for Table 3 to subpart
BB of 40 CFR part 63 to add certain site-specific monitoring plan
requirements, clarify that the blower design capacity option is
intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the
absorber, and explain that the blower design capacity option can be
used regardless of whether the blower is located on the influent or
effluent side of the absorber. Finally, we proposed a requirement at 40
CFR 63.608(e) and 40 CFR 63.628(e) to document, in the site-specific
monitoring plan, the calculations that were used to make adjustments
for pressure drop if blower design capacity is used to establish the
maximum possible gas flow rate through an absorber. In this action, the
EPA is finalizing, with one exception, all the proposed language
regarding the blower design capacity option.
    The one change to the proposed language for the blower design
capacity option is our addition of language in footnote c to Table 3 to
subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part
63 to clarify that owners and operators must establish the minimum
liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow
rate to the absorber determined during a performance test by the
maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber determined using
blower design capacity. One commenter requested the EPA include the
following additional language to footnote c to Table 3 to subpart AA of
40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63: ``The
maximum design gas flow through the scrubber, or Fmax, shall be
determined using the blower design capacity and system pressure drop.
During performance testing, the observed liquid-to-gas ratio, L/G, will
be determined. The minimum liquid flow will be established by
multiplying the compliance L/G by Fmax.'' We disagree that the language
should be added to footnote c as drafted by the commenter because it
introduces a new undefined and unnecessary term ``Fmax.''
    We also disagree because much of the commenter's language is
already included elsewhere in the rules,\3\ and while the commenter's
suggested third sentence is not addressed elsewhere, it can be
rewritten without the use of a new term, ``Fmax.'' Therefore, instead
of using the commenter's suggested third sentence, we are including a
new sentence in footnote c for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63
and footnote c for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to read as
follows: ``Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by
dividing the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber (determined
during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate
through the absorber (determined using blower design capacity).'' We
consider this revised sentence as clarifying how each term in the
liquid-to-gas ratio is determined and used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Existing rule language currently in the rules that the
commenter suggested is found at Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part
63; Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63; 40 CFR 63.605(d); at 40
CFR 63.625(d); at Table 4 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and at
Table 4 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regression Model Option
    In response to the petitions the EPA received requesting other
options to be considered for determining the gas flow rate through the
absorber, which is used in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio, we
proposed to include an option in Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part
63 and in Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63, that allows
facilities to develop and use a regression model to determine gas flow
rate through an absorber in lieu of direct measurement or using blower
design capacity. We also proposed a requirement in footnote a for Table
4 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote a for Table 4 to subpart
BB of 40 CFR part 63 requiring continuous monitoring of blower
amperage, blower static pressure, i.e., fan suction pressure, and any
other parameters used in the regression model that are not constants.
Finally, to allow the flexibility to use best engineering judgment and
calculations, we also proposed an annual requirement at 40 CFR
63.608(f) and 40 CFR 63.628(f) to document, in the site-specific
monitoring plan, the calculations that were used to develop the
regression model and to require that the site-specific monitoring plan
be updated annually to maintain accuracy

and reflect data used in the annual regression model verification.
    Both commenters stated that they support the use of a regression
model to determine gas flow rate through an absorber, but requested one
clarification to the proposed language. The commenters requested that
the EPA revise footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63
and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify
whether an emissions performance test is necessary when developing and
verifying gas flow regression models. The commenters contended that the
EPA should allow facilities to develop and verify gas flow regression
models separately from the required annual emissions performance test.
One commenter maintained that requiring facilities to conduct a
performance test to develop a regression model would waste resources
and needlessly complicate the schedule for liquid-to-gas ratio
monitoring. The commenter contended that facilities would have to
conduct more than one performance test in a year's time to first
develop a regression model and then set operating limits for liquid-to-
gas ratio. The commenters suggested edits to footnote d for Table 3 to
subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB
of 40 CFR part 63 (see docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0097 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0098) to make clear that an emissions performance test
is not required to develop and verify gas flow regression models. We
agree with the commenters' edits to footnote d as it was our intent to
allow facilities the flexibility to develop and verify gas flow
regression models (using direct measurements of gas flow rate, for
example, via EPA Method 2) either separately from, or in conjunction
with, the annual performance test. Therefore, in this action, the EPA
is finalizing, with one change, all the proposed language regarding the
regression model option. The one change we are making to the proposed
language is that we are revising and clarifying footnote d for Table 3
to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart
BB of 40 CFR part 63 to convey that direct measurements of gas flow
rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected
during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is
required in 40 CFR 63.606(b) for subpart AA or 40 CFR 63.626(b) for
subpart BB.

D. Restoration of the 20-Percent Minimum Liquid Flow Rate
Variability Allowance

    The June 10, 1999, MACT rules (64 FR 31358) included provisions to
account for the variability in absorber (i.e., scrubber) pressure drop
and the variability in minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber.
Specifically, as a compliance monitoring provision of the 1999 MACT
rules, owners/operators are required to conduct a performance test to
determine the baseline average value for both the pressure drop and for
the minimum liquid flow rate of the absorber, and are then allowed to
operate within a range that is within 20 percent of this rate.
    The August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), RTR final rule included the
allowance for the 20-percent variability in the absorber
pressure drop, but did not include the allowance for the 20-percent variability in the minimum liquid flow rate to the
absorber.
    Industry brought this omission to our attention after the comment
period for this reconsideration rule. We subsequently reviewed the
record for the August 2015 RTR final rule and could not find any record
of a decision to remove the 20-percent minimum liquid flow
rate variability provision. Therefore, we have concluded that this
omission was an inadvertent error in the August 2015 RTR final rule,
and we are restoring that provision in these final rules. Subpart AA
includes this restored provision at 40 CFR 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) and
subpart BB includes this restored provision at 40 CFR
63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A).

IV. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule

    This action revises compliance dates specific to oxidation reactors
in the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category, and absorber
monitoring in both the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate
Fertilizer Production source categories. We expect the additional
compliance time for oxidation reactors to comply with the rule will
have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's
overall emissions.
    Specifically, in the reconsideration proposal, the EPA discussed
hydrogen fluoride emissions reductions of 0.047 tons per year (tpy)
from the oxidation reactor (i.e., a reduction from 0.049 tpy to 0.002
tpy) and TF emissions reductions of 0.14 tpy from the oxidation reactor
(i.e., a reduction from 0.147 tpy to 0.007 tpy). The additional 2-year
compliance time for oxidation reactors to meet the emission limits in
the final rule result in an additional 0.098 tons (196 pounds) of
hydrogen fluoride and 0.28 tons (560 pounds) of total fluoride.
Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process lines, including oxidation
reactors, account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride
emissions from the source category.
    The revisions related to the gas flow calculation that we are
finalizing result in capital cost savings of $88,200 per facility, and
capital cost savings of $1,147,200 industry-wide.\4\ These cost savings
are due to our providing alternatives to the requirement to use a gas
flow meter for monitoring gas flow at low energy absorbers. In addition
to the gas flow meter, we are providing two other monitoring methods as
alternative compliance options: (1) A blower design capacity model; and
(2) a regression model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the detailed calculations on these cost savings, refer
to ``Detailed Costs of Monitoring Gas Flow Options Worksheet June
2017.xlsx'' and ``Annualized Cost of Monitoring Options
Worksheet.xlsx'' which are available in the docket for this rule.

                          Table 2--Cost Comparison of Different Options for Determining Gas Flow Rate at Low Pressure Absorbers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Annualized facility costs                     Annualized industry wide costs
                                                         Capital costs               (2016$)              Industry Wide               (2016$)
                   Compliance option                      per facility  --------------------------------  Capital Costs  -------------------------------
                                                                               3%              7%              \1\              3%              7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blower Design Capacity Model..........................           $6,400            $800            $960          $83,700         $10,300         $12,500
Regression Model......................................            4,200             500             600           54,300           6,700           8,100
Gas Flow Meter........................................           92,400          15,800          18,200        1,201,500         205,900         236,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capital costs per facility are rounded values. Industry-wide capital costs are calculated by multiplying the non-rounded values for capital costs
  per facility by 13 (the total number of facilities in the source category). The resulting product is rounded after calculation.

    The costs described in this action are a result of only the final
reconsideration notice, and show a cost savings. The costs were
calculated at both a 7-percent rate and a 3-percent rate. There is a
reduction in estimated annualized costs calculated at both the 7-
percent rate and at the 3-percent rate as a result of all 13 affected
facilities implementing a lower cost option to monitor the ratio of
liquid-to-gas in low energy absorbers, as compared to the cost of that
requirement in the rule promulgated in August 2015. We note that the
cost savings presented here are not associated with any change in
emission limit, do not result in higher hazardous air pollutant
emissions, and do not have a negative effect on human health or the
environment.

 Table 3--Total Potential Capital and Annualized Savings From Monitoring
                   Alternatives for Subparts AA and BB
                                 [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total capital cost savings       Total annual cost savings (2016$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,147,000...........................  $208,000 (3% discount rate).
                                       $237,000 (7% discount rate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0361. With this action, the EPA is finalizing
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB
that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in
implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to
allow more time for compliance. Therefore, there are no changes to the
information collection requirements of the August 19, 2015, final rule,
and, consequently, the information collection estimate of projected
costs and hour burden from the final rules have not been revised.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve new technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
Environmental Justice finding in the August 19, 2015, final rule
remains relevant in this action, which finalizes amendments to these
rules that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid
in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to
allow more time for compliance. We expect the additional compliance
time for oxidation reactors will have an insignificant effect on any
phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions. Hydrogen
fluoride emissions from SPA process lines, including oxidation
reactors, account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride
emissions from the source category. Therefore, the amendments should
not appreciably increase the risk for any populations.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: September 13, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.605  Operating and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop
across an absorber and of the flow rate of the absorber liquid to each
absorber in the process absorbing system, or secondary voltage for a
wet electrostatic precipitator, is 20 percent of the
baseline average value determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section. 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.
* * * * *

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

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

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

Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63 [Amended]

0
4. Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63, footnote ``c'' is amended by
removing the text ``August 19, 2016,'' and adding the text ``August 19,
2018,'' in its place.

Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63 [Amended]

0
5. Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63, footnote ``c'' is amended by
removing the text ``August 19, 2016,'' and adding the text ``August 19,
2018,'' in its place.

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

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

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ To monitor an operating parameter that is not specified in this table (including process-specific techniques
  not specified in this table to determine gas flow rate through an absorber), you must request, on a site-
  specific basis, an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f).

\b\ For new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, the compliance date is
  immediately upon startup. For existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction
  after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, if your absorber is designed and operated with
  pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, then the compliance date is August 19, 2018. In the
  interim, for existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27,
  1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, with an absorber designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches
  of water column or less, you must comply with one of the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in this
  Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the
  applicable monitoring provisions included in a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 to assure compliance with
  subpart AA; (iii) the applicable monitoring provisions of an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to
  Sec.   63.8(f); or (iv) install CPMS for pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and
  monitor pressure drop through the absorber.
\c\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.608(e). The option to use blower design
  capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available
  regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the
  absorber can be established. Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum
  liquid flow rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate
  through the absorber (determined using blower design capacity).
\d\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.608(f). The regression model must be
  developed using direct measurements of gas flow rate, and design fan curves that correlate gas flow rate to
  static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower. You must conduct an annual
  regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate to ensure the correlation remains
  accurate. Direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected
  during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in Sec.   63.606(b).

0
7. Table 4 to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by revising the entry
for ``Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream flow rate'' and adding
footnote ``a'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

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

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

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

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

0
8. Section 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.625  Operating and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop
across an absorber and of the flow rate of the absorber liquid to each
absorber in the process absorbing system, or secondary voltage for a
wet electrostatic precipitator, is 20 percent of the
baseline average value determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section. 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.
* * * * *

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

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

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

0
10. Table 3 to subpart BB of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the column headings for ``And you must monitor . . .'' and
``And . . .'';

0
b. Revising the entry for ``Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the
inlet of the absorber''; and
0
c. Adding footnotes ``a'' through ``d'' at the end of the table.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ To monitor an operating parameter that is not specified in this table (including process-specific techniques
  not specified in this table to determine gas flow rate through an absorber), you must request, on a site-
  specific basis, an alternative monitoring method under the provisions of Sec.   63.8(f).
\b\ For new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, the compliance date is
  immediately upon startup. For existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction
  after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, if your absorber is designed and operated with
  pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, then the compliance date is August 19, 2018. In the
  interim, for existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27,
  1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, with an absorber designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches
  of water column or less, you must comply with one of the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in this
  Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the
  applicable monitoring provisions included in a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 to assure compliance with
  subpart BB; (iii) the applicable monitoring provisions of an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to
  Sec.   63.8(f); or (iv) install CPMS for pressure at the gas stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and
  monitor pressure drop through the absorber.
\c\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.628(e). The option to use blower design
  capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available
  regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas flow rate through the
  absorber can be established. Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum
  liquid flow rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate
  through the absorber (determined using blower design capacity).
\d\ If you select this option, then you must comply with Sec.   63.628(f). The regression model must be
  developed using direct measurements of gas flow rate, and design fan curves that correlate gas flow rate to
  static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower. You must conduct an annual
  regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate to ensure the correlation remains
  accurate. Direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected
  during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in Sec.   63.626(b).

0
11. Table 4 to subpart BB of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

         Table 4 to Subpart BB of Part 63--Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum
   For the operating parameter       You must establish the                                        frequencies . . .
 applicable to you, as specified   following operating limit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         in Table 3 . . .           during your performance                                                                  Data averaging  period for
                                           test . . .                Data measurement                Data recording                  compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influent liquid flow.............  Minimum inlet liquid flow  Continuous...................  Every 15 minutes.............  Daily.
Influent liquid flow rate and gas  Minimum influent liquid-   Continuous...................  Every 15 minutes.............  Daily.
 stream flow rate.                  to-gas ratio \a\.
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the operating parameter        You must establish the       And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum
 applicable to you, as specified    following operating                                            frequencies . . .
 in Table 3.                        limit.
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Data measurement.............  Data recording...............  Data averaging
                                                                                period for
                                                                                compliance.
Pressure drop....................  Pressure drop range......  Continuous...................  Every 15 minutes.............  Daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Sorbent Injection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorbent injection rate...........  Minimum injection rate...  Continuous...................  Every 15 minutes.............  Daily.

Sorbent injection carrier gas      Minimum carrier gas flow   Continuous...................  Every 15 minutes.............  Daily.
 flow rate.                         rate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fabric Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time.......................  Maximum alarm time is not  Continuous...................  Each date and time of alarm    Maximum alarm time specified
                                    established on a site-                                    start and stop.                in Sec.   63.605(f)(9).
                                    specific basis but is
                                    specified in Sec.
                                    63.605(f)(9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage................  Secondary voltage range..  Continuous...................  Every 15 minutes.............  Daily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-20171 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 192 (Thursday, October 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55900-55901]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21868]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93227; File No. 4-698]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on a Proposed Amendment to the National Market System
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail

October 1, 2021.
    On March 31, 2021, the Operating Committee for Consolidated Audit
Trail, LLC (``CAT LLC'' or the ``Company''), on behalf of the following
parties to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated
Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan''): \1\ BOX Exchange LLC;
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange,
Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange,
Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors Exchange
LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC, MEMX, LLC, MIAX Emerald, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq BX,
Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX
LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National,
Inc. (collectively, the ``Participants,'' ``self-regulatory
organizations,'' or ``SROs'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')

pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\2\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\3\ a proposed amendment
(``Proposed Amendment'') to the CAT NMS Plan to implement a revised
funding model for the consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') and to
establish a fee schedule for Participant CAT fees in accordance with
the Proposed Funding Model . The Proposed Amendment was published for
comment in the Federal Register on April 21, 2021.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CAT NMS Plan is a national market system plan approved
by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23,
2016).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C 78k-1(a)(3).
    \3\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \4\ See Notice of Filing of Amendment to the National Market
System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, Release No.
91555 (April 14, 2021), 86 FR 21050 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 20, 2021, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment.\5\
Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS provides that such proceedings
shall be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication of notice
of the plan or amendment and that the time for conclusion of such
proceedings may be extended for up to 60 days (up to 240 days from the
date of notice publication) if the Commission determines that a longer
period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination
or the plan participants consent to the longer period.\6\ The 180th day
after publication of the Notice for the Proposed Amendment is October
18, 2021. The Commission is extending this 180-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92451 (July 20,
2021), 86 FR 40114 (July 26, 2021) (``OIP''). Comments received in
response to the Notice and OIP can be found on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-698/4-698-a.htm.
    \6\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to conclude proceedings regarding the Proposed
Amendment so that it has sufficient time to consider the Proposed
Amendment and the comments received. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\7\ the Commission designates December
17, 2021, as the date by which the Commission shall conclude the
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed
Amendment (File No. 4-698).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21868 Filed 10-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P