[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19412-19418]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06930]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016; FRL-10007-29-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU25

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing source category. The proposed amendment is in response to
a petition for rulemaking by an industry stakeholder on the mercury
emission limit based on the maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) floor for existing sources set in a rule that was finalized on
August 19, 2015 (``2015 Rule''). All six of the existing calciners used
to set this MACT floor were located at the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
(``PCS Phosphate'') facility in Aurora, North Carolina (``PCS
Aurora''). PCS Phosphate asserted that data received since the rule's
promulgation indicate that the MACT floor did not accurately
characterize the average emission limitation achieved by the units used
to set the standard. Based on these new data, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to revise the mercury MACT floor for
existing calciners.

DATES:
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2020.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before April 13, 2020, 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/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. 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-2020-0016 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-2020-0016 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0016.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016, 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 Mr. John Feather, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-04), 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. Nancy Perry at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public 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-2020-0016. 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,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0016. 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-2020-0016.
    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:

ACI activated carbon injection
BTF beyond-the-floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GMCS Gore Mercury Control System
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR information collection request
lb/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm milligram per dry standard cubic meter
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppm parts per million
SBA Small Business Administration
tph tons per hour
tpy tons per year
UPL upper prediction limit

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

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. What is the source of the Agency's authority for taking this
action?
    D. What action is the Agency taking?
II. Background
    A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed review?
    B. What are the issues raised by the petitioner?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. What mercury emissions and phosphate rock composition data
were collected?
    B. How did we calculate the MACT floor limit?
    C. What is our BTF Analysis?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
V. Request for Comments
VI. 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. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is 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 standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources.

Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would 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 Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source
category includes any facility engaged in the production of phosphoric
acid. The category includes, but is not limited to, production of wet-
process phosphoric acid and superphosphoric acid.

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

B. 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/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. Following publication
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version
of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016).

C. What is the source of the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412). A technology-based NESHAP
has been developed for major sources in the Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing source category. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, MACT standards reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above. In setting MACT standards,
the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which
are referred to as ``MACT floor'' requirements, and which may not be
based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3) for more
information. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent
than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled
similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less
stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options we call ``beyond-the-
floor'' (BTF) that are more stringent than the floor, under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor,
based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements. The EPA may amend MACT floor determinations if
they were improperly set (Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery
Council v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425-27 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). In the
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category, the calciners' mercury
emissions are effectively uncontrolled, so their actual emissions are
considered to be the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing sources.

D. What action is the Agency taking?

    The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA. This
amendment is in response to a petition for a rulemaking to amend the
2015 Rule's calciner mercury MACT floor emission limit, submitted by
PCS Phosphate to the Agency on September 6, 2016. The petition is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0016). The EPA proposes to raise the mercury MACT floor-based limit for
existing calciners from 0.14 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(mg/dscm) at 3-percent oxygen (O2) to 0.23 mg/dscm at 3-
percent O2. Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Existing
Source Emission Limits is reproduced in its entirety at the end of this
preamble for the sake of clarity. However, the EPA is proposing to
amend only the existing source mercury limit for phosphate rock
calciners, along with its footnote indicating the applicable compliance
date. This proposed amendment would not impact any other aspect of the
table or regulatory text.

II. Background

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed review?

    In August 2015, we published final amendments to the Phosphoric
Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production NESHAP (80 FR
50386, August 19, 2015). As part of that action, we established MACT-
based mercury emissions limits for new and existing calciners within
the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category. These limits were
based on emissions data from the six identical calciners at the PCS
Aurora facility. Because these six sources are of identical design and
use the same fuel and feed, we determined that they should be treated
as a single source for purposes of MACT floor development. As a result,
we combined the emission test results for the different calciners into
a single database that we used as the basis to set MACT floor emissions
limits for both new and existing sources. We also evaluated a BTF
option for MACT for existing calciners but did not select the BTF
option as MACT because we determined that the economic impacts to the
facility would not be reasonable. We did set a BTF limit for new
calciners.
    Following promulgation of the 2015 Rule, PCS Phosphate petitioned
for reconsideration, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, on
October 16, 2015. The EPA granted the petition for reconsideration of
the issues presented at the time relating to the compliance schedule
for oxidation reactor emissions and absorber liquid-to-gas ratios. This
reconsideration was finalized on September 13, 2017. However,
subsequent to this petition for reconsideration, compliance testing of
the calciners for mercury emissions in

2016 showed that three calciners at the Aurora facility exceeded the
MACT limit, with the three other calciners near the limit. For
reference, the mean calciner compliance emissions in 2016 were 0.143
mg/dscm at 3-percent O2, higher than the MACT limit of 0.14
mg/dscm at 3-percent O2. The mean of these emissions was 44
percent higher than the mean of the data from the 2010 and 2014
information collection request (ICR) that was used to develop the 2015
Rule's emission limit. On May 10, 2016, PCS Phosphate submitted a
letter to the EPA requesting a revision to the calciner mercury MACT
floor standard. On September 6, 2016, PCS Phosphate added the calciner
mercury limit to its earlier petition for reconsideration. This
additional request was not raised with reasonable specificity or within
60 days of the publication of the 2015 Rule, so the mercury MACT floor
issue was not included in the reconsideration. However, on the basis of
the test data presented, the EPA was convinced there was justification
to review the mercury calciner limit and include new emissions data in
that analysis. Because of that evaluation, as explained below, the EPA
is now proposing a revised mercury emissions standard for existing
calciners.

B. What are the issues raised by the petitioner?

    PCS Phosphate raised concerns about whether the mercury MACT limit
accurately represents the average emission limitation achieved by the
calciners at their facility in Aurora, North Carolina. These calciners,
on which the MACT floor was based, consistently showed emissions above
the calculated floor level. This was believed to be due to two factors:
     The 2010 and 2014 emission test data used in calculating
the MACT floor were obtained while the calciners were operating at
throughput rates that averaged 52 wet tons per hour (tph), due in part
to mining limitations. Based on industry statements and values from
state-mandated test reports, these calciners typically operate at a
feed throughput rate of greater than 65 wet tph. This low throughput
during initial tests biased the emissions data low.
     The mercury content of the feed material varies
significantly. The limited data available from the 2010 and 2014 tests
did not fully capture this variability or the range of mercury content
that may be expected to be present in the phosphate rock. Changes in
feed mercury content directly affect mercury emissions.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

A. What mercury emissions and phosphate rock composition data were
collected?

    To develop our 2015 Rule, we obtained initial ICR data from PCS
Aurora in 2010 that consisted of three test runs performed during one
stack test of a single calciner (three test runs during each stack
test). These data were collected using EPA Method 30B, the same method
used for compliance testing. Speciated mercury data, differentiating
elemental mercury from total mercury, was also obtained by the ASTM
D6784-02 (Ontario-Hydro) method. Due to concerns about basing a MACT
floor on such a limited dataset, in 2014 an additional nine test runs
were performed during three stack tests of a different calciner. Based
on data from these 12 test runs, we calculated a MACT floor using the
99-percent upper prediction limit (UPL). The 2015 UPL data and analysis
are included in this docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016).
    Each year from 2016 to 2019, PCS Aurora measured mercury emissions
from each of the six calciners with three-run stack tests. In addition,
the facility performed a study varying feed throughput rates and stack
test sampling times. During every test run from 2016 and on, PCS Aurora
measured the feed ore mercury concentration. PCS Aurora also analyzed
the mercury content of an additional 48 samples of ore (rock) collected
from core samples to better characterize the expected mercury in feed
ore in future years. In total, our dataset for this MACT floor analysis
includes 104 stack test runs under normal operating rates. These new
data provide more information that better characterize average calciner
mercury emissions. This rule's data and analysis are also available in
the MACT floor memorandum in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0016).
    On the basis of the new data provided, we do not believe now that
the testing used to set the MACT limit in the 2015 Rule represented the
emissions that calciners achieve during normal operations. We agree
that the measured levels could not be achieved were the sources
operating under normal loads. Compliance testing data from 2016 through
2019 has consistently shown emissions exceeding the MACT floor limit
when operating at normal loads. Each year the average emissions tested
under normal loads exceeded the MACT floor. Every test run in 2018 and
2019 exceeded the MACT limit, as did the three tests in 2017 operating
under normal loads and most of the other non-compliance test runs. The
average emissions indicated from the new data are significantly higher
than those from the data used to set the MACT limit in the 2015 Rule.
Furthermore, composition testing shows that the 2010 and 2014 ICR tests
did not represent the full range of the on-site phosphate rock's
mercury content. The mercury composition average in feed phosphate rock
has increased since the ICR tests, and from 2016 to 2019. Testing has
also shown an unanticipated degree of variation of mercury content in
phosphate rock, both in the short-term feed and in on-site ore that
would be used as feed in the future. Mercury emissions are a function
of both the rate of input feed and the concentration of mercury in the
feed. Additional mercury entering the calciner, whether by more feed
entering the calciner or a higher concentration of mercury in the feed,
leads to an increased magnitude of mercury emissions. Calciner airflow
rates are insensitive to the throughput rate, keeping fairly constant
without regard for how much feed is being processed. The increased
concentrations of mercury emissions that these new data show are due to
the increased amount of mercury entering into the calciners through the
feed, not because of process inefficiencies or problems with operating
conditions. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the MACT floor, we
have used emissions data from 2016 through 2019, as well as studies of
the variance in the mercury in ore at the Aurora site.

B. How did we calculate the MACT floor limit?

    In general, MACT floor analyses involve an assessment of the
emissions from the best-performing sources in a source category using
the available emissions information. For each source category, the
assessment involves a review of emissions data with an appropriate
accounting for emissions variability. Various methods of estimating
emissions can be used if the methods can be shown to provide reasonable
estimates of the actual emissions from a source or sources.
    To determine the MACT floors for phosphate rock calciners, we used
the arithmetic average of all the available emissions data from 2016
through 2019 and accounted for emissions variability. We accounted for
emissions variability in setting floors not only because variability is
an aspect of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess
performance over time and to account for test method variability. The
United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
recognized that the EPA may consider variability in estimating the
degree of emission reduction achieved by best-performing sources and in
setting MACT floors (Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370
F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). For more detailed information
about the EPA's analytical process in using the UPL to calculate MACT
floors, see the 2015 Rule's UPL memorandum, included in this docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016).
    The dataset for this analysis used the 104 stack test runs that
were taken under normal operating conditions. Because the calciners
typically operate at 65 tph of feed or more, we excluded from the
analysis any test runs that were conducted when feed rates were below
65 tph. These lower feed rates do not represent normal operation and
would bias the result low. This excluded the 12 runs from the 2010 and
2014 ICR tests, along with 13 runs from tests in 2016 and 2017 that
specifically sought to vary parameters to better understand the
emission results.
    The 2015 Rule MACT floor analysis used the stack test data to
calculate the average emissions and the 99-percent UPL to account for
variability in the testing and calciner operations. Our revised
analysis in this proposal relies on the statistical analysis of the new
data set that represent emissions from normal operations. In addition,
we are now using data on the mercury concentrations in phosphate ore
areas yet to be mined to account for variability that would occur in
the future. We determined the variance of the ore mercury concentration
data and added that to the variance of the emissions test data. The
relative standard deviation of mercury content in the future feed is
slightly greater than that of mercury emissions and varies
independently. We used this 99-percent lognormal UPL with independent
future feed variance to calculate the MACT floor limit for existing
rock calciners of 0.23 mg/dscm on a 3-percent O2 basis.
Table 2 of this preamble lists the proposed mercury emission limit for
phosphate rock calciners. For more information, see the MACT floor
memorandum in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0016).

     Table 2--Proposed Emisson Limit for Mercury From Phosphate Rock
                 Calciners at Phosphoric Acid Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pollutant                 Limit             Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing sources:
    Mercury..........................    0.23   mg/dscm @3% O2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is our BTF analysis?

    The 2015 Rule evaluated possible BTF control options. That analysis
focused on the activated carbon injection (ACI) system and Gore Mercury
Control System (GMCS), largely based on site-specific quotes provided
by the PCS Aurora facility. These technologies both employ adsorption
to capture mercury emissions from the calciners with feasible mercury
reductions of 90 percent. An ACI system injects halogenated powdered
activated carbon into the airflow, oxidizing elemental mercury which
adsorbs to the activated carbon. The GMCS consists of a series of
modules containing catalysts and sorbents which capture all forms of
mercury passing through. The GMCS requires a higher capital cost than
the ACI system, with an associated higher annualized cost based on
conditions at the time, so the 2015 Rule based its evaluations on the
lower cost of the ACI system. The analysis showed a cost effectiveness
of $29,800 to $36,400 per pound of mercury reduced and an economic
impact to the purified acid process of approximately 0.9 percent to 5.3
percent. This was determined to be cost effective, but the significant
economic impact to the facility led to the EPA's previous decision to
not pursue the BTF option.
    This current review also used the 2015 Rule's control costs for
evaluations of BTF mercury removal cost effectiveness and its related
economic impact. Based on the mercury emissions data available for this
proposal, mercury emissions are estimated to be 264 pounds per year
(lb/yr), compared to the earlier estimate of 169 lb/yr during the 2015
Rule. Due to this, the ACI sorbent rate and associated cost were
adjusted to account for the higher mercury removal. Otherwise, the ACI
system parameters are unchanged from the 2015 Rule's cost analysis. The
GMCS capacity was sufficient to achieve this higher mercury removal
without modifications or increased cost. Based on these adjustments, we
estimate that the total capital cost of the ACI system is $20.1 million
and the total annualized cost is $5.69 million per year. This results
in a cost per pound for mercury removal of $23,900. The GMCS total
capital cost is $36.4 million and the total annualized cost is $4.99
million per year, with a cost per pound for mercury removal of $21,000.
We still consider these controls to be cost effective.
    PCS merged with Agrium to form Nutrien in 2018, after the 2015 Rule
was promulgated. As was the case during the 2015 Rule's analysis,
annualized control technology costs represent less than 1 percent of
the revenue for the Aurora facility's parent company, which is now
Nutrien. Parent company revenue is significantly higher due to the
merger, so control costs now comprise a smaller proportion of the
company revenue than before. However, operations at the PCS Aurora
facility have not substantively changed since our 2015 Rule's analysis.
The total costs of the ACI system are also higher due to the fact that
the amount of mercury removed increases correspondingly with the
increased estimates of mercury emissions. In our economic analysis in
the 2015 Rule, we determined that the economic impacts on the specific
process line being controlled were unreasonable and did not impose a
BTF option. In our new analysis, control costs have increased. These
control costs represent more than 1 percent of the purified acid
process revenue associated with the calciners. We find the costs for
the ACI system are too high to justify pursuing the BTF option. For
more detail, see the BTF memorandum in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016).

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    Only the PCS Aurora facility and its six calciners would be
affected by the change to the existing calciner MACT floor proposed in
this action. We are proposing to raise the MACT floor based on new data
from the existing calciners. Since neither this amendment nor the 2015
Rule requires controls, we do not anticipate a change in actual mercury
emissions as a result of this proposed rule. More mercury emissions
will be allowable due to raising the MACT floor. However, currently we
estimate total actual emissions of mercury from all six calciners to be
264 lb/yr, less than the 352 lb/yr conservatively estimated in the 2015
Rule, so we continue to anticipate no adverse environmental impact.
    The 2015 Rule set a mercury limit of 0.14 mg/dscm at 3 percent that
current operations cannot achieve under normal operations. Without this
amendment, additional controls such as the ACI system would be
necessary to comply with that standard. If this amendment is

finalized, the value of those controls would represent a cost-savings
for the facility, since those expenditures would be expected to no
longer be necessary. The costs of installing new ACI control equipment
to meet the 2015 Rule's calciner mercury standard were estimated to
comprise a present value cost of approximately $26 million (2017
dollars) discounted at 7 percent to 2019 over a 5-year analytical
period. Therefore, this action will result in a total cost savings of
$26 million. For more detail, see the economic impact analysis
memorandum in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016).

V. Request for Comments

    The EPA seeks public comments on the issues addressed in this
proposed rule, as described in this document. We are soliciting
comments on the proposed revised standards, particularly the method of
determining the average emission limitation achieved by the calciners
for mercury emissions and costs of mercury control.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/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 expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

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 regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0361. With this action, the EPA is seeking comments
on proposed amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA existing rule
language narrowly concerning the calciner mercury MACT floor.
Therefore, the EPA believes that there are no changes to the
information collection requirements of the 2015 Rule, so the
information collection estimate of projected cost and hour burden from
the 2015 Rule remains unchanged.

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. The single
facility currently subject to the calciner mercury MACT floor
requirements of 40 CFR 63, subpart AA is not a small entity.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more 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. This action 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.

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 action does not involve any new 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).
    The environmental justice finding in the 2015 Rule remains relevant
in this action, which seeks comments on proposed amendments to the 40
CFR part 63, subpart AA existing rule language narrowly concerning the
calciner mercury MACT floor.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 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 for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants

0
2. Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Existing Source Emission Limits is
amended to read as follows:

                      Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Existing Source Emission Limits a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          You must meet the emission limits for the specified pollutant . . .
 For the following existing sources . --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 . .                       Total fluorides         Total particulate             Mercury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Line.....  0.020 lb/ton of
                                        equivalent P2O5 feed.
Superphosphoric Acid Process Line c..  0.010 lb/ton of
                                        equivalent P2O5 feed.
Superphosphoric Acid Submerged.......  0.020 lb/ton of
                                        equivalent P2O5 feed.
Line with a Submerged Combustion       .......................  2,150 lb/ton of
 Process.                                                        phosphate rock feed.
Phosphate Rock Dryer.................  .......................  0.181 g/dscm...........
Phosphate Rock Calciner..............  9.0E-04 lb/ton of rock   .......................  0.23 mg/dscm corrected
                                        feed d.                                           to 3 percent oxygen.e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The existing source compliance data is June 10, 2002, except as noted.
b During periods of startup and shutdown, for emission limits stated in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of
  feed, you are subject to the work practice standards specified in Sec.   63.602(f).
c Beginning on August 19, 2018, you must include oxidation reactors in superphosphoric acid process lines when
  determining compliance with the total fluorides limit.
d Compliance date is August 19, 2015.
e Compliance date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

[FR Doc. 2020-06930 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


4/ 19/ 05 Information on BART non EGU Source Categories  From Draft BART RIA The 10 BART source categories with SO 2 and NOx controls available are:

industrial boilers ( 250 mmBTU/ hr heat input capacity and greater);

petroleum refineries;

kraft pulp mills;

Portland cement plants;

hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid;

chemical process plants;

iron and steel mills;

coke oven batteries;

sulfur recovery plants; and

primary aluminum ore reductions.

For seven BART source categories only NO x controls are available:

lime kilns,

glass fiber processing plants,

municipal incinerators ( 250 tons refuse burn capacity or greater),

coal cleaning plants ( thermal dryers),

carbon black plants ( furnace process),

phosphate rock processing plants, and

secondary metal production facilities. The remaining eight source categories either have no controls available or no BARTeligible units:

primary lead smelters,

primary copper smelters,

primary zinc smelters,

fuel conversion plants,

sintering plants,

charcoal production facilities,

taconite ore processing plants, and

petroleum storage and transfer facilities. Summary Tables: Baseline SO2 and NOx Emissions and Number of BART Eligible Units from BART Source Categories in 2015 Note: BART source categories are listed in descending order of SO 2 baseline emissions in each of the next two tables. Emissions data is taken from BART emissions TSD ( draft).

SO2 Emissions and Number of BART Eligible Units for BART Source Categories in 2015 BART Source Category Baseline Emissions ( tons) Number of BART Eligible Units Industrial boilers 420,782 89 Petroleum refineries 199,483 42 Kraft pulp mills 119,818 14 Portland cement plants 116,835 18 Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants 96,741 10 Sulfur recovery plants 59,766 2 Chemical process plants 47,700 2 Primary aluminum ore reduction plants 47,552 3 Carbon black plants 41,853 12 Iron and steel mills 23,541 3 Secondary metal production facilities 9,988 0 Coke oven batteries 9,815 0 Glass fiber processing plants 2,170 0 Coal cleaning plants 1,530 0 Municipal incinerators 284 0 Phosphate rock processing plants 21 0 Total: 1,208,088 195 NOx Emissions and Number of BART Eligible Units for BART Source Categories in 2015 BART Source Category Baseline Emissions ( tons) Number of BART Eligible Units Industrial boilers 217,063 924 Petroleum refineries 86,566 457 Kraft pulp mills 103,614 327 Portland cement plants 120,567 78 Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants 17,059 20 Chemical process plants 72,577 138 Iron and steel mills 20,963 80 Coke oven batteries 10,389 18 Sulfur recovery plants 651 3 Primary aluminum ore reduction plants 1,676 15 Lime kilns 12,849 30 Glass fiber processing plants 6,677 27 Municipal incinerators 1,656 4 Coal cleaning plants 1,110 5 Carbon black plants 4,645 2 Phosphate rock processing plants 719 1 Secondary metal production facilities 1,377 3 Total 681,765 2,132 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Tables: For 5 Significant BART non EGU Source Categories ( Significance defined in terms of SO2 baseline emissions from BART eligible sources)

Industrial Boilers

Petroleum Refineries

Kraft Pulp Mills

Portland Cement Plants

Hydrofluoric, Sulfuric, and Nitric Acid Plants

Scenario 1: $ 1,000/ ton average cost cap; Scenario 2: $ 4,000/ ton average cost cap; Scenario 3: $ 10,000/ ton average cost cap Marginal cost is estimated as increment of impact between scenarios. 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for SO2 Control at BART Eligible Industrial Boilers Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 26.0 $ 807 $ 807 3% $ 47.8 $ 727 $ 727 Scenario 2 7% 294.1 1,943 $ 2,250 3% 265.0 1,612 2,202 Scenario 3 7% 610.3 3,047 $ 6,463 3% 504.6 2,471 6,023 Control techonology modeled in scenarios: FGD scrubbers 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for NOx Control at BART Eligible Industrial Boilers Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 48.6 $ 722 $ 722 3% $ 87.2 $ 779 $ 779 Scenario 2 7% 233.5 1,790 $ 2,929 3% 136.8 1,049 2,684 Scenario 3 7% 235.1 1,801 24,242 3% 138.7 1,063 22,840 Control techonology modeled in scenarios: Low NOx burners, SCR 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for SO2 Control at BART Eligible Units at Petroleum Refineries Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 1.9 $ 906 $ 906 3% $ 12.5 $ 736 $ 736 Scenario 2 7% 54.0 1,724 $ 1,783 3% 72.7 1,734 2,417 Scenario 3 7% 223.5 3,958 6,741 3% 167.3 2,858 5,692 Control technology modeled in scenarios: FGD scrubbers 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for NOx Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Petroleum Refineries Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 2.3 $ 570 $ 570 3% $ 2.7 $ 595 $ 595 Scenario 2 7% 126.2 2,654 $ 2,917 3% 142.1 2,772 2,986 Scenario 3 7% 205.1 3,997 20,984 3% 227.6 4,294 48,969 Control techonology modeled in scenarios: low NOx burners + SNCR 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for SO2 Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Kraft Pulp Mills Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 0.0 $ 0 $ 0 3% $ 0.0 $ 0 $ 0 Scenario 2 7% 33.5 3,098 $ 3,098 3% 7.0 2,189 2,189 Scenario 3 7% 161.5 5,691 7,287 3% 69.0 4,720 5,432 Control techonology modeled in scenarios: FGD scrubbers 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for NOx Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Kraft Pulp Mills Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Cost ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 20.7 $ 587 $ 587 3% $ 45.6 $ 849 $ 849 Scenario 2 7% 108.2 1,762 $ 3,344 3% 99.3 1,510 4,452 Scenario 3 7% 151.8 2,308 10,005 3% 99.5 1,512 35,800 Control techonology modeled in scenarios: SCR 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for SO2 Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Portland Cement Plants Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 0.0 $ 0   3% $ 0.0 $ 0   Scenario 2 7% 43.5 3,250 $ 3,250 3% 49.7 2,710 2,710 Scenario 3 7% 134.4 5,031 6,818 3% 126.8 4,131 6,816 Control techonology modeled in scenarios: FGD scrubbers 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for NOx Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Portland Cement Plants Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Cost ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 2.9 $ 150   3% $ 20.8 $ 674   Scenario 2 7% 131.2 2,403 $ 3,632 3% 219.3 3,050 4,839 Scenario 3 7% 275.1 3,825 7,731 3% 219.3 3,050 N/ A Control techonology modeled in scenarios: Mid kiln firing, SNCR, SCR 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for SO2 Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Hydrofluoric, Sulfuric, and Nitric Acid Plants Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 9.8 $ 287   3% $ 9.1 $ 268   Scenario 2 7% 15.2 413 $ 2,067 3% 14.1 385 1,914 Scenario 3 7% 15.2 413 N/ A 3% 14.1 385 N/ A Control techonology modeled in scenarios: increase sulfur conversion to meet sulfuric acid NSPS 2015 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results for NOx Control at Non EGU BART Eligible Units at Hydrofluoric, Sulfuric, and Nitric Acid Plants Illustrative Scenarios Discount Rate Total Annualized Costs ( million 1999$) Annualized Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Marginal Costs ($/ ton)

Scenario 1 7% $ 8.2 $ 726   3% $ 7.3 $ 646   Scenario 2 7% 8.2 728 $ 4,428 3% 7.3 647 2,157 Scenario 3 7% 8.2 728 N/ A 3% 7.3 647 N/ A Control techonology modeled in scenarios: SNCR on nitric acid units


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 24, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-6718

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AERO SERVICIOS REGIOMONTANOS, S.A. de C.V.
                 Date Filed: April 8, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  April 8, 2002

Applicant representative(s):  Eugene E. Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
              Action date:  April 24, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  April 24, 2003, through April 24,
2004.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20348-20349]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10615-056]

Tower Kleber Limited Partnership; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 10615-056.
    c. Date Filed: March 11, 2019.
    d. Submitted by: Tower Kleber Limited Partnership.
    e. Name of Project: Tower and Kleber Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Black River in the Forest and Waverly Townships
of Cheboygan County, Michigan. The project does not occupy federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Tiffany Heon, Environmental
Officer/FERC Relicensing Project Manager, Tower Kleber Limited
Partnership, 764 Lexington Cr., Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7B 7B8;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Lee Emery at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Tower Kleber Limited Partnership filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on March 11, 2019. Tower Kleber Limited
Partnership provided public notice of its request on February 28, 2019
and March 1, 2019.

In a letter dated May 2, 2019, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Tower Kleber Limited Partnership's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402. We are also initiating consultation
with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Tower Kleber Limited
Partnership as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying
out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Tower Kleber Limited Partnership filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 10615. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by May 2, 2022.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09488 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P