Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45193 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522; FRL–9968–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT14 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Risk 

and Technology Review 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; notification of final 

action on reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories. These 

final amendments are in response to two 

petitions for reconsideration filed by 

industry stakeholders on the rule 

revisions to the NESHAP for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

categories that were promulgated on 

August 19, 2015. We are revising the 

compliance date by which affected 

sources must include emissions from 

oxidation reactors when determining 

compliance with the total fluoride 

emission limits for superphosphoric 

acid (SPA) process lines. In addition, we 

are revising the compliance date for the 

monitoring requirements for low-energy 

absorbers. We are also clarifying one 

option and adding a new option, to the 

monitoring requirements for low-energy 

absorbers. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 28, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through https://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (Mail Code D243– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–5167; email address: 

fairchild.susan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms 

and Abbreviations. A number of 

acronyms and abbreviations are used in 

this preamble. While this may not be an 

exhaustive list, to ease the reading of 

this preamble and for reference 

purposes, the following terms and 

acronyms are defined: 

AMP Alternative monitoring plan 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

MACT Maximum achievable control 

technology 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP National emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RTR Risk and technology review 

SPA Superphosphoric acid 

TAC Total annualized cost 

TCI Total capital investment 

TF Total fluoride 

TFI The Fertilizer Institute 

tpy Tons per year 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Organization of this Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 

III. Summary of Final Action on Issues 

Reconsidered 

A. Compliance Deadline for Air Oxidation 

Reactors Used in SPA Lines 

B. Compliance Deadlines for Revised LowEnergy Absorber Monitoring Provisions 

C. Monitoring Options for Low-Energy 

Absorbers 

D. Restoration of the ±20-Percent Minimum 

Liquid Flow Rate Variability Allowance 

IV. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by this reconsideration action 

include those listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source 

category 

NAICS1

code 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing ................................. 325312 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

1 North American Industry Classification 

System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this final action. To 

determine whether your facility would 

be affected by this final action, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of any aspect of this final 

action, please contact the person listed 

in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble. 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

The docket number for this final 

action regarding the NESHAP for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

categories is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522. 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

document will also be available on the 

Internet. Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45194 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Refer to finalized footnotes ‘‘c’’ of Table 1 and 

Table 2 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63. 

copy of this final action at https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/phosphate-fertilizerproduction-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version and key technical 

documents on this same Web site. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

rule is available only by filing a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (the 

Court) by November 27, 2017. Under 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an 

objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background Information 

On June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31358), the 

EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AA for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category and 40 

CFR part 63, subpart BB for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category. On August 19, 2015 (80 FR 

50386), the EPA published amended 

rules for both source categories that took 

into consideration the technology 

review and residual risk review required 

by sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the 

CAA, respectively. Following 

promulgation of the August 2015 rule 

revisions, the EPA received two 

petitions for reconsideration from The 

Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the 

Phosphate Corporation of 

Saskatchewan, including: PCS 

Phosphate Company, Inc.; White 

Springs Agricultural Chemical, Inc., 

DBA PCS Phosphate-White Springs; and 

PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P., 

(collectively ‘‘PCS’’), requesting 

administrative reconsideration of 

amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA 

and subpart BB under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). 

In response to the petitions, the EPA 

reconsidered and requested comment on 

three distinct issues: 

• Compliance deadline for air 

oxidation reactors used in SPA lines; 

• Compliance deadlines for lowenergy absorber monitoring provisions; 

and 

• Monitoring options for low-energy 

absorbers. 

The EPA proposed a notice of 

reconsideration including proposed rule 

amendments in the Federal Register on 

December 9, 2016 (81 FR 89026). We 

received public comments from two 

parties. Copies of all comments 

submitted are available at the EPA 

Docket Center Public Reading Room. 

Comments are also available 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov by searching 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522. 

In this document, the EPA is taking 

final action with respect to the 

reconsideration and proposed 

amendments. Section III of this 

preamble summarizes the public 

comments received on the proposed 

notice of reconsideration, presents the 

EPA’s responses to the comments, and 

explains our rationale for the rule 

revisions published here. 

We are also restoring a provision of 

the 1999 maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) rules that was 

inadvertently omitted from the risk and 

technology review (RTR) amendments 

to those rules. That provision, related to 

compliance monitoring, allowed sources 

a ±20-percent variability in the 

minimum liquid flow rate to the 

absorber. 

III. Summary of Final Action on Issues 

Reconsidered 

The three reconsideration issues for 

which amendments are being finalized 

in this rulemaking are: (1) Compliance 

deadlines for air oxidation reactors used 

in SPA lines; (2) compliance deadlines 

for revised low-energy absorber 

monitoring provisions; and (3) 

monitoring options for low-energy 

absorbers. A fourth issue, which was 

identified after the close of the public 

comment period, is also being addressed 

in this action. This is the restoration of 

the ±20-percent variability allowance for 

the minimum liquid flow rate to the 

absorber. Each of these issues is 

discussed in detail in the following 

sections of this preamble. 

A. Compliance Deadline for Air 

Oxidation Reactors Used in SPA Lines 

In the August 19, 2015, amendments 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, the EPA 

revised the SPA process line definition 

to include oxidation reactors. The EPA 

received petitions requesting the 

compliance schedule be changed to 

allow more time for affected sources to 

include emissions from oxidation 

reactors when determining compliance 

with the total fluoride (TF) emission 

limits for SPA process lines. In response 

to the petitions, on December 9, 2016, 

we proposed to revise the compliance 

date from August 19, 2016, to August 

19, 2018. We did not receive adverse 

comments on this change. Instead, both 

commenters stated that they supported 

this change. Therefore, in this action, 

the EPA is finalizing the compliance 

date revision as proposed. The 

compliance date by which affected 

sources must include emissions from 

oxidation reactors when determining 

compliance with the TF emission limits 

for SPA process lines is August 19, 

2018.1

B. Compliance Deadlines for Revised 

Low-Energy Absorber Monitoring 

Provisions 

In the August 19, 2015, amendments 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 

CFR part 63, subpart BB, the EPA 

changed the compliance monitoring 

requirement for low-energy absorbers 

(i.e., absorbers that are designed to 

operate with pressure drops of 5 inches 

of water column or less) to require 

monitoring of liquid-to-gas ratio in lieu 

of monitoring influent liquid flow and 

pressure drop through the absorber. The 

EPA received petitions requesting the 

compliance schedule be changed to 

allow more time for affected sources to 

comply with these monitoring 

requirements. In response to the 

petitions, on December 9, 2016, we 

proposed to revise the compliance dates 

from August 19, 2016, to August 19, 

2017, to allow owners and operators 

additional time to obtain and certify the 

instruments needed to monitor liquidto-gas ratio. However, in this action, the 

EPA is revising the compliance dates to 

no later than August 19, 2018, for 

existing sources as well as for those 

sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996, 

and on or before August 19, 2015. We 

are also clarifying that new sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after August 19, 2015, 

must comply with the monitoring 

requirements for absorbers immediately 

upon startup. 

Both commenters said that the 

proposed compliance date (i.e., August 

19, 2017) for monitoring liquid-to-gas 

ratio on low-energy absorbers only 

allows approximately seven months to 

achieve compliance from the date 

public comments were due (i.e., January 

23, 2017). These commenters asserted 

that a duration of 7 months may not be 

sufficient to acquire, engineer, test, and 

install the requisite technologies. One of 

the commenters specified that 7 months 

is not enough time to complete and 

begin implementing gas flow monitoring 

plans for at least 20 of their low-energy 

absorbers. Additionally, the commenter 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45195 

2Refer to finalized footnote b of Table 3 to 

subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to 

subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63. 

asserted that for at least some of their 

low-energy absorbers, gas flow meters 

are likely not feasible due to the 

saturated (and sometimes 

supersaturated) conditions of the gas 

streams that these absorbers handle; 

therefore, the commenter contended 

they need more time to assess liquid-togas ratio monitoring options and to 

establish operating limits. The 

commenter stated that each liquid-to-gas 

ratio monitoring option requires 

complicated, time-consuming, and 

absorber-specific evaluations. For 

example, to develop regression models, 

new instrumentation to monitor fan 

suction pressure and blower amperage 

must be installed for some absorbers, 

and facilities need to make changes to 

their computer programs. Moreover, the 

commenter stated that once a regression 

model is developed, they need 

additional time to establish the liquidto-gas ratio operating limit by 

conducting a performance test. This 

commenter also maintained that for 

some of their low-energy absorbers they 

may need to use an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) to comply with 

the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring 

requirements and 7 months may not be 

enough time to get approval for the 

AMP. The commenter cited a specific 

example where the EPA Region is in the 

tenth month of reviewing one of the 

company’s AMP requests. Additionally, 

one commenter suggested that the EPA 

revise the ‘‘existing source’’ definition 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 

CFR part 63, subpart BB to extend the 

compliance date (for the liquid-to-gas 

ratio monitoring requirements for lowenergy absorbers) to those new sources 

that were in operation on the date the 

technology review and residual risk 

review were proposed. 

Based on these comments, we agree 

that more time beyond what we 

proposed is needed to achieve 

compliance with the liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring requirements for low-energy 

absorbers. To allow time to evaluate all 

monitoring options, obtain and certify 

instruments, establish operating limits, 

and, in certain cases, develop a 

regression model or AMP, the EPA is 

finalizing a compliance date that is no 

later than August 19, 2018.2 This 

extension provides a total of 3 years 

from promulgation (of the August 19, 

2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, 

subparts AA and BB) for sources to 

comply with the rule, and is the 

maximum compliance period allowed 

by the CAA. We also agree with the 

commenter that the compliance date 

should apply to certain new sources. 

This was an error in the December 9, 

2016, proposal as we did not intend for 

the compliance date to apply to only 

existing sources. Therefore, in this 

action, the EPA is correcting this error 

at footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA 

of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for 

Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 

such that the compliance date for the 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring 

requirements for low-energy absorbers 

applies to both existing sources and 

those new sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

December 27, 1996, and on or before 

August 19, 2015. We are also clarifying 

that new sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after 

August 19, 2015, must comply with the 

monitoring requirements for absorbers 

immediately upon startup. Instead of 

revising the ‘‘existing source’’ definition 

as requested by the commenter, we 

determined it will be clearer and more 

straightforward to make the corrections 

in these footnotes. 

Furthermore, one commenter 

requested that the EPA add more 

compliance options for low-energy 

absorbers in advance of the compliance 

date for the liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring requirements. The 

commenter asserted that footnote b for 

Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 

63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart 

BB of 40 CFR part 63 are too narrowly 

drafted because they do not allow 

facilities to use liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring or their current monitoring 

strategies, such as monitoring in 

accordance with an already approved 

AMP or an applicable monitoring 

provision of a permit issued under 40 

CFR part 70, in advance of the 

compliance date. This commenter 

suggested edits to footnote b for Table 

3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and 

footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 

40 CFR part 63 (see docket item EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0522–0097) to allow 

compliance with any one of the 

following: (i) The monitoring 

requirements in Table 3 for absorbers 

designed and operated with pressure 

drops of 5 inches of water column or 

less; (ii) the applicable monitoring 

provisions of a permit issued under 40 

CFR part 70 or an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to 

40 CFR 63.8(f); or (iii) the installation of 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems (CPMS) for pressure at the gas 

stream inlet or outlet of the absorber, 

and monitoring pressure drop through 

the absorber. We agree with the 

commenter that facilities should be 

allowed to use liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring or their current approved 

monitoring strategy (in lieu of 

monitoring pressure drop through the 

absorber), in advance of the compliance 

date for the liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring requirements for low-energy 

absorbers. Therefore, for the most part, 

we included the commenter’s edits to 

footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 

40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 

3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 in the 

final rules. However, we added language 

to the commenter’s edits to ensure that 

if an owner or operator were to use a 

part 70 monitoring provision, it would 

be a federally enforceable provision. We 

also split the option to use a part 70 

monitoring provision and the option to 

use an AMP such that it is one or the 

other. The final rule allows an owner or 

operator to use liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring or their current approved 

monitoring strategy (in lieu of 

monitoring pressure drop through the 

absorber), in advance of the compliance 

date for the liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring requirements for low-energy 

absorbers. 

Finally, one commenter requested 

that the EPA include language in the 

final rules to authorize compliance with 

an AMP that is still under review by an 

EPA Regional office beyond the 

compliance date for the liquid-to-gas 

ratio monitoring requirements, provided 

the AMP request was submitted to the 

Region more than 30 days in advance of 

the compliance deadline. The 

commenter maintained that without this 

type of category-specific provision, 

owners or operators are not entitled 

(based on the existing provision at 40 

CFR 63.8(f)(1)) to rely on AMPs in 

advance of the EPA’s approval. The 

commenter stated that although 40 CFR 

63.8(f)(5)(i) calls for the Agency to 

respond to AMP requests within 30 days 

of receipt, the EPA sometimes needs 

more than 30 days to grant or deny such 

requests. The commenter asserted they 

are unable to predict or control the 

response time of the EPA; therefore, 

they should not be required to carry the 

risk and uncertainty of relying on an 

AMP that is still under EPA review after 

the compliance deadline. The 

commenter also stated that facilityspecific extensions may not be available 

under CAA section 112(i)(3)(B), which 

authorizes a 1-year extension if 

‘‘necessary for the installation of 

controls.’’ The commenter contended 

that liquid-to-gas monitoring may 

require new equipment for some lowenergy absorbers, but the new 

equipment will likely be for absorber 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45196 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

3Existing rule language currently in the rules that 

the commenter suggested is found at Table 3 to 

subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63; Table 3 to subpart 

BB of 40 CFR part 63; 40 CFR 63.605(d); at 40 CFR 

63.625(d); at Table 4 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 

63 and at Table 4 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63. 

monitoring and not control of 

pollutants. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request to authorize compliance with 

AMPs that are still under the EPA 

review beyond the compliance date for 

the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring 

requirements. As stated previously, we 

are revising and finalizing the 

compliance date for the liquid-to-gas 

ratio monitoring requirements for lowenergy absorbers to no later than August 

19, 2018, which is 3 years from 

promulgation of the final rule, and is the 

maximum allowed under the CAA for 

phosphoric acid and phosphate 

fertilizer manufacturers to comply with 

the rule. We believe this is an ample 

amount of time for any outstanding 

AMPs to be approved. Furthermore, the 

existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1) 

has been in place for more than 20 

years. During this time, the process for 

review and resolution of AMP requests 

has functioned satisfactorily within the 

established timelines. The concern 

raised by the commenter involves one 

unique case currently under 

consideration. We concluded that 

adopting a blanket exemption from the 

procedures of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for all 

owners or operators of the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source categories 

is inappropriate. This one unique case 

is more appropriately handled by the 

EPA Regional office continuing to 

review the technical merits of the AMP 

application and applying enforcement 

discretion to ensure equitable treatment 

of the company. 

C. Monitoring Options for Low-Energy 

Absorbers 

In response to the petitions the EPA 

received regarding monitoring 

requirements for low-energy absorbers, 

we proposed to clarify an existing 

monitoring option (i.e., the blower 

design capacity option) and to add a 

new option (i.e., the regression model 

option) to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA 

and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB. We also 

proposed language reminding affected 

entities that they can request an 

alternative monitoring method under 

the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f) on a 

site-specific basis. Refer to the preamble 

to the proposed rule (81 FR 89026) for 

more details on each of these changes. 

With exception of the items discussed 

in the following paragraphs, 

commenters stated that they supported 

these changes. Therefore, unless 

discussed below, we are finalizing the 

changes regarding monitoring 

requirements for low-energy absorbers 

as proposed. 

Blower Design Capacity Option 

In response to petitioner requests for 

clarification of the regulatory language 

describing the blower design capacity 

option for determining the gas flow rate 

through the absorber (for use in 

monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio), we 

clarified in the preamble to the 

proposed rulemaking how this option 

can be used. Additionally, we proposed 

changing the term ‘‘design blower 

capacity’’ in Table 3 to subpart AA of 

40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart 

BB of 40 CFR part 63 to ‘‘blower design 

capacity’’ and made other minor text 

edits to these tables in order to use the 

phrase ‘‘gas flow rate through the 

absorber’’ more consistently. We also 

proposed footnote c for Table 3 to 

subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and 

footnote c for Table 3 to subpart BB of 

40 CFR part 63 to add certain sitespecific monitoring plan requirements, 

clarify that the blower design capacity 

option is intended to establish the 

maximum possible gas flow through the 

absorber, and explain that the blower 

design capacity option can be used 

regardless of whether the blower is 

located on the influent or effluent side 

of the absorber. Finally, we proposed a 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(e) and 40 

CFR 63.628(e) to document, in the sitespecific monitoring plan, the 

calculations that were used to make 

adjustments for pressure drop if blower 

design capacity is used to establish the 

maximum possible gas flow rate through 

an absorber. In this action, the EPA is 

finalizing, with one exception, all the 

proposed language regarding the blower 

design capacity option. 

The one change to the proposed 

language for the blower design capacity 

option is our addition of language in 

footnote c to Table 3 to subpart AA of 

40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart 

BB of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify that 

owners and operators must establish the 

minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating 

limit by dividing the minimum liquid 

flow rate to the absorber determined 

during a performance test by the 

maximum possible gas flow rate through 

the absorber determined using blower 

design capacity. One commenter 

requested the EPA include the following 

additional language to footnote c to 

Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 

63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR 

part 63: ‘‘The maximum design gas flow 

through the scrubber, or Fmax, shall be 

determined using the blower design 

capacity and system pressure drop. 

During performance testing, the 

observed liquid-to-gas ratio, L/G, will be 

determined. The minimum liquid flow 

will be established by multiplying the 

compliance L/G by Fmax.’’ We disagree 

that the language should be added to 

footnote c as drafted by the commenter 

because it introduces a new undefined 

and unnecessary term ‘‘Fmax.’’ 

We also disagree because much of the 

commenter’s language is already 

included elsewhere in the rules,3 and 

while the commenter’s suggested third 

sentence is not addressed elsewhere, it 

can be rewritten without the use of a 

new term, ‘‘Fmax.’’ Therefore, instead of 

using the commenter’s suggested third 

sentence, we are including a new 

sentence in footnote c for Table 3 to 

subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and 

footnote c for Table 3 to subpart BB of 

40 CFR part 63 to read as follows: 

‘‘Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas 

ratio operating limit by dividing the 

minimum liquid flow rate to the 

absorber (determined during a 

performance test) by the maximum 

possible gas flow rate through the 

absorber (determined using blower 

design capacity).’’ We consider this 

revised sentence as clarifying how each 

term in the liquid-to-gas ratio is 

determined and used. 

Regression Model Option 

In response to the petitions the EPA 

received requesting other options to be 

considered for determining the gas flow 

rate through the absorber, which is used 

in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio, we 

proposed to include an option in Table 

3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and 

in Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 

63, that allows facilities to develop and 

use a regression model to determine gas 

flow rate through an absorber in lieu of 

direct measurement or using blower 

design capacity. We also proposed a 

requirement in footnote a for Table 4 to 

subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and 

footnote a for Table 4 to subpart BB of 

40 CFR part 63 requiring continuous 

monitoring of blower amperage, blower 

static pressure, i.e., fan suction pressure, 

and any other parameters used in the 

regression model that are not constants. 

Finally, to allow the flexibility to use 

best engineering judgment and 

calculations, we also proposed an 

annual requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(f) 

and 40 CFR 63.628(f) to document, in 

the site-specific monitoring plan, the 

calculations that were used to develop 

the regression model and to require that 

the site-specific monitoring plan be 

updated annually to maintain accuracy 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45197 

4For the detailed calculations on these cost 

savings, refer to ‘‘Detailed Costs of Monitoring Gas 

Flow Options Worksheet June 2017.xlsx’’ and 

‘‘Annualized Cost of Monitoring Options 

Worksheet.xlsx’’ which are available in the docket 

for this rule. 

and reflect data used in the annual 

regression model verification. 

Both commenters stated that they 

support the use of a regression model to 

determine gas flow rate through an 

absorber, but requested one clarification 

to the proposed language. The 

commenters requested that the EPA 

revise footnote d for Table 3 to subpart 

AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for 

Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 

to clarify whether an emissions 

performance test is necessary when 

developing and verifying gas flow 

regression models. The commenters 

contended that the EPA should allow 

facilities to develop and verify gas flow 

regression models separately from the 

required annual emissions performance 

test. One commenter maintained that 

requiring facilities to conduct a 

performance test to develop a regression 

model would waste resources and 

needlessly complicate the schedule for 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring. The 

commenter contended that facilities 

would have to conduct more than one 

performance test in a year’s time to first 

develop a regression model and then set 

operating limits for liquid-to-gas ratio. 

The commenters suggested edits to 

footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 

40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 

3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 (see 

docket items EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522–0097 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522–0098) to make clear that an 

emissions performance test is not 

required to develop and verify gas flow 

regression models. We agree with the 

commenters’ edits to footnote d as it 

was our intent to allow facilities the 

flexibility to develop and verify gas flow 

regression models (using direct 

measurements of gas flow rate, for 

example, via EPA Method 2) either 

separately from, or in conjunction with, 

the annual performance test. Therefore, 

in this action, the EPA is finalizing, 

with one change, all the proposed 

language regarding the regression model 

option. The one change we are making 

to the proposed language is that we are 

revising and clarifying footnote d for 

Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 

63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart 

BB of 40 CFR part 63 to convey that 

direct measurements of gas flow rate 

used to develop or verify regression 

models may be collected during, or 

separately from, the annual performance 

testing that is required in 40 CFR 

63.606(b) for subpart AA or 40 CFR 

63.626(b) for subpart BB. 

D. Restoration of the ±20-Percent 

Minimum Liquid Flow Rate Variability 

Allowance 

The June 10, 1999, MACT rules (64 

FR 31358) included provisions to 

account for the variability in absorber 

(i.e., scrubber) pressure drop and the 

variability in minimum liquid flow rate 

to the absorber. Specifically, as a 

compliance monitoring provision of the 

1999 MACT rules, owners/operators are 

required to conduct a performance test 

to determine the baseline average value 

for both the pressure drop and for the 

minimum liquid flow rate of the 

absorber, and are then allowed to 

operate within a range that is within 20 

percent of this rate. 

The August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), 

RTR final rule included the allowance 

for the ±20-percent variability in the 

absorber pressure drop, but did not 

include the allowance for the ±20- 

percent variability in the minimum 

liquid flow rate to the absorber. 

Industry brought this omission to our 

attention after the comment period for 

this reconsideration rule. We 

subsequently reviewed the record for 

the August 2015 RTR final rule and 

could not find any record of a decision 

to remove the ±20-percent minimum 

liquid flow rate variability provision. 

Therefore, we have concluded that this 

omission was an inadvertent error in the 

August 2015 RTR final rule, and we are 

restoring that provision in these final 

rules. Subpart AA includes this restored 

provision at 40 CFR 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) 

and subpart BB includes this restored 

provision at 40 CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A). 

IV. Impacts Associated With This Final 

Rule 

This action revises compliance dates 

specific to oxidation reactors in the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category, and absorber monitoring in 

both the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories. We expect 

the additional compliance time for 

oxidation reactors to comply with the 

rule will have an insignificant effect on 

a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant’s 

overall emissions. 

Specifically, in the reconsideration 

proposal, the EPA discussed hydrogen 

fluoride emissions reductions of 0.047 

tons per year (tpy) from the oxidation 

reactor (i.e., a reduction from 0.049 tpy 

to 0.002 tpy) and TF emissions 

reductions of 0.14 tpy from the 

oxidation reactor (i.e., a reduction from 

0.147 tpy to 0.007 tpy). The additional 

2-year compliance time for oxidation 

reactors to meet the emission limits in 

the final rule result in an additional 

0.098 tons (196 pounds) of hydrogen 

fluoride and 0.28 tons (560 pounds) of 

total fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride 

emissions from SPA process lines, 

including oxidation reactors, account 

for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen 

fluoride emissions from the source 

category. 

The revisions related to the gas flow 

calculation that we are finalizing result 

in capital cost savings of $88,200 per 

facility, and capital cost savings of 

$1,147,200 industry-wide.4 These cost 

savings are due to our providing 

alternatives to the requirement to use a 

gas flow meter for monitoring gas flow 

at low energy absorbers. In addition to 

the gas flow meter, we are providing 

two other monitoring methods as 

alternative compliance options: (1) A 

blower design capacity model; and (2) a 

regression model. 

TABLE 2—COST COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR DETERMINING GAS FLOW RATE AT LOW PRESSURE

ABSORBERS

Compliance option Capital costs 

per facility 

Annualized facility costs 

(2016$) Industry Wide 

Capital Costs 1

Annualized industry wide costs 

(2016$) 

3% 7% 3% 7% 

Blower Design Capacity Model ............ $6,400 $800 $960 $83,700 $10,300 $12,500 

Regression Model ................................ 4,200 500 600 54,300 6,700 8,100 

Gas Flow Meter ................................... 92,400 15,800 18,200 1,201,500 205,900 236,100 

1 Capital costs per facility are rounded values. Industry-wide capital costs are calculated by multiplying the non-rounded values for capital costs 

per facility by 13 (the total number of facilities in the source category). The resulting product is rounded after calculation.


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45198 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

The costs described in this action are 

a result of only the final reconsideration 

notice, and show a cost savings. The 

costs were calculated at both a 7-percent 

rate and a 3-percent rate. There is a 

reduction in estimated annualized costs 

calculated at both the 7-percent rate and 

at the 3-percent rate as a result of all 13 

affected facilities implementing a lower 

cost option to monitor the ratio of 

liquid-to-gas in low energy absorbers, as 

compared to the cost of that requirement 

in the rule promulgated in August 2015. 

We note that the cost savings presented 

here are not associated with any change 

in emission limit, do not result in higher 

hazardous air pollutant emissions, and 

do not have a negative effect on human 

health or the environment. 

TABLE 3—TOTAL POTENTIAL CAPITAL

AND ANNUALIZED SAVINGS FROM

MONITORING ALTERNATIVES FOR

SUBPARTS AA AND BB 

[2016$] 

Total capital 

cost savings 

Total annual cost savings 

(2016$) 

$1,147,000 ..... $208,000 (3% discount rate). 

$237,000 (7% discount rate). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-anld-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0361. With this action, the EPA is 

finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BB that are mainly clarifications 

to existing rule language to aid in 

implementation issues raised by 

stakeholders, or are being made to allow 

more time for compliance. Therefore, 

there are no changes to the information 

collection requirements of the August 

19, 2015, final rule, and, consequently, 

the information collection estimate of 

projected costs and hour burden from 

the final rules have not been revised. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action finalizes 

amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

BB that are mainly clarifications to 

existing rule language to aid in 

implementation issues raised by 

stakeholders, or are being made to allow 

more time for compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action finalizes 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that 

are mainly clarifications to existing rule 

language to aid in implementation 

issues raised by stakeholders, or are 

being made to allow more time for 

compliance. We expect the additional 

compliance time for oxidation reactors 

will have an insignificant effect on a 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plant’s 

overall emissions. Hydrogen fluoride 

emissions from SPA process lines, 

including oxidation reactors, account 

for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen 

fluoride emissions from the source 

category. Therefore, the amendments 

should not appreciably increase risk for 

any populations. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve new 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The Environmental Justice finding in 

the August 19, 2015, final rule remains 

relevant in this action, which finalizes 

amendments to these rules that are 

mainly clarifications to existing rule 

language to aid in implementation 

issues raised by stakeholders, or are 

being made to allow more time for 

compliance. We expect the additional 

compliance time for oxidation reactors 

will have an insignificant effect on any 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plant’s 

overall emissions. Hydrogen fluoride 

emissions from SPA process lines, 

including oxidation reactors, account 

for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen 

fluoride emissions from the source 

category. Therefore, the amendments 

should not appreciably increase the risk 

for any populations. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45199 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 13, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants 

■ 2. Section 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 63.605 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) The allowable range for the daily 

averages of the pressure drop across an 

absorber and of the flow rate of the 

absorber liquid to each absorber in the 

process absorbing system, or secondary 

voltage for a wet electrostatic 

precipitator, is ±20 percent of the 

baseline average value determined in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The 

Administrator retains the right to reduce 

the ±20 percent adjustment to the 

baseline average values of operating 

ranges in those instances where 

performance test results indicate that a 

source’s level of emissions is near the 

value of an applicable emissions 

standard. However, the adjustment must 

not be reduced to less than ±10 percent 

under any instance. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.608 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.608 General requirements and 

applicability of general provisions of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

(e) If you use blower design capacity 

to determine the gas flow rate through 

the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas 

ratio as specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart, then you must include in the 

site-specific monitoring plan specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section 

calculations showing how you 

determined the maximum possible gas 

flow rate through the absorber based on 

the blower’s specifications (including 

any adjustments you made for pressure 

drop). 

(f) If you use a regression model to 

determine the gas flow rate through the 

absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio 

as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, 

then you must include in the sitespecific monitoring plan specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section the 

calculations that were used to develop 

the regression model, including the 

calculations you use to convert 

amperage of the blower to brake 

horsepower. You must describe any 

constants included in the equations 

(e.g., efficiency, power factor), and 

describe how these constants were 

determined. If you want to change a 

constant in your calculation, then you 

must conduct a regression model 

verification to confirm the new value of 

the constant. In addition, the sitespecific monitoring plan must be 

updated annually to reflect the data 

used in the annual regression model 

verification that is described in Table 3 

to this subpart. 

Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63 

[Amended] 

■ 4. Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63, 

footnote ‘‘c’’ is amended by removing 

the text ‘‘August 19, 2016,’’ and adding 

the text ‘‘August 19, 2018,’’ in its place. 

Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63 

[Amended] 

■ 5. Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63, 

footnote ‘‘c’’ is amended by removing 

the text ‘‘August 19, 2016,’’ and adding 

the text ‘‘August 19, 2018,’’ in its place. 

■ 6. Table 3 to subpart AA of part 63 is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising the column headings for 

‘‘And you must monitor . . .’’ and 

‘‘And . . .’’; 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Install 

CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the 

inlet of the absorber’’; and 

■ c. Adding footnotes ‘‘a’’ through ‘‘d’’ 

at the end of the table. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—MONITORING EQUIPMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS

You must . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . a And . . . a

*******

Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow 

at the inlet of the 

absorber b.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches 

of water column or less; or.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches 

of water column or more, and you 

choose to monitor the liquid-to-gas 

ratio, rather than only the influent liquid flow, and you want the ability to 

lower liquid flow with changes in gas 

flow.

Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined by dividing the influent liquid flow rate by 

the gas flow rate through the absorber. The units of measure must 

be consistent with those used to calculate this ratio during the performance test.

You must determine the gas flow rate 

through the absorber by: 

Measuring the gas flow rate at the absorber inlet or outlet; 

Using the blower design capacity, with 

appropriate adjustments for pressure 

drop; c or 

Using a regression model.d

* * * * * * * 

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

CFR 63.8(f). 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45200 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

bFor new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, the compliance date is immediately upon startup. For 

existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, if 

your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, then the compliance date is August 19, 2018. 

In the interim, for existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before 

August 19, 2015, with an absorber designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, you must comply with one of 

the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in this Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the applicable monitoring provisions included in a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 to assure compliance with subpart AA; (iii) 

the applicable monitoring provisions of an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to § 63.8(f); or (iv) install CPMS for pressure at the gas 

stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and monitor pressure drop through the absorber. c If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.608(e). The option to use blower design capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas 

flow rate through the absorber can be established. Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow 

rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber (determined using 

blower design capacity). d If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.608(f). The regression model must be developed using direct measurements of gas 

flow rate, and design fan curves that correlate gas flow rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower. 

You must conduct an annual regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate to ensure the correlation remains accurate. Direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected during, or separately from, the annual 

performance testing that is required in § 63.606(b). 

■ 7. Table 4 to subpart AA of part 63 is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Influent liquid flow rate and gas stream 

flow rate’’ and adding footnote ‘‘a’’ at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 3 

. . . 

You must establish the following operating limit . . . 

And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous 

compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . 

Data measurement Data 

recording 

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

*******

Influent liquid flow rate and gas 

stream flow rate.

Minimum influent liquid-to-gas ratio a Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 

* * * * * * * 

a If you select the regression model option to monitor influent liquid-to-gas ratio as described in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must also 

continuously monitor (i.e., record every 15 minutes, and use a daily averaging period) blower amperage, blower static pressure (i.e., fan suction 

pressure), and any other parameters used in the regression model that are not constants. 

Subpart BB—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Phosphate Fertilizers Production 

Plants 

■ 8. Section 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 63.625 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) The allowable range for the daily 

averages of the pressure drop across an 

absorber and of the flow rate of the 

absorber liquid to each absorber in the 

process absorbing system, or secondary 

voltage for a wet electrostatic 

precipitator, is ±20 percent of the 

baseline average value determined in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The 

Administrator retains the right to reduce 

the ±20 percent adjustment to the 

baseline average values of operating 

ranges in those instances where 

performance test results indicate that a 

source’s level of emissions is near the 

value of an applicable emissions 

standard. However, the adjustment must 

not be reduced to less than ±10 percent 

under any instance. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.628 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.628 General requirements and 

applicability of general provisions of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

(e) If you use blower design capacity 

to determine the gas flow rate through 

the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas 

ratio as specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart, then you must include in the 

site-specific monitoring plan specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section 

calculations showing how you 

determined the maximum possible gas 

flow rate through the absorber based on 

the blower’s specifications (including 

any adjustments you made for pressure 

drop). 

(f) If you use a regression model to 

determine the gas flow rate through the 

absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio 

as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, 

then you must include in the sitespecific monitoring plan specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section the 

calculations that were used to develop 

the regression model, including the 

calculations you use to convert 

amperage of the blower to brake 

horsepower. You must describe any 

constants included in the equations 

(e.g., efficiency, power factor), and 

describe how these constants were 

determined. If you want to change a 

constant in your calculation, then you 

must conduct a regression model 

verification to confirm the new value of 

the constant. In addition, the sitespecific monitoring plan must be 

updated annually to reflect the data 

used in the annual regression model 

verification that is described in Table 3 

to this subpart. 

■ 10. Table 3 to subpart BB of part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the column headings for 

‘‘And you must monitor . . .’’ and 

‘‘And . . .’’; 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45201 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Install 

CPMS for liquid and gas flow at the 

inlet of the absorber’’; and 

■ c. Adding footnotes ‘‘a’’ through ‘‘d’’ 

at the end of the table. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—MONITORING EQUIPMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS

You must . . . If... And you must monitor... a And . . . a

*******

Install CPMS for liquid and gas flow 

at the inlet of the 

absorber b.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches 

of water column or less; or.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches 

of water column or more, and you 

choose to monitor the liquid-to-gas 

ratio, rather than only the influent liquid flow, and you want the ability to 

lower liquid flow with changes in gas 

flow.

Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined by dividing the influent liquid flow rate by 

the gas flow rate through the absorber. The units of measure must 

be consistent with those used to calculate this ratio during the performance test.

You must determine the gas flow rate 

through the absorber by: 

Measuring the gas flow rate at the absorber inlet or outlet; 

Using the blower design capacity, with 

appropriate adjustments for pressure 

drop; c or 

Using a regression model.d

* * * * * * * 

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

§ 63.8(f). bFor new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after August 19, 2015, the compliance date is immediately upon startup. For 

existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before August 19, 2015, if 

your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, then the compliance date is August 19, 2018. 

In the interim, for existing sources, and new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after December 27, 1996, and on or before 

August 19, 2015, with an absorber designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less, you must comply with one of 

the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in this Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the applicable monitoring provisions included in a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 to assure compliance with subpart BB; (iii) 

the applicable monitoring provisions of an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to § 63.8(f); or (iv) install CPMS for pressure at the gas 

stream inlet and outlet of the absorber, and monitor pressure drop through the absorber. c If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.628(e). The option to use blower design capacity is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber; and is available regardless of the location of the blower (influent or effluent), as long as the gas 

flow rate through the absorber can be established. Establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow 

rate to the absorber (determined during a performance test) by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber (determined using 

blower design capacity). d If you select this option, then you must comply with § 63.628(f). The regression model must be developed using direct measurements of gas 

flow rate, and design fan curves that correlate gas flow rate to static pressure (i.e., fan suction pressure) and brake horsepower of the blower. 

You must conduct an annual regression model verification using direct measurements of gas flow rate to ensure the correlation remains accurate. Direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected during, or separately from, the annual 

performance testing that is required in § 63.626(b). 

■ 11. Table 4 to subpart BB of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 

3 . . . 

You must establish the following operating limit during your performance 

test . . . 

And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous 

compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . 

Data measurement Data recording 

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers) 

Influent liquid flow ............................... Minimum inlet liquid flow ................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 

Influent liquid flow rate and gas 

stream flow rate.

Minimum influent liquid-to-gas ratio a Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 3.You must establish the following operating limit.And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . 

Data measurement Data recording ....... Data averaging 

period for 

compliance. 

Pressure drop ..................................... Pressure drop range .......................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 

Sorbent Injection 

Sorbent injection rate ......................... Minimum injection rate ...................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45202 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES—Continued 

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 

3 . . . 

You must establish the following operating limit during your performance 

test . . . 

And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous 

compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . 

Data measurement Data recording 

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Sorbent injection carrier gas flow rate Minimum carrier gas flow rate ........... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 

Fabric Filters 

Alarm time .......................................... Maximum alarm time is not established on a site-specific basis but 

is specified in § 63.605(f)(9).

Continuous ............. Each date and time 

of alarm start and 

stop.

Maximum alarm 

time specified in 

§ 63.605(f)(9). 

Wet Electrostatic Precipitator 

Secondary voltage .............................. Secondary voltage range .................. Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... Daily. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20171 Filed 9–27–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0213; FRL–9968–68– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT43 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Refrigerant Management Regulations 

for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle 

Refrigerant 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to correct an editing oversight 

that led to a potential conflict in a prior 

rulemaking as to whether or not 

containers holding two pounds or less 

of non-exempt substitute refrigerants for 

use in motor vehicle air conditioning 

that are not equipped with a self-sealing 

valve can be sold to persons that are not 

certified technicians, provided those 

small cans were manufactured or 

imported prior to January 1, 2018. This 

action clarifies that those small cans 

may continue to be sold to persons that 

are not certified as technicians under 

sections 608 or 609 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 27, 2017 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by October 30, 2017. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0213, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Kemme by regular mail: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stratospheric Protection Division 

(6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; by 

telephone: (202) 566–0511; or by email: 

kemme.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

EPA is publishing this direct final 

rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. This rule makes a 

minor change in regulatory text, which 

is intended to resolve a potential 

conflict in the current regulatory text 

and to ensure that the regulatory text 

conforms to the EPA’s intention when 

finalizing the regulatory text at issue. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to make 

this revision to the regulatory text if 

adverse comments are received on this 

direct final rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. In this action, 

EPA is not making, and is not seeking 

comment on, any changes to the 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F 

other than the revision discussed in this 

notice. For further information about 

commenting on this rule, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. In that case, we would address all 

public comments in any subsequent 

final rule based on the proposed rule. If 

no adverse comment is received by 

October 30, 2017, this direct final rule 

will be effective on December 27, 2017 

without further notice and no further 

action will be taken on the proposed 

rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by this action include entities 

that distribute or sell small cans of 

refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air 

conditioning (MVAC). Regulated 

entities include, but are not limited to, 

manufacturers and distributors of small 

cans of refrigerant (NAICS codes 

325120, 441310, 447110) such as 

automotive parts and accessories stores 

and industrial gas manufacturers. This 

list is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather to provide a guide for readers 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES