[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34024-34025]
[FR Doc No: E9-16702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0372] (Formerly Docket No. 2007D-0388)

Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding Adverse
Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as Required
by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection
Act; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance document entitled ``Questions and Answers
Regarding Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary
Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription
Drug Consumer Protection Act.'' The document provides guidance to the
dietary supplement industry for complying with the serious adverse
event reporting and recordkeeping requirements prescribed for dietary
supplement manufacturers, packers, and distributors by the Dietary
Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (the
DSNDCPA). Separate guidance, issued by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, on reporting for nonprescription (over-the-counter (OTC))
human drugs marketed without an approved application, is announced
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the guidance at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written requests
for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Nutrition, Labeling,
and Dietary Supplements (HFS-800), Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.,
College Park, MD 20750. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to
assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vasilios Frankos,Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-810), Food and Drug
Administration,5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-
436-2375.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of October 15, 2007 (72 FR 58313), FDA
announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Questions and
Answers Regarding Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary
Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription
Drug Consumer Protection Act'' and gave interested parties an
opportunity to submit comments by December 14, 2007. The agency
reviewed and evaluated these comments and has modified the guidance
where appropriate.
    The guidance contains questions and answers relating to the new
requirements under the DSNDCPA, concerning the mandatory reporting to
FDA of serious adverse events associated with dietary supplements, the
minimum data elements to be submitted in such reports, and records of
serious and non-serious adverse events reported to a dietary supplement
manufacturer, packer, or distributor.
    FDA is issuing this guidance as level 1 guidance consistent with
FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance
represents the

agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternate approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB
control no. 0910-0635.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding the guidance.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 8, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-16702 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 96 (Thursday, May 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27350-27353]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10518]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0265; FRL-10024-16-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Massachusetts; 111(d)/129 Revised State Plan
for Large Municipal Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Clean Air Act State Plan revisions for Large Municipal
Waste Combustors (MWC) submitted by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on December 18, 2018. The revised
State Plan is in response to amended emission guidelines (EGs) for
Large MWCs promulgated on May 10, 2006. MassDEP's State Plan is for
implementing and enforcing provisions at least as protective as the EGs
applicable to existing Large MWC. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2021-0265 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shutsu Wong, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail Code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is a State Plan?
II. Why does EPA need to approve State Plans?
III. Why does EPA regulate air emissions from MWCs?
IV. What history does MassDEP have with MWC State Plans?
V. Why did MassDEP revise the MWC State Plan?
VI. What revisions have been made to the State Plan?
    A. Inventory of Sources
    B. Emissions Limits
    C. Operating Practices
    D. Compliance and Performance Testing
    E. Training and Certification
    F. Reporting and Recordkeeping
VII. Why is EPA proposing to approve MassDEP's revised State Plan?
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Incorporation by Reference
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is a State Plan?

    Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires pollutants
controlled under new source performance standards (NSPS) also be
controlled at existing sources in the same source category. Once an
NSPS is issued, EPA then publishes emission guidelines (EGs) applicable
to the control of the same pollutant for existing (designated)
facilities. States with designated facilities must develop state plans
to adopt the EGs into their body of regulations. States must also
include in their state plans other elements, such as legal authority,
inventories, and public participation documentation to demonstrate
their ability to enforce the state plans.

II. Why does EPA need to approve State Plans?

    Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit state plans
to EPA for approval. Each state must show that its state plan will
carry out and enforce the EGs. State plans must be at least as
protective as the EGs and will become federally enforceable upon EPA's
approval. The procedures for adopting and submitting state plans are in
40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

III. Why does EPA regulate air emissions from MWCs?

    EPA is required to regulate air emissions from MWCs under sections
111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. When burned, municipal solid
wastes emit various air pollutants, including hydrochloric acid,
dioxin/furan, toxic metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury) and particulate
matter. Mercury is highly hazardous and is of particular concern
because it persists in the environment and bioaccumulates through the
food web. Serious human health effects, primarily to the nervous
system, have been associated with exposures to mercury. Harmful effects
in wildlife have also been reported; these include nervous system
damage and behavioral and reproductive deficits. Human and wildlife
exposure to mercury occur mainly through eating of fish. When inhaled,
mercury vapor attacks the lung tissue and is a cumulative poison.
Short-term exposure to mercury in certain forms can cause
hallucinations and impair consciousness. Long-term exposure to mercury
in certain forms can affect the central nervous system and cause kidney
damage.
    Exposure to particulate matter can aggravate existing respiratory
and cardiovascular disease and increase risk of premature death.
Hydrochloric acid is a clear colorless gas. Chronic exposure to
hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause gastritis, chronic
bronchitis, dermatitis, and photosensitization. Acute exposure to high
levels of chlorine in humans may result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic
pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and death. At lower levels, chlorine is a
potent irritant to the eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and lungs.
    Exposure to dioxin and furan can cause skin disorders, cancer, and
reproductive effects such as endometriosis. These pollutants can also
affect the immune system.

IV. What history does MassDEP have with MWC State Plans?

    On January 11, 1999, MassDEP submitted a section 111(d)/129 State
Plan for implementing and enforcing EGs for existing Large Municipal
Waste Combustors (MWCs) pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. On
November 16, 2001, MassDEP submitted minor revisions for inclusion in
its MWC State Plan. EPA approved that State Plan on October 9, 2002 (67
FR 62896).

V. Why did MassDEP revise the MWC State Plan?

    Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a 5-year
review of NSPS and EGs for solid waste incinerators and to amend
standards and requirements as appropriate. Accordingly, EPA promulgated
amended standards and requirements for Large MWCs on May 10, 2006 (71
FR 27324). This rulemaking included revised limits for dioxin/furan
(only for units equipped with electrostatic precipitators), mercury,
cadmium, lead, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides (for some types
of units). It also contained revisions to the compliance testing
provisions to require increased data availability from continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). CEMS are required to generate at
least ninety-five percent (95%) data availability on a calendar

year basis and at least ninety percent (90%) data availability on a
calendar quarter basis. The compliance testing provisions have also
been revised to allow the optional use of CEMS to monitor particulate
matter and mercury. Other revisions include:
     Operator stand-in provisions to clarify how long a shift
supervisor is allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified
control room operator is standing in;
     An eight-hour block average for measuring activated carbon
injection rate;
     A provision for waiver of operating parameter limits
during the mercury performance test and for two weeks preceding the
test, as is already allowed for dioxin testing;
     A revision to relative accuracy criteria for sulfur
dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS;
     Flexibility to the annual compliance testing schedule so
that a facility tests once per calendar year, but no less than nine
months and no more than 15 months since the previous test;
     Allowing use of parametric monitoring limits from an
exceptionally well-operated MWC unit to be applied to all identical
units at the same plant site without retesting for dioxin;
     The option of monitoring the activated carbon injection
pressure or equivalent parameter; and
     Clarifying the exclusion of monitoring data from
compliance calculations.
    In response to the amended EGs, MassDEP revised the Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), specifically at 310 CMR 7.08(2)
entitled ``Municipal Waste Combustors,'' effective March 9, 2018, and
submitted the revised State Plan to EPA on December 18, 2018.\1\ The
submittal only addresses those portions of the State Plan that have
been updated since EPA's October 9, 2002 approval.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MassDEP's State Plan package included other amendments that
were submitted for approval under the state's Clean Air Act section
110 State Implementation Plan. For instance, on October 15, 2020,
EPA approved revisions to the Massachusetts State Implementation
Plan which set reasonable achievable control technology standards
for NOx emissions at municipal waste combustors. See 85 FR 65236. In
this action, EPA is only taking action on the revisions relevant to
the Clean Air Act sections 111(d)/129 State Plan revisions.
    \2\ The site assignment provisions of 310 CMR 7.08(2)(a), the
definition of ``materials separation plan'' at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(c),
and the materials separation plan provisions at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(f)8
were excluded in earlier State Plan approvals and continue to be
excluded in this revision. MassDEP provided a letter clarifying this
exclusion on March 19, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What revisions have been made to the State Plan?

    MassDEP revised the State Plan to incorporate changes to the state
inventory of sources and to amend the state regulations that serve as
the State Plan's enforceable mechanism. MassDEP revised the state MWC
regulations at 310 CMR 7.08(2) and submitted the revised State Plan to
EPA on December 18, 2018. Revisions to the MWC regulations address the
list of sources, emissions standards, operating practices, compliance
and performance testing, operator training and certification, and
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

A. Inventory of Sources

    MassDEP removed the closed Fall River MWC from the list of existing
Massachusetts MWC facilities subject to the MWC State Plan. The
facility ceased operation in June 1999.

B. Emission Limits

    The emission limits for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, and
dioxin/furan with electrostatic precipitator at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(f)2.
are revised to be consistent with EPA's May 2006 EGs for Large MWCs at
40 CFR 60.33b. The annual Massachusetts mercury emission limit is
already more stringent than the federal EGs and therefore is not
revised. The carbon monoxide emission limit for Mass Burn Refractory
MWCs is removed from Table 1 at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(f)2. to reflect the
municipal waste combustor technology that is employed at existing large
MWCs in Massachusetts. The nitrogen oxides emission limits in
7.08(2)(f)3. are revised to be more stringent than the federal EGs as
of March 10, 2020. The nitrogen oxide emission limits for facilities
electing to implement a nitrogen oxides emissions averaging plan for
multiple units located at the same municipal waste combustor plant, at
7.08(2)(f)4. are revised to be more stringent than the federal EGs.

C. Operating Practices

    Operating practices under 310 CMR 7.08(2)(f)1.b. are revised to be
consistent with 40 CFR 60.58b(m)(2)(i) to clarify requirements for
combustor load and particulate matter control device operating
parameters preceding and during quarterly or nine-month mercury
compliance testing, and to clarify requirements for average carbon feed
rate limits during mercury and dioxin/furan testing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 60.38b(a) of subpart Cb incorporates the performance
testing methods listed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb, section
60.58b, as minimum state plan requirements for existing sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Compliance and Performance Testing

    Provisions of 40 CFR 60.58b, ``Compliance and Performance
Testing,'' are incorporated by reference into 310 CMR 7.08(2)(g). In
addition, references are revised to reflect the latest EGs amendment
date of May 10, 2006.
    Procedures for measurement and calculation of the eight-hour block
average carbon (or equivalent) usage rate in 310 CMR 7.08(2)(g)1.d. and
(h)4.e. are revised, and 310 CMR 7.08(2)(g)3.d. is added for municipal
waste combustor units where carbon injection (or its equivalent) is
used to comply with the dioxin/furan and mercury emission limits, as
required in 40 CFR 60.58b(m) and (d)(2)(xi). Provisions are
incorporated from the EGs at 40 CFR 60.58b(g)(10) and (d)(4) for
elective use of continuous automated sampling or emissions monitoring
for dioxin/furan and mercury emissions, at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(g)1.e. and
2. Provisions from the EGs at 40 CFR 60.58b(c)(10), (d)(3) and (f)(8)
are also incorporated for the elective use of continuous emissions
monitoring of particulate matter, cadmium, lead and hydrogen chloride
at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(g)7., 8., and 9. Provisions at 310 CMR
7.08(2)(g)5.a. are deleted as unnecessary due to the revised more
stringent EPA emissions data capture requirements in the amended EGs.
The limited waiver from the mercury emission limit at 310 CMR
7.08(2)(g)4 is deleted from the State Plan because the time by which an
MWC could have applied for a limited waiver has passed, and the
provision is no longer applicable. Requirements in 310 CMR 7.08(2)(j)1.
and 6. for emission control plan submissions are updated with new
submission deadlines and requirements, including new or amended
applicable requirements of the revised State Plan. The schedule for
compliance in 310 CMR 7.08(2)(k) is updated with new dates based on
promulgation of the State Plan on March 9, 2018.

E. Training and Certification

    Operator training and certification requirements in 310 CMR
7.08(2)(f)6.b., (h)11., (i)1., and (i)1.h. are revised to incorporate
requirements in EPA's May 2006 EG revisions at 40 CFR 60.54b(c)(2).\4\
Revisions address the specific requirements associated with occasions
when control room operators provisionally certified under the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers WRO-1 Standard for the
Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators
may perform duties ordinarily restricted to QRO certified operators and
shift supervisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 60.39b(c)(4) of subpart Cb incorporates the operator
training and certification requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Eb, section 60.54b as minimum state plan requirements for existing
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Reporting and Recordkeeping

    Recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(h) and
(i) are amended to incorporate the requirements of EPA's May 2006 EGs
at 40 CFR 60.59b(d), (g) and (h) by reference.\5\ Revised requirements
cover average emissions concentrations, highest levels records,
exceedances, instances of insufficient data, excluded data, test
results, accuracy determinations, sampling systems quality evaluations,
details of when a certified operator is temporarily off site, and
optional use of continuous monitoring and continuous automated
sampling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 60.39b(a) of subpart Cb incorporates the reporting
and recordkeeping provisions listed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb,
section 60.59b, as minimum state plan requirements for existing
sources (except for the siting requirements under sections
60.59b(a), (b)(5), and (d)(11)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Why is EPA proposing to approve MassDEP's revised State Plan?

    EPA has evaluated the MWC State Plan submitted by MassDEP for
consistency with the Act, the May 2006 EGs, and EPA guidelines and
policy. EPA has determined that MassDEP's State Plan that was submitted
on December 18, 2018 meets all requirements and, therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve MassDEP's Plan to implement and enforce the EGs,
as they apply to existing Large MWCs.
    EPA's proposal to approve MassDEP's State Plan is based on our
findings that:
    (1) MassDEP provided adequate public notice of public hearings for
the proposed rule-making, which allows Massachusetts to carry out and
enforce provisions that are at least as protective as the EGs for Large
MWCs, and
    (2) MassDEP demonstrated its legal authority to: Adopt emission
standards and compliance schedules applicable to the designated
facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and
compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information
necessary to determine compliance; require record keeping; conduct
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly
available.

VIII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the MassDEP's revised State Plan for
existing Large MWCs. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IX. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions of 310 CMR 7.08(2), entitled ``Municipal Waste
Combustors,'' effective March 9, 2018, excluding the site assignment
provisions of 310 CMR 7.08(2)(a), the definition of ``materials
separation plan'' at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(c), and the materials separation
plan provisions at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(f)8. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
State Plan submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and
129(b); 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
A; and 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the State Plan is not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: May 13, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-10518 Filed 5-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 19042]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-98-000.
    Applicants: The NRG Companies.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Buckthorn Westex, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170418-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2633-032; ER10-2570-032; ER10-2717-032; ER10-
3140-032.
    Applicants: Birchwood Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power
Company, L.L.C., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE
Companies.
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5301.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1470-008.
    Applicants: Energia Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170418-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1217-000.
    Applicants: Total Gas & Power North America, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to March 16, 2017 Total Gas & Power North
America, Inc. tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 4/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170418-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1394-000.
    Applicants: 83WI 8me, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to April 7, 2017 83WI 8me, LLC tariff
filing (Substitute Market Power Screen Attachments).
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5334.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1429-000.
    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Monongahela submits
Operating and Interconnection Agreement No. 4673 with ODEC to be
effective 4/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170418-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1430-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Compliance Filing in
Docket No. ER17-335-001 to be effective 1/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170418-5289.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH17-13-000.
    Applicants: ArcLight Capital Holdings, LLC.
    Description: ArcLight Capital Holdings, LLC submits FERC 65-A
Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 4/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170417-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 18, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08262 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 29, 2002

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-7552

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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).

Application of      American Airlines, Inc.       filed   5/10/02  for:

XX  Renew exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States, and a point or points in
Pakistan.  American intends to operate this service pursuant to a
code-share arrangement with Crossair Ltd. d/b/a/ Swiss, whereby American
will place its designator code on Swiss’ flights between Zurich and
Karachi connecting with flights operated by American or Swissair between
Zurich and the United States.

Applicant rep:  Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted  (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   May 29, 2002, through   May
29,  2004

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the April 10, 1997 Air
Transport Agreement, as amended between the United States and Pakistan.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	     XX  Statement of authorization approving American/Swiss code-share
operations dated

	             April 23, 2002, and conditions therein

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

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) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) 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, 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.

(See Reverse Side)

2

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

 Previously American operated its U.S.-Pakistan service pursuant to a
code-share arrangement with Swissair.  American notified the Department
on November 8, 2001, that the American/Swissair code share had been
terminated.


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION
TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: [Janet Whitehurst,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

Valent U.S.A. Company

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([9F7568]) from Valent U.S.A.
Company, 1600 Riviera Ave., Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025 proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a
tolerance for residues of 2,6-Dichlorobenzamide (BAM) in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities: Cattle, fat; Cattle, meat
byproducts; Goat, fat; Goat meat byproducts; Horse, fat; Horse meat
byproducts; Sheep, fat; and Sheep, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm, Cattle,
meat; Goat, meat; Horse, meat; Sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, and Milk at 0.01
ppm.

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
 Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A.  Residue Chemistry

Plant Metabolism.

BAM is a metabolite and/or environmental degradate of the pesticidal
active ingredients fluopicolide and dichlobenil. BAM is included in the
tolerance expression for dichlobenil because it is a major
metabolite/degradate of dichlobenil in primary crops. BAM is a minor
metabolite of fluopicolide and is included in the tolerance expression
for fluopicolide in primary crops. The Fluopicolide Risk Assessment Team
has concluded that tolerance expression in livestock should include the
metabolite, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM) only.

The metabolism of BAM in both plants and animals is adequately
understood for the purposes of granting the proposed tolerance.
Fluopicolide is metabolized slowly to 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM; AE
C653711) and 3-chloro-5-trifluoromethylpyridine-2-carboxylic acid (PCA;
AE C657188), via cleavage of the bond between the carbon attached to the
pyridine ring and the amide nitrogen of the parent compound, and to
2,6-dichloro-N-[(3-chloro-5-trifluoromethylpyridin-2-yl)methyl]-3-hydrox
ybenzamide (AE C643890) via hydroxylation of the phenyl ring in the
parent compound. Based on the results of the soil drench applications in
lettuce, fluopicolide is metabolized in soil to BAM, which is then taken
up by the plant.

Analytical Method.

A practical analytical method utilizing liquid chromatography and mass
spectrometry detection that is validated for detecting and measuring
levels of fluopicolide and BAM in animal matrices has been submitted. A
confirmation method for milk, with a limit of quantitation of 0.002 ppm,
has also been developed and is being submitted as part of this petition.

Magnitude of Residues.

Residue data has been submitted which adequately support the requested
tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

The EPA has assessed the BAM toxicological profile as well as the
no-observed-adverse effect-level (NOAEL) and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
in the following assessment which can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/"  http://www.regulations.gov :

2,6-Dichlorobenzamide (BAM); 2,6-Dichlorobenzamide (BAM) as a
Metabolite/Degradate of Fluopicolide and Dichlobenil.  Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses of Rhubarb, Dichlobenil on Caneberries
(Subgroup 13-07A), and Bushberries (Subgroup 13-07B), Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0604.

C. Aggregate Exposure

The aggregate exposure to BAM following treatment with dichlobenil
and/or fluopicolide in all currently registered food/feed uses has
previously been assessed by the EPA (see FR Vol. 73, No. 167, Wednesday,
August 27, 2008, p. 50563 or docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0604 for the most
current assessment).

The previous risk assessments on BAM, however, did not include the
potential dietary (food) contribution of BAM residues in potato, rotated
wheat, or in animal tissue commodities (i.e. meat/milk).  Therefore, the
incremental additional dietary risk from these potential food residues
was assessed using the Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System
(CARES).

The assessment was conducted using BAM toxicology endpoints previously
identified by the EPA.  For acute exposure scenarios involving the
general population or subpopulations except females age 13-49, an
endpoint (NOAEL) of 100 mg/kg was utilized.  Acute exposure scenarios
for females (ages 13-49) utilized an endpoint (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg/day.
Chronic exposure scenarios for all population subgroups utilized a
toxicology endpoint of 4.5 mg/kg/day.  An additional 10X FQPA safety
factor was incorporated for all scenarios.

Exposure to BAM via non-food sources (i.e. water, residential) was not
assessed as these routes have already been included in previous
assessments and are not expected to change from the current tolerance
setting action.

Dietary exposure estimates were based on proposed tolerance values,
default or experimentally determined processing factors, and 100% crop
treated.  The proposed tolerance values for the commodities assessed are
as follows:

	Potato: 			0.01 ppm

	Wheat flour/grain:		0.02 ppm

	Wheat bran/germ:		0.04 ppm

	Meat:				0.02 ppm

	Meat/fat:			0.05 ppm

	Milk:				0.01 ppm

The resulting highly conservative exposure estimates were compared
against the applicable BAM endpoints discussed above.  For acute
exposure scenarios, the analysis shows that the MOE’s for the general
population and for all subgroups, all greatly exceed the Agency’s
level of concern of 1000.  Similarly, chronic exposure to the general
population and all subgroups exceed the Agency’s level of concern of
1000.

D. Cumulative Effects

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity”.  EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether BAM has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances or how to include this compound in a
cumulative risk assessment.  For the purposes of this tolerance action,
EPA has not assumed that BAM has a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances.

E. Safety Determination

U.S. population.  Valent USA concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population (or any
subpopulation) by including the incremental additional exposure
resulting from the proposed new BAM tolerances.

2. Infants and children.  Valent USA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
(or any subpopulation) by including the incremental additional exposure
resulting from the proposed new BAM tolerances.

F. International Tolerances

There are no CODEX tolerances for residues of BAM.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 215 (Thursday, November 5, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70487-70494]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741; FRL-10015-72-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU53

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
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 electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ADI Applicability Determination Index
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA U.S. Environnemental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFLA percent full load amperage
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPM revolutions per minute
SDT smelt dissolving tank
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On October 31, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at
Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills (40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM) and the NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills Constructed,
Reconstructed, or Modified After May 23, 2013 (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa) clarifying how to set operating limits for SDT scrubbers used at
these mills and correcting cross-reference errors in both rules. The
rules have similar requirements for setting operating limits for SDT
scrubbers, therefore, similar revisions were proposed for both rules.
See 84 FR 58356. In this action, the EPA is finalizing the proposed
revisions with minor edits. The preamble includes a summary of the
comments the EPA received and our responses resulting in improvements
to the proposed rule. A summary of all public comments on the proposal
and the EPA's specific responses to those comments is provided in the
memorandum, ``Response to Comments to Proposed Rule Amending 40 CFR
part 63 Subpart MM and 40 CFR part 60 Subpart BBa,'' included in the
docket for this action. Redline versions of the regulatory language for
40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa showing the
final amendments resulting from this action and are also available in
the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

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. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Final Amendments

    A. What are the final amendments to the NESHAP?
    B. What are the final amendments to the NSPS?
III. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
IV. 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 Regulations 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
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

               Table 1--Regulations and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Source category                       Name of action                      NAICS \1\ code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp and Paper Production...............  Chemical Recovery Combustion     32211, 32212, 32213
                                           Sources at Kraft, Soda,
                                           Sulfite, and Stand-Alone
                                           Semichemical Pulp Mills (40
                                           CFR part 63, subpart MM).
Kraft Pulp Mills........................  Standards of Performance for     322110
                                           Kraft Pulp Mill Affected
                                           Sources for Which
                                           Construction, Reconstruction,
                                           or Modification Commenced
                                           After May 23, 2013 (40 CFR
                                           part 60, subpart BBa).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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 the action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-stand-alone-semichemical-pulp-mills-mact-ii and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/kraft-pulp-mills-new-source-performance-standards-nsps-40-cfr-60. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the
final rule at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this action is available only by filing a petition for review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the court) by January 4, 2021. 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 the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460.

II. Final Amendments

    With this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NESHAP
for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills (referred to hereafter as ``the
NESHAP'') and the NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills constructed, reconstructed,
or modified after May 23, 2013 (referred to hereafter as ``the NSPS'').
The amendments (referred to hereafter as the ``2019 proposed
amendments'') were proposed on October 31, 2019 (84 FR 58356) to
clarify how to set operating limits for SDT scrubbers used at these
mills and correct cross-reference errors in both

rules. As explained in this section, clarification was needed to
address parameter monitoring issues that arose during implementation of
the 2017 amendments to the NESHAP (referred to hereafter as the ``2017
NESHAP amendments'') as a result of the Agency's residual risk and
technology review. See 82 FR 47328, October 11, 2017.

A. What are the final amendments to the NESHAP?

1. Alternative To Monitoring Pressure Drop for Certain SDT Scrubbers
    The 2017 NESHAP amendments added fan amperage \1\ to 40 CFR
63.864(e)(10)(iii) as an alternative to monitoring pressure drop for
SDT dynamic scrubbers that operate at ambient pressure and low-energy
entrainment scrubbers where the fan speed does not vary. Fan amperage
was added as an alternative monitoring parameter based on the EPA's
review of alternative monitoring requests for these types of SDT
scrubbers available in the EPA's Applicability Determination Index
(ADI) (81 FR 97074, December 30, 2016). In these previously approved
alternative monitoring requests, the EPA acknowledged that pressure
drop is not the best indicator of particulate matter (PM)/hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) control device performance when the SDT scrubber is a
low-energy entrainment scrubber or a dynamic scrubber that operates
near atmospheric pressure. Low-energy entrainment scrubbers use the
rotation of the fan blade to shatter the scrubbing liquid into fine
droplets, while at the same time accelerating the particles into the
airstream. The PM removal efficiency of these scrubbers is a function
of the number of liquid droplets produced (to create a large contacting
surface area) and the velocity of the PM imparted by the fan blade,
which in turn, are functions of the amount of scrubbing liquid
introduced and the tip speed of the fan blade. Therefore, the most
important parameters to continuously monitor are the scrubbing liquid
flow rate and the fan rotational speed (as indicated by the amperage of
the fan motor or revolutions per minute (RPM)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition to adding fan amperage as a monitoring parameter, the
2017 NESHAP amendments also specified a method in 40 CFR
63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) for setting the fan motor amperage operating limit,
requiring that the minimum fan amperage operating limit be set as the
lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated with each
run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit. The
intent of establishing the operating limit as the lowest 1-hour average
fan amperage was to demonstrate that the scrubber was operating as
intended and removing HAP accordingly, because fan amperage values can
be correlated with fan speed. This seemed reasonable during the
development of the 2017 NESHAP amendments because the fans on these
units are constant speed fans and changes in the load to the fan motor
(e.g., changes in gas density/pressure or fan belt issues) result in
changes in the amperage needed to maintain the constant speed. For
example, a scrubber operating without any scrubbing liquid or exhaust
gas would pull a certain amount of amperage on the fan motor to
maintain a constant speed. When the exhaust gas and scrubbing liquid
are added, the fan motor amperage will increase to maintain that speed.
Based on this concept, the basis for the fan motor amperage operating
limit in the 2017 NESHAP amendments was that a drop in fan motor
amperage below a certain point showed that the motor would no longer
turn the fan properly (because, for example, the belt that connects the
motor to the fan was slipping or broken), which in turn would mean the
scrubber was not operating as well as it was during the emissions
performance test.
    As facilities began to plan their repeat performance test required
by the 2017 NESHAP amendments and determine the appropriate operating
parameters, they discovered that the method dictated to set the fan
motor amperage did not accurately represent proper scrubber performance
and submitted alternative monitoring requests. The alternative
monitoring requests that EPA received explained that setting the fan
amperage operating limit as outlined in the 2017 NESHAP amendments at
40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could result in a minimum limit that does not
correlate with scrubber emissions-reduction performance and cannot be
achieved at all times, leading to deviations of the amperage operating
parameter even when the fan is turning as designed and the scrubber is
operating properly to achieve the required HAP reduction. More details
on these alternative monitoring requests were provided in the
memorandum titled, Smelt Dissolving Tank Scrubber Operating Parameter
Review, in the docket for the 2019 proposed amendments (EPA Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741-0277).
    As explained in the preamble to the 2019 proposed amendments, after
reviewing how the SDT scrubbers in question operate, the EPA agrees
that use of the average fan motor amperage measured during the
performance test to establish the fan amperage limit as dictated in 40
CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) of the 2017 NESHAP amendments can be problematic
because it does not necessarily correlate with proper operation of the
scrubber. The EPA's intent with adding the fan motor amperage
alternative as part of the 2017 NESHAP amendments was to add regulatory
flexibility while ensuring proper scrubber operation, not to
arbitrarily set an operating limit that may not be met, even while the
SDT scrubber is operating properly. The requirement for determining the
fan motor amperage during the performance test to set the minimum limit
was included in the 2017 NESHAP amendments (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM)
which apply to new and existing sources (see 82 FR 47328, October 11,
2017) and in the NSPS promulgated in 2014 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa)
which applies to new sources only (see 79 FR 18952, April 4, 2014). The
issue was not identified in public comments on either rule but was
discovered as existing sources began to implement the 2017 NESHAP
amendments.
    Upon further review of the EPA's responses to historical
alternative monitoring requests included in the ADI, recent requests
for alternative monitoring, and other available information, we
recognize that the requirement to monitor fan amperage directly and
establish a minimum fan amperage limit based on the average amperage
measured during the performance test may result in deviations even when
the scrubber is properly operating. Some facilities were approved by
the EPA to use indicators of fan operation closely related to fan
amperage (e.g., RPM) and engineering design considerations when setting
the site-specific fan amperage limit indicative of proper scrubber
operation. For more details, see the memorandum titled Smelt Dissolving
Tank Scrubber Operating Parameter Review, in the docket for the 2019
proposed amendments (EPA Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741-0277).
    To continue with our original intent to measure scrubber
performance with an alternative method in these rules, the EPA proposed
this rule to modify the language at 40 CFR 63.864(e)(10)(iii) and
(j)(5)(i) to clarify how wet scrubber parameter limits are to be
established and that fan amperage or RPM can be used to demonstrate
compliance for the

SDT scrubbers in question. Specifically, the EPA proposed to replace 40
CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) with a requirement to set the minimum scrubbing
liquid flow rate operating limit as the lowest of the 1-hour average
scrubbing liquid flow rate values associated with each test run
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit. This
requirement was inadvertently left out of the 2017 NESHAP amendments
but was required by other sections of the rule. Additionally, we
proposed to add a new subsection, 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B), to clarify
how wet scrubber fan amperage operating limits should be established.
    The proposed text in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B) included the same
requirement that was previously in the 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)
introductory paragraph, which stated that the scrubber pressure drop
operating limit must be set as the lowest of the 1-hour average
pressure drop values associated with each test run demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limit, but also added that for
dynamic or low-energy entrainment scrubbers, operating limits could be
set using one of three methods specified in paragraphs 40 CFR
63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(1) through (3).
     In 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(1), the EPA proposed to
clarify that, for SDT dynamic wet scrubbers operating at ambient
pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where fan speed does
not vary, the minimum fan amperage operating limit must be set as the
midpoint between the lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values
associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit and the no-load amperage value. Additionally,
the proposed regulatory text specified that the no-load amperage value
must be determined using manufacturers specifications or by performing
a no-load test of the fan motor, and that it must be verified that the
scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the design RPM during the
emissions performance test. A definition of ``no-load fan amperage''
was proposed in 40 CFR 63.861.
     In 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(2), the EPA proposed to allow
use of percent full load amperage (PFLA) to demonstrate compliance and
require that the minimum PFLA to the fan motor be set as the percent of
full load amperage under no-load, plus 10 percent. Because the no-load
value represents the amperage pulled by the motor without a fan belt
(i.e., the fan is not engaged), the additional 10 percent was proposed
to ensure that the belt has not broken, and the fan is engaged during
operation. This new subsection also proposed requiring verification
that the scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the design RPM
during the emissions performance test.
     In 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(3), the EPA proposed to allow
use of RPM to demonstrate compliance and a requirement that the minimum
RPM be set at 95 percent of the design RPM. The EPA also proposed a
conforming amendment in 40 CFR 63.867(c)(3)(iii)(C)(1) to incorporate
this language.
    Commenters on the 2019 proposed amendments supported the proposed
methods for setting minimum operating limits in 40 CFR
63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(1) and (2), except for the requirement to verify
that the scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the design RPM
during the emissions performance test. Commenters strongly opposed the
requirement to verify the design RPM for reasons detailed in the
response-to-comments memorandum, Response to Comments to Proposed Rule
Amending 40 CFR part 63 Subpart MM and 40 CFR part 60 Subpart BBa, in
the docket for this action. In brief, the commenters explained that
facilities monitoring fan amperage may not have instrumentation in
place to monitor fan RPM and may not have the design RPM value
available; that there are safety issues associated with attempting to
obtain a one-time measurement of RPM; and that operating within 5
percent of the design RPM during the emissions performance test is
irrelevant if the performance test shows compliance with the PM
emission limit and fan amperage (which is proportional to RPM) is
monitored. In response to these comments, the requirement to verify
that the scrubber fan is operating within 5 percent of the design RPM
during the emissions performance test was removed from the final rule.
All other requirements in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(1) and (2) were
finalized as proposed.
    One commenter requested that the EPA modify the proposed definition
of ``no load fan amperage'' by adding the following language to the end
of the definition, ``or the coupling to a direct drive fan was
disconnected.'' The phrase was added as requested for the final rule.
    Regarding the proposed 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(2), a commenter
requested clarification on how the minimum PFLA operating limit should
be calculated for an SDT scrubber fan and suggested that the EPA
present an example PLFA calculation in the preamble to the final rule.
In response to this request, we clarified in the final rule that the
PFLA is calculated by dividing the no-load amperage value by the
highest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated with each
test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in
40 CFR 63.862 multiplied by 100 and then adding 10 percent (emphasis
added). We are including the following example of how to calculate the
minimum PFLA. However, we are not including this equation in the final
rule to avoid the need to renumber several subsequent rule equations.

Minimum PFLA = (No-load fan amperage/highest 1-hour average of fan
amperages) x 100% + 10%

Where:
     The no-load fan amperage represents the amperage pulled by
the fan motor when the fan is operating under no-load determined using
manufacturers specifications or by performing a no-load test of the fan
motor.
     The highest 1-hour average of fan amperages is the highest
of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated with each test run
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in 40 CFR
63.862.
    For example, assume Facility ``A'' performs a no-load test of their
SDT scrubber's fan motor by running the motor without the fan belt
attached. The measured fan amperage during the no-load test is 70
amperage. During a performance test of the SDT scrubber, the highest 1-
hour average of the fan amperage values associated with each of the
three test runs demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit is 179 amperage. Using these two amperage values, Facility A
would calculate the PFLA alternative operating parameter limit for
their SDT scrubber fan as follows:

Minimum PFLA = (70/179) x 100% + 10% = 49%

    One commenter addressed the proposed 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(3),
which would require the minimum fan RPM limit to be set as 5 percent
lower than the design RPM. The commenter stated that the EPA should
revise this requirement to be 5 percent lower than the lowest 1-hour
average RPM measured during each test run demonstrating compliance with
the applicable emission limit. The commenter explained that a facility
could have modified the fan motor such that it is no longer operating
at the design RPM, or it could have no documentation of the design RPM,
but it is the performance of the scrubber during the stack test that
matters. In response to this comment, 40 CFR

63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)(3) was finalized by revising it to require that the
minimum RPM be set as 5 percent lower than the lowest 1-hour average
RPM associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit, as requested. The EPA agrees that an
operating limit based on the lowest 1-hour average RPM measured during
each test run (for facilities that measure RPM) is adequate to
demonstrate ongoing operation of the SDT scrubber. The 5-percent margin
suggested by the commenter will allow for variability. The conforming
revisions to 40 CFR 63.867(c)(3)(iii)(C)(1) that acknowledge RPM as an
operating parameter for SDT dynamic or low-energy scrubbers were also
finalized as proposed.
2. Other NESHAP Amendments
    In addition to clarifying how to set SDT fan amperage operating
limits, the EPA also proposed to correct the following cross-reference
errors in the promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM NESHAP:
     An incorrect paragraph reference in the definition of
``modification'' in 40 CFR 63.861;
     An incorrect paragraph reference in 40 CFR
63.864(e)(10)(iii), referring to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(3)(i) instead of 40
CFR 63.864(e)(10)(i) as intended;
     Omission of reference to wet scrubber liquid flow rate in
40 CFR 63.864(j)(5) which specifies how to establish operating limits;
and
     Incorrect paragraph references in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(1),
(3), and (5) which cross-referenced requirements that were proposed (81
FR 97046, December 30, 2016) but not finalized for establishing site-
specific electrostatic precipitator (ESP) operating limits for
secondary voltage and secondary current (or total secondary power) for
each ESP collection field. Instead of finalizing site-specific ESP
operating limits, the EPA finalized a requirement to maintain proper
operation of the ESP's automatic voltage control (82 FR 47328, October
11, 2017), but inadvertently kept the cross-references to the proposed
ESP operating limits in the final rule.
    The EPA did not receive any comments on the first three corrections
noted above and is finalizing these amendments as proposed.
    A comment was received regarding the EPA's proposal to eliminate
the reference to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(1) in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(1), (3), and
(5) which pertain to determination of operating limits. The commenter
stated that the EPA should also eliminate reference to 40 CFR
63.864(e)(2) in these sections because 40 CFR 63.864(e)(2) references
40 CFR 63.864(e)(1). The EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestion and
eliminated the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(2) in 40 CFR
63.864(j)(1), (3), and (5) for the final amendments. 40 CFR
63.864(e)(2) specifies parameter monitoring requirements for kraft or
soda recovery furnaces or lime kilns using an ESP followed by a wet
scrubber. 40 CFR 63.864(e)(2) refers to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(1) to require
facilities to maintain proper ESP automatic voltage control and refers
to 40 CFR 63.864(e)(10) to require facilities to monitor wet scrubber
parameters. While 40 CFR 63.864(j)(1), (3), and (5) no longer reference
40 CFR 63.864(e)(1) and (2), these sections retain the reference to 40
CFR 63.864(e)(10) with respect to wet scrubber operating limits.

B. What are the final amendments to the NSPS?

1. Alternative To Monitoring Pressure Drop for Certain SDT Scrubbers
    The EPA proposed similar amendments to the fan amperage
requirements in the NSPS as discussed in section II.A of this preamble
for consistency between the NESHAP and NSPS that apply to the same
scrubbers. Specifically, NSPS amendments were proposed for 40 CFR
60.284a(b)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(i), (c)(4), and (d)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR
60.287a(b)(4)(i) to add RPM language. As proposed, 40 CFR 60.284a(c)(4)
referred to the procedures for establishing the SDT fan amperage
operating limit in the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B)). A commenter
requested that 40 CFR 60.284a(c)(4) specify how scrubber fan amperage
operating limits should be set rather than referencing 40 CFR
63.864(j)(5)(i)(B) of the NESHAP (as proposed). The commenter noted
that incorporation of the NESHAP reference is inappropriate because it
requires the operating parameter limit to be set based on a performance
test that demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limit in
40 CFR 63.862, not 40 CFR 60.282a. In response to this comment, the EPA
removed the reference to 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B) in 40 CFR
60.284a(c)(4) and replaced it with specific language describing how to
set scrubber fan amperage operating parameter limits. The procedures
added to the NSPS in 40 CFR 60.284a(c)(4) are consistent with the
procedures specified in the NESHAP. The EPA also added the definition
of ``no-load fan amperage'' to 40 CFR 60.281a because the definition is
referenced in the language added in 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(B).
2. Other NSPS Amendments
    The EPA proposed to correct a cross-reference error in the
promulgated Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa).
Specifically, the EPA proposed to amend incorrect paragraph references
in 40 CFR 60.285a(b)(1) and 60.285a(d)(1) intended to cross-reference
the rule's oxygen correction equation. No comments were received on
these changes so the EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed.

III. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

    There are no economic impacts associated with the final amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations 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 Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

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

L. 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
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

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

Subpart BBa--Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected
Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification
Commenced After May 23, 2013

0
2. In Sec.  60.281a, add in alphabetical order the definition for ``No-
load fan amperage'' to read as follows:

Sec.  60.281a   Definitions.

* * * * *
    No-load fan amperage means, for the purposes of this subpart, the
amperage pulled by the fan motor when the fan is operating under no-
load, specifically the amperage value the motor would use if the fan
belt was removed or the coupling to a direct drive fan was
disconnected.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  60.284a, revise paragraphs (b)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(i), (c)(4),
and (d)(4)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.284a   Monitoring of emissions and operations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to pressure drop measurement under
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, a monitoring device for
measurement of fan amperage or revolutions per minute (RPM) may be used
for smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubbers that operate at ambient
pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where the fan speed
does not vary.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Calculate 12-hour block averages from the recorded measurements
of wet scrubber pressure drop (or smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan
amperage or RPM) and liquid flow rate (or liquid supply pressure), as
applicable.
* * * * *
    (4) During the initial performance test required in Sec.  60.285a,
the owner or operator must establish site-specific operating limits for
the monitoring parameters in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this
section by continuously monitoring the parameters and determining the
arithmetic average value of each parameter during the performance test.
The arithmetic

average of the measured values for the three test runs establishes your
minimum site-specific operating limit for each wet scrubber or ESP
parameter (except for smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage or
RPM). For smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage, set the minimum
operating limit using one of the methods in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) or
(ii) of this section. For smelt dissolving tank scrubber RPM, the
minimum RPM must be set as specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this
section. Multiple performance tests may be conducted to establish a
range of parameter values. The owner or operator may establish
replacement operating limits for the monitoring parameters during
subsequent performance tests using the test methods in Sec.  60.285a.
    (i) The minimum fan amperage operating limit must be set as the
midpoint between the lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values
associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  60.282a and the no-load amperage
value. The no-load amperage value must be determined using
manufacturers specifications, or by performing a no-load test of the
fan motor for each smelt dissolving tank scrubber; or
    (ii) The minimum percent full load amperage (PFLA) to the fan motor
must be set as the percent of full load amperage under no-load, plus 10
percent. The PFLA is calculated by dividing the no-load amperage value
by the highest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated
with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec.  60.282a multiplied by 100 and then adding 10
percent. The no-load amperage value must be determined using
manufacturers specifications, or by performing a no-load test of the
fan motor for each smelt dissolving tank scrubber.
    (iii) The minimum RPM must be set as 5 percent lower than the
lowest 1-hour average RPM associated with each test run demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limit.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) All 12-hour block average scrubber pressure drop (or fan
amperage or RPM, if used as an alternative under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)
of this section) measurements below the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing during times when BLS or lime
mud is fired (as applicable), except during startup and shutdown.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  60.285a, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (d)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.285a   Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Method 5 of appendix A-3 of this part must be used to determine
the filterable particulate matter concentration. The sampling time and
sample volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm
(31.8 dscf). Water must be used as the cleanup solvent instead of
acetone in the sample recovery procedure. The particulate concentration
must be corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration according to
Sec.  60.284a(c)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Method 16 of appendix A-6 of this part must be used to
determine the TRS concentration. The TRS concentration must be
corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration using the procedure
in Sec.  60.284a(c)(1)(iii). The sampling time must be at least 3
hours, but no longer than 6 hours.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  60.287a, revise paragraph (b)(4)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.287a   Recordkeeping.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Records of the pressure drop of the gas stream through the
control equipment (or smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage or
RPM), and
* * * * *

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

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

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

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

0
7. In Sec.  63.861, revise the definition for ``Modification'' and add
in alphabetical order the definition for ``No-load fan amperage'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.861   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Modification means, for the purposes of Sec.
63.862(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1), any physical change (excluding any routine part
replacement or maintenance) or operational change that is made to the
air pollution control device that could result in an increase in PM
emissions.
* * * * *
    No-load fan amperage means, for purposes of this subpart, the
amperage pulled by the fan motor when the fan is operating under no-
load, specifically the amperage value the motor would use if the fan
belt was removed or the coupling to a direct drive fan was
disconnected.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  63.864, revise paragraphs (e)(10)(iii), (j)(1), (3), and
(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.864  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to pressure drop measurement under
paragraph (e)(10)(i) of this section, a monitoring device for
measurement of fan amperage or fan revolutions per minute (RPM) may be
used for smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubbers that operate at
ambient pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where the fan
speed does not vary.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) During the initial or periodic performance test required in
Sec.  63.865, the owner or operator of any affected source or process
unit must establish operating limits for the monitoring parameters in
paragraphs (e)(10) through (14) of this section, as appropriate; or
* * * * *
    (3) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit may
establish expanded or replacement operating limits for the monitoring
parameters listed in paragraphs (e)(10) through (14) of this section
and established in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section during
subsequent performance tests using the test methods in Sec.  63.865.
* * * * *
    (5) New, expanded, or replacement operating limits for the
monitoring parameter values listed in paragraphs (e)(10) through (14)
of this section should be determined as described in paragraphs
(j)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit
that uses a wet scrubber must set minimum operating limits as described
in paragraph (j)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Set the minimum scrubbing liquid flow rate operating limit as
the lowest

of the 1-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate values associated with
each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit in Sec.  63.862.
    (B) Set the minimum scrubber pressure drop operating limit as the
lowest of the 1-hour average pressure drop values associated with each
test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in
Sec.  63.862; or for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic wet scrubber
operating at ambient pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers
where fan speed does not vary, set the minimum operating limit using
one of the methods in paragraph (j)(5)(i)(B)(1) through (3) of this
section.
    (1) The minimum fan amperage operating limit must be set as the
midpoint between the lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values
associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.862 and the no-load amperage
value. The no-load amperage value must be determined using
manufacturers specifications, or by performing a no-load test of the
fan motor for each smelt dissolving tank scrubber; or
    (2) The minimum percent full load amperage (PFLA) to the fan motor
must be set as the percent of full load amperage under no-load, plus 10
percent. The PFLA is calculated by dividing the no-load amperage value
by the highest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated
with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.862 multiplied by 100 and then adding 10
percent. The no-load amperage value must be determined using
manufacturers specifications, or by performing a no-load test of the
fan motor for each smelt dissolving tank scrubber; or
    (3) The minimum RPM must be set as 5 percent lower than the lowest
1-hour average RPM associated with each test run demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limit.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  63.867, revise paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.867   Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) The operating limits established during the performance test
for scrubbing liquid flow rate and pressure drop across the scrubber
(or alternatively, fan amperage or RPM if used for smelt dissolving
tank scrubbers).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-22938 Filed 11-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 55060]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0085

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0085; FEMA Form
003-0-1 (formerly 90-146), Immediate Services Program Application.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and includes the actual data
collection instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program--Immediate
Services Program.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0085.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 003-0-1 (formerly 90-146),
Immediate Services Program Application. Please note the form number was
not indicated on the 60-day Federal Register Notice (74 FR 34768, July
17, 2009), as the new form number had not been assigned at that time.
    Abstract: The Crisis Counseling Program includes a specific
disaster program entitled Immediate Services Program (ISP). The
Immediate Services Program provides for funding in response to a State
request for the period immediately following a Presidentially-declared
disaster, and includes community outreach, consultation and public
education, and counseling techniques. State Disaster Mental Health
Coordinators will provide this information for consideration of funding
to provide such services.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 82 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,230 Hours.
    Estimated Cost: There is no annual reporting and recordkeeping cost
associated with this collection.

Daisy Mitchell,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E9-25631 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 23955]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-087, OMB Control No. 3235-0078]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 15c3-3

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the previously
approved collection of information provided for in Rule 15c3-3 (17 CFR
240.15c3-3), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 15c3-3 requires that a broker-dealer that holds customer
securities obtain and maintain possession and control of fully-paid and
excess margin securities they hold for customers. In addition, the Rule
requires that a broker-dealer that holds customer funds make either a
weekly or monthly computation to determine whether certain customer
funds need to be segregated in a special reserve bank account for the
exclusive benefit of the firm's customers. It also requires that a
broker-dealer maintain a written notification from each bank where a
Special Reserve Bank Account is held acknowledging that all assets in
the account are for the exclusive benefit of the broker-dealer's
customers, and to provide written notification to the Commission (and
its designated examining authority) under certain, specified
circumstances. Finally, broker-dealers that sell securities futures
products (``SFP'') to customers must provide certain notifications to
customers and make a record of any changes of account type.
    A broker-dealer required to maintain the Special Reserve Bank
Account prescribed by Rule 15c3-3 must obtain and retain a written
notification from each bank in which it has a Special Reserve Bank
Account to evidence the bank's acknowledgement that assets deposited in
the Account are being held by the bank for the exclusive benefit of the
broker-dealer's customers. In addition, a broker-dealer must
immediately notify the Commission and its designated examining
authority if it fails to make a required deposit to its Special Reserve
Bank Account. Finally, a broker-dealer that effects transactions in
SFPs for customers will also have paperwork burdens to make a record of
each change in account type.
    The Commission staff estimates a total annual time burden of
555,604 hours and an aggregate cost of $1,848,465 to comply with the
rule. These amounts were adjusted after publication of the 60-day
notice to reflect the addition of a previously-omitted information
collection and higher postage costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: May 19, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10617 Filed 5-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P