[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 111 (Thursday, June 10, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31358-31388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10412]



[[Page 31357]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9 and 63



_______________________________________________________________________



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Phosphoric 
Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 31358]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6329-5]
RIN 2060-AE40 and 2060-AE44


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing major sources in 
phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production 
plants (SIC 2874). Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the 
facilities covered by this rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF); 
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel 
(HAP metals); and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Human exposure to the 
HAP constituents in these emissions may be associated with adverse 
carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/
or reproductive health effects. Implementation of the rules will 
achieve an emission reduction of HF estimated at 315 megagrams per year 
(Mg/yr) (345 tons per year [tpy]). The standards will reduce 940 Mg/yr 
(1035 tpy) of total fluorides and particulate matter containing heavy 
metals which are regulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act as 
amended (the Act). This action also amends 40 CFR part 9 by updating 
the table of currently approved information collection control numbers 
to include the information requirements contained in this final rule.
    The standards are promulgated under the authority of section 112 of 
the Clean Air Act (the Act) and are based on the Administrator's 
determination that phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate 
fertilizers production plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit 
several of the 188 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act from the 
various process operations found within the industry. The NESHAP will 
provide protection to the public by requiring all phosphoric acid 
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers plants that are major sources 
to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT).

DATES: Effective Date. June 10, 1999. See the Supplementary Information 
section concerning judicial review.
    Incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications in these standards is approved by the Director of 
the Office of the Federal Register as of June 10, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Public Docket No. A-94-02, containing information 
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is 
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday at the following address in room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor): U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7549. A reasonable fee may 
be charged for copying docket materials. For additional information on 
the Docket and electronic availability see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations contact:

Region I

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region I, CAP, JFK Federal 
Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3351

Region II

Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000

Region III

Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region III, 
3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-3989

Region IV

Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal 
Center 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9131

Region V

George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region 
V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-2088

Region VI

John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220

Region VII

Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, 
Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7446

Region VIII

Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 
312-6432

Region IX

Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1138

Region X

Anita Frankel, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ-107, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 533-2963

    For information concerning the analyses performed in developing 
this rule, contact Mr. Ken Durkee, telephone number (919) 541-5425, 
Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division 
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Today's rulemaking applies to process components at new and 
existing phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers 
production plants. Examples of those process components are listed in 
the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source category                          Examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing..........  Wet Process Phosphoric Acid
                                          Process Line, Superphosphoric
                                          Acid Process Line, Phosphate
                                          Rock Dryer, Phosphate Rock
                                          Calciner, Purified Phosphoric
                                          Acid Process Line.
Phosphate Fertilizers Production.......  Diammonium and/or Monoammonium
                                          Phosphate Process Line,
                                          Granular Triple Superphosphate
                                          Process Line, Granular Triple
                                          Superphosphate Storage
                                          Building.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31359]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the 
regulations. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is 
now aware could be potentially regulated. To determine whether your 
facility is covered by the regulations, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in the rules. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

Docket and Electronic Information

    The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested 
parties to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 
intelligently and effectively participate in the rulemaking process, 
and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket 
index, technical support information, the economic profile of the 
industry (item II-A-27) and other materials related to this rulemaking 
are available for review in the docket center or copies may be mailed 
on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by 
calling (202) 260-7548 or 7549. The FAX number for the Center is (202) 
260-4000. The e-mail address for the Center is ``a-and-r-
[email protected]''. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials. In addition to being available in the docket, an 
electronic copy of today's document which includes the regulatory text 
is available through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at the 
Unified Air Toxics Website (UATW). Following promulgation, a copy of 
the rule will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t3pfpr.html). More comprehensive information concerning the rule will 
be posted on the UATW (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/7__10yrstds.html). 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. If more information on the TTN is needed, 
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Judicial Review

    The NESHAP for new and existing major sources in phosphoric acid 
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants were proposed 
in the Federal Register (FR) on December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68430). This 
Federal Register action announces the EPA's final decision on the rule. 
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the final rule 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's 
publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the 
requirements that are the subject of today's action may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    The following outline is provided to aid in reading the preamble to 
the final rule.

I. Background
    A. Background and Purpose of Standards
    B. Technical Basis of Regulation
    C. Stakeholder and Public Participation
II. Summary of Promulgated Standards
III. Summary of Impacts
IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal and Responses
    A. Selection of Pollutants
    1. Hydrogen Fluoride
    2. HAP Metals
    3. Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
    B. Compliance Provisions
    1. Use of Monitored Operating Parameters for Establishing 
Violations of the Standards
    2. Selection of Monitored Parameters
    3. Frequency of Testing
    4. Simultaneous Testing
    5. Process Monitoring Requirements for Purified Phosphoric Acid 
Plant (PPA) Plants
    6. Other
    C. Emission Limits
    1. General
    2. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid (WPPA) Plants
    3. Evaporative Cooling Towers at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 
Plants
    4. Phosphate Rock Calciners and Dryers
    5. Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) Plants
    6. Granular Triple Superphosphate (GTSP) Storage Buildings
    7. Cooling Ponds
    D. Other Comments
    1. Determination of Major Source Status
    2. NSPS Exemption
    3. Draft Technical Support Document (TSD)
    4. Applicability--Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phosphate (DAP/
MAP) Emission Limits
    5. Applicability--Research and Development Facilities
    6. Notification
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12866
    C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    F. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13045
    J. Executive Order 13084

I. Background

A. Background and Purpose of Standards

    Section 112 of the Act requires the Agency to promulgate 
regulations for the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing 
major sources. The statute requires the regulations to reflect the 
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable 
taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, 
any nonair quality health and environmental effects, and energy 
requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    Section 112 of the Act requires the Agency to establish national 
standards to reduce HAP emissions from major sources and certain area 
sources that emit one or more HAPs. Section 112(b) contains a list of 
HAPs to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to 
use this pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source 
categories for which NESHAP will be developed and section 112(e) 
requires the Agency to devise a schedule for development of those 
NESHAP. The Agency must list all known source categories and 
subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more of the listed 
HAPs. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any stationary 
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area 
and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit in the 
aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any one 
HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. This list 
of source categories was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 
1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes phosphoric acid manufacturing and 
phosphate fertilizers production.
    The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of 
technology-based emission standards under section 112(d) and work 
practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that emit 
HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the application 
of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but 
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions 
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, 
or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate 
emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; 
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards 
(including

[[Page 31360]]

requirements for operator training or certification) as provided in 
subsection (h); or (5) a combination of the above. (See section 
112(d)(2).) The Agency may promulgate more stringent standards at a 
later date if residual risk remains after the imposition of controls. 
(See section 112(f)(2)). Pursuant to section 112(d) of the Act, on 
December 27, 1996 the Agency proposed NESHAP for new and existing 
sources in the phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers 
production source categories (61 FR 68430).

B. Technical Basis of Regulation

    For existing sources, section 112(d) of the Act requires that the 
Agency establish NESHAP which require the maximum degree of reductions 
achievable by available control techniques. Such standards (called 
``maximum achievable control technology'' or ``MACT'') may be no less 
stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the 
Administrator has information).'' In general, NESHAP are to be 
numerical limitations derived from the application of emissions control 
technologies. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT 
floor. As a starting point, the Agency gathered available data to 
analyze to identify the technology that could achieve the lowest 
emissions. Since the HAP HF was the main concern for this standard, the 
initial approach was focused upon determining MACT for HF. The same 
approach was later extended to HAP metals for subsequent analyses.
    During its information collection effort regarding HF emissions, 
the Agency found that there is a large body of existing data for the 
surrogate pollutant total fluoride, which the Agency previously 
designated for control under Sec. 111 of the Act through the 
development of new source performance standards (NSPS) and emissions 
guidelines (EG). The NSPS are emissions limitations for new sources 
based upon the best demonstrated technologies considering cost, non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts. Given a 
limited amount of direct data on HF emissions and a large body of data 
developed to demonstrate achievement of permitted emissions which 
include HF as a component of total fluorides, the Agency chose to use 
total fluoride as a surrogate for HF in its analyses. By adopting the 
approach of regulating total fluoride as surrogate for HF, the Agency 
availed itself of information reflecting the effect of over twenty 
years of implementation of NSPS and EG which are technology-based 
standards. The Agency obtained performance data derived from emissions 
tests conducted to establish compliance with emissions limitations 
required by NSPS and with State-permitted emissions limitations 
developed pursuant to EG for previously existing sources.
    Performance data were analyzed for several different types and 
configurations of wet scrubbing devices and the data indicated that no 
one design achieves superior control. Further, the data were reviewed 
for the purpose of calculating MACT floors. Data for sources with 
multiple emission tests showed significant variability which tended to 
have as its upper bound the permitted emission limits. This was to be 
expected since the controls were designed and operated to achieve 
specific limits as reflected in permits. The permit limits were 
typically based upon NSPS and EG. Since the data indicated that the 
level of control capable of being achieved was reflected in sources' 
permits, the Agency elected to directly calculate floors on the basis 
of the permitted emission limits. So, to determine emissions limits 
corresponding to MACT floors, the Agency first identified the median of 
the top twelve percent of permits issued to sources for each process. 
After thus identifying the best controlled sources and establishing 
preliminary MACT floors, the Agency again analyzed the available test 
data to ascertain that the control levels of the permit limits were 
being achieved and to determine if greater degrees of control were 
actually being achieved in practice for individual processes. For 
sources of total fluorides, test data showed that the permitted 
emissions were reflective of the degree of emissions control actually 
being achieved.
    For phosphate rock dryers and calciners, the MACT floors were 
established using particulate matter as a surrogate for HAP metals. For 
dryers, the MACT floor analysis was performed using permitted emissions 
of particulate matter. The available test data indicate permitted 
levels are being achieved. For calciners, the permits were all based 
upon general process rate allowances which were not developed 
specifically for phosphate rock calcining. In the case of calciners, 
there were numerous test reports for particulate matter. Test data 
showed that the permits do not reflect the level of emissions 
reductions achieved in practice. So, for calciners, the MACT analysis 
was based upon the test data, which consistently were lower than 
permitted levels.
    One source manufactures a purified phosphoric acid (PPA) through a 
solvent extraction method. The plant emits MIBK, which is a HAP. 
Fugitive emissions of MIBK from valves, flanges, and seals are reduced 
by means of an ongoing maintenance and repair program. As the lone PPA 
facility in the source category, its control methods constitute the 
MACT floor for controlling fugitive emissions of MIBK. The MIBK cannot 
be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to capture 
this pollutant. Upon consideration of the fugitive nature of these 
emissions, the available information and the public comments received, 
the Agency has concluded that it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce an emission standard for control of these emissions. In section 
112(h)(1), the Act provides that the Administrator may prescribe a work 
practice consistent with the provisions of section 112(d) in lieu of an 
emission standard, if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 
emission standard for control of a HAP. In this instance, the current 
work practices at the plant constitute the floor level of control for 
PPA plants. The LDAR (leak detection and repair) provisions in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart H were determined during development of the hazardous 
organics NESHAP to be MACT for fugitive emissions sources with similar 
characteristics to those of the one plant emitting MIBK. After 
considering all available information, especially the public comments 
received, the Agency has concluded that subpart H is at least 
equivalent to the facility's current practices and has adopted the LDAR 
provisions of the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON) as part of the MACT 
controls for this process.
    Having thus identified the floor level of control for the different 
processes and pollutants of concern, the Agency then considered the 
possibility of setting more stringent limitations. The final rule, like 
the proposal, does not require facilities to achieve emission 
reductions more stringent than the MACT floor.
    As a part of a reconsideration, the Agency first explored the 
possibility that different control technologies were available and 
demonstrated for the classes of sources being controlled by today's 
action. None were found that had been demonstrated and could be applied 
without creating additional negative impacts to other environmental 
media. The Agency also considered whether new source emission limits 
could be applied to existing sources. The emissions data showed that 
high levels of control were being achieved in both cases and that there 
was minimal

[[Page 31361]]

opportunity for additional significant reductions to be achieved by 
going from the existing-source MACT floors to the levels of new source 
MACT. Balanced against the minimal potential for additional reductions 
were the costs of retrofitting controls to plants for which emissions 
data showed the existence of multiple test data points near the MACT 
floor. As an example, the Agency previously calculated the annualized 
capital cost for the addition of a new wet scrubber to a model WPPA 
(wet process phosphoric acid) plant producing 36 tons per hour to be 
$17,253 per year. Such a plant operating at the existing source MACT 
level which would install a new scrubber to achieve the new source MACT 
level would reduce HF emissions by 0.34 tons per year. So, the cost 
effectiveness of the additional reduction would be $50,744 per ton of 
additional HF removed, which the Agency considers to be inappropriately 
high at this time. Thus, the Agency concludes that requiring existing 
sources to be controlled beyond the MACT floor would be unreasonable in 
terms of cost.
    For new sources, section 112(d) of the Act requires that the Agency 
establish NESHAP which may be no less stringent than ``the emission 
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar 
source.'' For new sources, the most stringent permit issued for any 
given process was adopted as MACT, except for calciners. Performance 
test data indicated that the most stringent permit limits were being 
achieved in practice. The calciners limit was based upon test data that 
showed an achievable level of performance exceeding the permitted 
requirements. Thus, MACT was set for all but one of the subcategories 
at the level of the most stringent permit requirements because there 
was no case in which more effective controls were identified.

C. Stakeholder and Public Participation

    In the development of these standards, numerous representatives of 
the phosphate fertilizers industry were consulted. Industry 
representatives have included trade associations and producers. 
Representatives from other interested Agency offices, regional offices, 
and State environmental agencies participated in the regulatory 
development process as members of an informal work group. The work 
group was involved in the regulatory development process, and was given 
opportunities to review and comment on the standards before proposal 
and promulgation. Finally, industry representatives, regulatory 
authorities, and environmental groups had the opportunity to comment on 
the proposed standards and to provide additional information during the 
public comment period that followed proposal.
    The standards were proposed in the Federal Register on December 27, 
1996 (61 FR 68430). The preamble to the proposed standards described 
the rationale for the proposed standards. Public comments were 
solicited at the time of proposal. To provide interested persons the 
opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments 
concerning the proposed standards, a public hearing was offered at 
proposal. However, the public did not request a hearing and, therefore, 
one was not held. The public comment period was from December 27, 1996 
to February 25, 1997. Sixteen comment letters were received. Commenters 
included industry representatives, control device manufacturers, State 
agencies and an environmental organization. The comments were carefully 
considered, and changes were made in the proposed standards when 
determined by the Agency to be appropriate. A detailed discussion of 
these comments and responses can be found in Section IV of this 
preamble.

II. Summary of Promulgated Standards

    The NESHAP emissions limits for existing and new sources are given 
in the tables below.

                        Emissions Limitations for Existing Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Class of source                  Pollutant                                               Emission limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process  Total Fluorides......  0.020 lb. Total Fluoride (F-) Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
 Line.
Superphosphoric Acid Process Line..  Total Fluorides......  0.010 lb. F- Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
Diammonium and/or Monoammonium       Total Fluorides......  0.060 lb. F- Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
 Phosphate Process Line.
Granular Triple Superphosphate       Total Fluorides......  0.150 lb. F- Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
 Process Line.
Granular Triple Superphosphate       Total Fluorides......  5.0  x  10-4 lb. F- Per Hour Per Ton of P2O5 Stored.
 Storage Buildings.
Phosphate Rock Dryers..............  Particulate Matter...  0.2150 lb. PM Per Ton of Rock Feed.
Phosphate Rock Calciners...........  Particulate Matter...  0.060 grains PM Per Dry Standard Cubic Foot.
Purified Phosphoric Acid Process     MIBK.................  Implement Part 63, Subpart H, Leak Detection and Repair Program.
 Line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Emissions Limitations for New Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate FertilizeR Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Class of source                  Pollutant                                               Emission limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process  Total Fluorides......  0.01350 lb. Total Fluoride (F-) per ton P2O5 Feed.
 Line.
SuperphosPhoric Acid Process Line..  Total Fluorides......  0.00870 lb. F- per ton P2O5 Feed.
Diammonium and/or Monoammonium       Total Fluorides......  0.0580 lb. F- per ton P2O5 Feed.
 Phosphate Process Line.
Granular Triple SuperphosPhate       Total Fluorides......  0.1230 lb. F- per ton P2O5 Feed.
 Process Line.
Granular Triple SuperphosPhate       Total Fluorides......  5.0 X 10-4 lb. F- Per Hour Per Ton of P2O5 Stored.
 Storage Buildings.
Phosphate Rock Dryers..............  Particulate Matter...  0.060 lb. PM Per Ton of Rock Feed.
Phosphate Rock Calciners...........  Particulate Matter...  0.040 grains PM Per Dry Standard Cubic Foot.
Purified Phosphoric Acid Process     MIBK.................  Implement Part 63, Subpart H, Leak Detection and Repair Program.
 Line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31362]]

    The form, but not the substance, of the standard for one 
subcategory has changed since proposal. In the proposal, the Agency 
noted that two types of superphosphoric acid process lines currently 
operate: a vacuum evaporation process and a submerged combustion 
process. These processes are quite distinct from one another and they 
use different feedstock. Moreover, the submerged combustion process is 
not amenable to the same level of control as is the vacuum evaporation 
process. The Agency therefore concluded that these processes should be 
regulated as separate subcategories under this NESHAP.
    Because only one facility currently exists in the submerged 
combustion process subcategory, the proposal's emission standard for 
the subcategory consisted of the lone source identified by company 
name. In the final regulation, the Agency has established an emission 
limit for the submerged combustion process subcategory generally 
without reference to the specific facility. Doing so ensures that 
changes in the facility's name or ownership would not change the 
applicable emission standard.
    Consistent with the proposal, the final regulation does not 
distinguish between process types in its establishment of new source 
emission limits for superphosphoric acid production. As the Agency 
noted at proposal, a new facility ``could avail itself of the same 
resources as other companies in the industry'' in choosing the kind of 
process to employ in manufacturing superphosphoric acid. (See 61 FR 
68438.) Put another way, the Agency examined both vacuum evaporation 
process and submerged combustion process sources to identify the ``best 
controlled similar source,'' which serves as the MACT floor for new 
sources. The Agency concluded that the MACT floor was represented by a 
facility employing the vacuum evaporation process. No commenter 
objected to this proposal and the Agency has retained it in the final 
regulation.
    Two additional technical changes are present in the final 
regulation. First, the standards as proposed often referred to 
``plants'' in defining the affected source, but the final regulation 
refers to ``process lines.'' For example, the proposed standard for a 
``Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plant'' now refers to a ``Wet Process 
Phosphoric Acid Process Line.'' Because the NSPS used the term 
``plant,'' the proposal (based in large part upon the NSPS) did as 
well. However, in practice, the ``plant'' to which the NSPS applies is 
indeed a single process line. EPA has chosen to use the more specific 
term in the final regulation in order to promote clarity for the 
regulated public. The Agency is confident that this change has no 
effect on the stringency of the standard.
    Second, the requirement that owners or operators of purified 
phosphoric acid process lines ensure that each product acid and 
raffinate stream have no more than a specified concentration of MIBK 
and that they ensure that the chiller stack exit gas stream remains 
below a given temperature has been moved from the monitoring section of 
the rule to its more appropriate location in the emission standard 
section.
    An annual performance test is required to demonstrate compliance 
with each applicable numerical limit for total fluorides or particulate 
matter. The monitoring provisions require an owner or operator using a 
wet scrubbing device to continuously monitor the pressure drop and 
liquid flow rate of scrubbing devices used to control total fluorides 
or particulate matter. The feed rate of raw materials to the processes 
must also be continuously monitored. During the performance test, the 
owner/operator must record the scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow 
rate to establish baseline levels. Following the performance test, it 
is an operating requirement that the owner/operator must maintain 
scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate within plus or minus twenty 
percent of the values recorded during the performance test or within a 
range established upon the basis of prior successful tests. Any 
exceedance of the operating range averaged over 24 hours is a violation 
of the operating requirement.
    For PPA plants that emit MIBK, the standards require implementation 
of a leak detection and repair program, continuous monitoring of 
chiller stack temperature and daily monitoring of MIBK concentrations 
at two points in the process.
    As required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), the owner or operator must develop and implement a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan. Most notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the general provisions apply to phosphoric 
acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production facilities. 
These include but are not limited to: (1) initial notification(s) of 
applicability, notification of performance test, and notification of 
compliance status; (2) a report of performance test results; (3) a 
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan with semiannual reports of 
reportable events (if they occur); and (4) semiannual reports of excess 
emissions. If excess emissions are reported, the owner or operator must 
report quarterly until a request to return the reporting frequency to 
semiannual is approved.
    The NESHAP General Provisions also require that records be 
maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each record. The owner 
or operator must retain the records on site for at least 2 years but 
may retain the records off site the remaining 3 years. The files may be 
retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a computer, on computer disks, or 
on magnetic tape. Reports may be made on paper or on a labeled computer 
disk using commonly available and EPA-compatible computer software.

III. Summary of Impacts

    The overall effect of the rule is to raise the control performance 
of plants in the industry to the level achieved by the best performing 
plants. In addition to the health and environmental benefits associated 
with HAP emission reductions, benefits of this action include a 
decrease in site-specific levels of non-HAP pollutants and lowered 
occupational exposure levels for employees.
    The Agency estimates that up to 550 Mg/yr (605 tpy) of HF, the 
predominate HAP, and other HAPs are emitted from sources at phosphoric 
acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants at the 
current level of control. Implementing MACT-level controls is expected 
to reduce these HAP emissions from regulated sources by about 315 Mg/yr 
(345 tpy) nationwide. Plants affected by the standards are expected to 
achieve these reductions by upgrading or installing wet scrubbing 
systems.
    Expected impacts to energy usage and other media are expected to be 
negligible. The largest possible impact will be a minor increase in 
liquid streams flowing to cooling ponds. Since the processes are net 
consumers of water, those flows will be recycled to the processes.
    The nationwide capital and annualized costs of the NESHAP, 
including emission controls and associated monitoring equipment, are 
estimated at $1.4 million and $862,000/yr, respectively. The economic 
impacts are predicted to increase product prices less than three-
fourths of a percent. One company in the industry is a small entity 
which would be subject to the standards. The economic impact of the 
NESHAP on this company is estimated to be low and would not be 
significant. No production line or plant closures are expected.

[[Page 31363]]

IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal and Responses

A. Selection of Pollutants

1. Hydrogen Fluoride
    Comment. One commenter said that the Agency had no empirical data 
measuring whether and to what extent HF is actually emitted from 
phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer production 
facilities, and, that the Agency should not, and legally may not, 
propose or promulgate a NESHAP for HF emissions from these facilities. 
The commenter questioned whether or not phosphoric acid manufacturing 
and phosphate fertilizer production facilities actually emit HF. The 
commenter said that no direct measurements of HF emissions from such 
facilities have ever been made. The commenter went on to question the 
calculations used to support the original listing of the source 
categories and the validity of the listings. The commenter further 
questioned the suitability of the Agency's use of a state permitting 
report (docket item II-I-32cc) since it did not contain results of 
direct measurements of HF. The commenter read the March 1995 review 
draft technical support document (TSD) as recognizing, whether or not, 
and to what extent, HF may be emitted by the sources affected by the 
draft NESHAP is dependent to a large extent on the levels of silica 
present in the processes in question. The commenter postulated that 
ammonia also ties up fluoride as ammonium bifluoride, making it even 
less likely that phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer 
production facilities actually emit HF. Thus, the commenter concluded 
that it appears that the Agency is basing both its determination that 
the facilities in question emit HF and its estimation of the amount of 
HF emitted on two sources: (1) ``calculations'' made by an EPA 
contractor; and (2) a report prepared by a company in connection with 
state toxic air pollutant permitting. The commenter said that these 
``calculations'' are unverified estimates and are not based on 
empirical data. The commenter continued that the state permitting 
report was not based on actual measurements of HF emissions. Rather, 
the silica content of monitoring impingers employed to test total 
fluoride emissions in two test runs was used to create a mass balance 
for various fluoride species across all of the fluoride emission points 
at the facility in question.
    One commenter said that the HF fraction of the fluorides in air 
emissions from phosphate-ore plants, in view of the speciating 
difficulties of ascertaining the exact fraction as HF, should be closer 
to the ``\1/3\ rule'' of chemistry (the reaction of 
H2SiF6--> 2HF + SiF4), not the 28-49 
percent range EPA is considering. The commenter said that with silica 
present in all parts of the phosphoric acid process it is logical for 
the HF portion in air emissions to be a mere fraction of the 28-49 
percent range.
    Response. The Agency responds to the statement that HF has not been 
directly measured or detected at phosphate fertilizer complexes by 
referring to docket items II-A-6 and II-A-12 which are reports of 
Agency tests which used Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) 
sampling and analysis to directly measure HF and silicon tetrafluoride 
at two facilities. Hydrogen fluoride was measured in amounts that 
exceeded the major source cutoff under Section 112. It was noteworthy 
that no silicon tetrafluoride was present in several test runs. In 
those test runs where silicon tetrafluoride was measured, its 
concentrations were dwarfed by those of HF. In a third test reported in 
docket item II-D-15, HF was also measured. The significance of all of 
these tests is that there are major sources of HAP emissions and HF was 
in fact directly measured. The low amount of silicon tetrafluoride 
present is supportive of the Agency's approach of estimating the HF 
component of total fluoride as one third of the total as predicted by 
the chemical equations cited in the TSD. The information in the State 
toxics permitting report (docket item II-I-32cc), which was submitted 
to the State by a source in the industry, supports this approach.
    Comment. One commenter said the Agency used inconsistent 
methodology in evaluating and regulating HF from processes and the 
associated cooling ponds. It was the commenter's position that the 
Agency must use total fluoride as a surrogate for HF in all situations, 
including cooling pond emissions. Further, the commenter thought that 
use of one HF test from one cooling pond was highly questionable given 
the historic wide variation in fluoride emission data from gypsum/
cooling ponds. The commenter cited an Agency publication that gave 
fluoride emission data for gypsum/cooling ponds that has ranged from 
0.2 to 10 lbs. of fluoride a day per acre of surface area. The 
commenter concluded that gypsum/cooling ponds remain a major source of 
fluoride emissions and the Agency had not established a sound 
scientific basis for concluding that HF was not a significant part of 
the large fluoride emissions from the cooling ponds.
    Response. The Agency's analysis of NESHAP for cooling ponds focused 
upon HF emissions because direct measurement data were available. The 
Agency is aware that those results differed from those of prior 
studies, including the Agency's own FTIR studies. The variations in 
data result in different possible estimates of total emissions. 
Nevertheless, these differences are not important for the purposes of 
the present rulemaking. The MACT floor determination is driven by the 
availability of existing control techniques. Here, MACT for existing 
cooling ponds is no control because there are no demonstrated control 
techniques used in practice which could have been applied to these 
sources, regardless of estimated emissions.
    Total fluorides were used as a surrogate for HF to establish MACT 
for emissions from process sources, in contrast to the ponds, because 
no direct measurements of HF were available and because the NSPS are 
based on total fluorides. The Agency notes that the results of the FTIR 
analyses for cooling ponds gave proportions of HF relative to total 
fluoride which were consistent with those predicted by chemical 
stoichiometry and, therefore, are supportive of the Agency's approach 
to estimating the impacts of the emission standards for processes. 
Since the control of total fluorides and HF from process sources is 
accomplished with the same control technology (scrubbers), the MACT 
analysis results in the same level of control regardless of how the 
emissions are characterized. The use of total fluoride as a surrogate 
for HF simply changes the manner in which the emissions limit is 
quantified, not the actual level of control.
2. HAP Metals
    Comment. Three commenters stated that particulate matter is an 
adequate performance measurement for the most likely control technology 
(wet scrubbers). However, they were concerned that particulate matter 
used as a surrogate may not accurately track all HAP metals emissions. 
Their primary concern arose from the fact that calciners operate at 
temperatures near 1,500 degrees F, which volatilize some HAP metals 
(such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and selenium). They noted that such 
volatilized metals would likely condense as sub-micron particles (for 
which the scrubbers have significantly lower control efficiency than 
they do for the bulk of the calciner particulate matter) and that 
Method 5 measurements would not reflect those emissions. This could 
lead to an erroneous conclusion that those

[[Page 31364]]

pollutants were adequately reduced. In consideration of these concerns, 
the commenters suggested that the final rule should require affected 
sources to collect appropriate data (such as that established by Method 
29) with which to determine the extent of HAP emissions from calciners.
    Response. As the commenters noted, the MACT floor technology 
consists of wet scrubbers. EPA used available particulate matter 
emissions data to serve as a surrogate for HAP metals. This PM 
Surrogate will require the installation of equipment at least as 
efficient as the technology that is representative of the floor level 
of emissions. Emission tests and analysis for metals is more costly 
than simply testing for particulate and would not result in a different 
floor technology. Therefore the Agency is requiring that particulate 
testing be performed to demonstrate compliance.
    Comment. One commenter said that no direct information was 
presented to confirm the existence of HAP from dryers and calciners at 
phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. The commenter asked that all 
sections of the proposal dealing with these sources be deleted in the 
absence of some evidence that they are major HAP emitters.
    Another commenter said that the data cited by the Agency are not a 
sufficient basis for the establishment of a NESHAP for such metals. The 
commenter stated that there are no stack test data specific to HAP 
metals and the only data on HAP metals cited are those included in a 
state toxic air pollutant permitting report (docket item II-I-32cc). 
The commenter said the establishment of NESHAP (or for particulate 
matter as a surrogate for such metals) is beyond the legal authority of 
the Agency under the Act.
    Response. Since HAP metals are present in phosphate rock, they will 
also be emitted from equipment subjecting the ore to high temperatures. 
The information in the TSD and the docket, to which commenters allude, 
is air toxics information provided to the State of North Carolina 
(docket items II-I-32aa and cc) that certifies that a particular source 
in that State emits HAP metals from dryers and calciners. The State has 
endorsed the submittals of that source in the form of approved air 
toxics permits. In particular, item II-I-32aa, which is an attachment 
to item II-I-32cc, contains results of direct testing of particulate 
matter from calciner emissions. The testing found arsenic, manganese, 
nickel, and cadmium, all of which are HAPs. Thus, the Agency concluded 
that PM is an effective surrogate for HAP metals.
    Also, the docket includes item II-I-52u that refers to information 
provided to a State regulatory agency that indicates that HAP compounds 
are emitted from calciners that a commenter operated and for which the 
commenter has current operating permits. Commenter's point that some 
dryers and calciners may not be major HAP emitters by themselves would 
not excuse the Agency from a duty to establish emissions limits for 
that equipment when it is located at major sources of HAPs.
3. Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
    Comment. One commenter expressed concern that the NESHAP would not 
address TRS emissions from WPPA plants. The commenter gave as an 
example one facility that emits 1690 tons per year of TRS and noted 
that those emissions dwarfed those of kraft pulp mills in its 
jurisdiction. The commenter suggested that TRS should be regulated and 
the most appropriate way to do so would be through the next review of 
the NSPS in subpart T.
    Response. Because the TRS pollutants are not listed as HAPs for the 
purposes of the Act, the Agency presently is not required to regulate 
TRS under section 112 of the Act. The commenter's suggestion of 
considering limits on TRS during the next review of the NSPS in Subpart 
T will be addressed in that context.

B. Compliance Provisions

1. Use of Monitored Operating Parameters for Establishing Violations of 
the Standards
    Comment. A number of commenters expressed their opinions on the 
Agency's proposal to relate operation outside established site-specific 
ranges of wet scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate to 
exceedances of the emissions limits. The commenters were unanimous in 
questioning such relationships for emissions levels for total fluorides 
and particulates for the sources subject to these NESHAP. One commenter 
claimed that there was no basis for limiting the variation in operating 
parameter monitoring results to plus or minus ten percent of the level 
observed during a performance test. The commenter said there were no 
data in the record to support any correlation between operating 
parameter exceedances and a violation of the proposed NESHAP emission 
limits, much less a correlation between a greater than ten percent 
variation in operating parameter values and such a violation. Another 
commenter said the proposed 10 percent restriction limit on 
the emission control devices (usually scrubber pressure drop and the 
liquid flow rate) was needlessly restrictive. The commenter recommended 
a 17 percent restriction limit as being less restrictive 
and serving as a ``surrogate'' indicator for continuous monitoring of 
equipment whose function is to maintain emission limits.
    The primary industry commenter argued that there is nothing in the 
record of this rulemaking to establish that an operating parameter 
exceedance is ``credible evidence'' of the duration, much less the 
existence, of a violation of the proposed NESHAP emission limits. The 
commenter noted that the data contained in the record of this 
rulemaking consist entirely of performance test results and there are 
absolutely no data or information in the record upon which the Agency 
could base a determination that the operating parameter exceedances 
identified in the proposal can be equated with a violation of the 
proposed NESHAP emission limits. The commenter provided data for the 
purpose of indicating that sources might meet proposed emissions limits 
over a wide range of operating conditions. The data covered a period of 
years and included a wide range of operating conditions. As a group, 
these commenters were of the opinion that control device operating 
parameters such as scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate could be 
used as indicators of proper operation and the need for maintenance.
    In the event that the monitoring provisions of the proposal were 
retained, three commenters recommended that sources electing to use 
historic test results to establish a range of operation for control 
device operating parameters as provided by proposed Secs. 63.604(d)(2) 
or 63.624(f)(2) should be given the same opportunity to retest to 
demonstrate that prior exceedances did not constitute violations of 
emission limits as provided in Secs. 63.604(d)(1) or 63.624(f)(1). 
Pursuing the logic of the previous paragraph, one of the commenters 
said the basis for the retest option would be the fact that compliance 
with the emission limits can be achieved even if operating parameter 
values are outside the range observed during a compliance performance 
test. The commenter held that this rationale was valid whether the 
operating parameter ranges are established by the plus or minus ten 
percent method or by the owner or operator under the alternative 
method.
    Some commenters believe it is prudent to keep the continuous 
parameter monitoring requirements in

[[Page 31365]]

the proposed rule to assist operators in determining whether their 
controls are operating properly. They note that while it is not 
necessarily true that sources are in compliance with the emission 
standards just because their two monitored operating parameters are 
within the range of values established during the performance test, 
exceedances of operating parameters are good indicators of control 
device malfunctions. These commenters recommended not allowing sources 
that exceed the continuous monitoring parameters set during the 
performance test to have the opportunity to retest within 30 days to 
demonstrate that the prior exceedance did not constitute a violation of 
an emission limit, as proposed. The commenters believe it would be very 
difficult to ensure that the proposed provisions requiring the source 
to establish and maintain during the re-test the same operating 
conditions that existed during the exceedance of the operating range 
could be properly followed and that the retest would, in all 
probability, not represent conditions present during the exceedance. 
Furthermore, they commented that the allowance to retest would add 
another layer of complications for determining compliance under the 
rule. They recommended deleting the allowance to retest from the final 
rule.
    Response. The final rule accommodates the concerns raised with 
regard to the Agency's proposal linking exceedances of operating 
parameter ranges to compliance with the emission limit. Specifically, 
the final rule eliminates this direct linkage, based on data submitted 
by commenters' indicating that compliance with an operating parameter 
range does not always correlate to compliance with the emission limit, 
and it establishes instead operating parameter limits which help assure 
continuous compliance with the emission limit. In so doing, the rule 
also reflects other concerns that the standard should contain operating 
requirements aimed at ensuring proper operation and maintenance of 
sources' control devices. Consequently, although the data available to 
the Agency did not establish an exact correlation between operating 
parameter values and specific exhaust gas concentrations, the rule 
retains the requirement to maintain operating parameter values within 
established ranges, in order to help assure that MACT is being complied 
with on a continuous basis.
    Monitoring of an operating parameter, with an enforceable operating 
limit, will help assure continuous compliance with the emission limit 
through continuous emission reductions. The operating limit is a 
separately enforceable requirement of the rule and is not secondary to 
the emission limit.
    This standard requires sources using wet scrubbers to continuously 
monitor the scrubber liquid flow rate and the pressure drop across the 
scrubbers and to maintain these operating parameters within ranges 
under which the source demonstrates, via a performance test, the source 
can comply with the emission limit. The operating limits established 
during a performance test help assure continuous compliance with the 
emission limit. The EPA has considered the commenters' argument that an 
exceedance of an operating parameter is not necessarily an exceedance 
of an emission limit and has consequently not made operating limit 
exceedances automatic violations of the emission limit; however, the 
Agency has made these operating limits separately enforceable 
requirements of the rule in order to promote continuous compliance with 
the emission limit.
    By doing so, the final rule accounts for the commenters' claims in 
two ways: (1) the operating limits include an operating margin of 
20 percent for sources that base the operating limit upon 
the baseline values of operating parameters established in the most 
recent performance test; and (2) by allowing sources to establish 
operating limit ranges based upon baseline values of operating 
parameters established in either historic performance tests or 
performance tests conducted specifically to establish such ranges. 
Thus, sources have two options to establish operating limit ranges 
within which the source will still be in compliance with the operating 
limit. By including an operating margin, the EPA recognizes that 
control devices can be operated and maintained under a range of 
conditions and still help assure compliance with the emission limit 
through continuous emission reduction. For the final rule, the Agency 
has increased the operating margins in the first instance described 
above from 10 percent at proposal to 20 
percent. This change was made in response to the Agency's review of 
data submitted by the industry commenters that showed a wide range of 
variability in the level of operating parameters over which the 
emissions limits could be achieved. The Agency believes that sources 
which operate in these expanded margins and sources which keep 
operating parameters within a range established on the basis of test 
data generally will be meeting the emission limit and, thus, these 
changes make the operating requirements more likely to provide a 
reasonable assurance of the source's compliance status. As an 
additional safeguard to ensure that these operating requirements are 
set to help assure continuous compliance with the emission limit, when 
performance testing shows emissions near the emission limits, the 
permitting agencies have the discretion to shrink a previously-
established operating range when a source operating within the broader 
range could be expected to exceed the emission limits. On the other 
hand, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to further 
expand these operating margins, as some commenters suggest, because the 
rule permits sources to undertake additional performance testing to 
establish operating limits which reflect compliance with the emission 
limit for the full range of operating conditions at the source.
    Finally, because the final rule does not make operating limit 
exceedances automatic violations of the emission limit, and because the 
operating limits are separately enforceable requirements of the rule, a 
provision which allows the source to retest to show that certain 
operating parameter levels do not equate with an emission limit 
violation is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Agency has deleted the 
retest provision, as suggested by the State commenters.
    Comment. Two commenters said, in many cases, the pressure drops 
involved are less than one inch and the commenter is unaware of 
monitoring equipment that can measure at the tenth of an inch level 
necessary to determine whether or not the measured pressure drop is 
plus or minus ten percent of that observed during a performance test.
    Response. As a result of the comments concerning possible 
unavailability of instrumentation with suitable sensitivity, the Agency 
contacted an instrument vendor and was advised that the necessary 
equipment is available.
    Comment. One commenter speaking for the industry as a whole said 
that operating parameter exceedances may not be denominated as 
violations of NESHAP emission limits. The commenter said the Act 
provides no legal authority to denominate operating parameter 
exceedances as violations of emission limits. The commenter said this 
is particularly the case when, as here, the emission limits have been 
developed using a database which consists entirely of performance test 
results. In such a case, the denomination of operating parameter 
exceedances as a violation of the emission limit would have the effect 
of changing the emission limit without

[[Page 31366]]

sufficient technical support in the record.
    The commenter anticipated that the Agency could argue that section 
113(e) of the Act provides the necessary legal authority and noted that 
the section provides that the duration of a violation may be 
established by ``any credible evidence (including evidence other than 
the applicable test method).'' However, the commenter posited that any 
argument that section 113(e) provides legal authority to denominate 
operating parameter exceedances as a violation of emission limits in 
general, and the proposed NESHAP in particular, would be without merit. 
The commenter argued section 113(e) permits any credible evidence other 
than the applicable test method to be used only to establish the 
duration of a violation, not the fact that a violation has occurred.
    Response. The final rule does not make exceedances of operating 
requirements per se violations of the emission limitation. As such, the 
commenter's concern presumably has been addressed by changes since 
proposal. The Agency, however, specifically disagrees with the 
commenter's suggestion that, under the Act, parameter deviations cannot 
be denominated as violations of applicable emission standards. Section 
113(a) of the Act directly contradicts the commenter's position. It 
permits enforcement actions for violations of the statutory 
requirements ``on the basis of any information available to the 
Administrator* * * *'' This broad language means that the Agency can 
prove a violation based on any information available, limited only by 
general evidentiary rules.
    In addition, the commenter's reading of section 113(e) is too 
constrained. As the Agency stated in the Credible Evidence rulemaking, 
section 113(e)'s focus on the duration of a violation grew out of 
Congress's desire to reverse a judicial decision prohibiting the Agency 
from establishing a violation's duration by non-reference test methods. 
See 62 FR 8314, 8320-22 (February 24, 1997). Section 113(e) should not, 
therefore, be read to limit the Agency's ability to prove the fact of 
an emission violation, in addition to the duration of such violation, 
by any credible evidence.
2. Selection of Monitored Parameters
    Comment. One commenter said operating parameter ranges should be 
established on the basis of any relevant data as opposed to the 
proposal that would allow alternatives to the plus or minus ten percent 
operating range to be established using data obtained during full-scale 
performance testing. The commenter thought that data other than that 
obtained during full-scale performance testing could validly establish 
operating ranges for pressure drop and liquid flow rate that are 
representative of compliance with the NESHAP emission limits. The 
commenter believed that because other data may be used to establish the 
required operating ranges, and because the ranges must be approved by 
appropriate government officials, the proposed Secs. 63.604(d)(2) and 
63.624(d)(2) should be revised to permit the establishment of the 
required operating ranges on the basis of any relevant data or 
information, including engineering assessments and manufacturer's 
recommendations.
    Another commenter said that changes in pressure drop are not always 
an accurate indication of changes in performance for certain types of 
scrubbers. In particular, the commenter said phosphoric acid production 
and DAP/MAP fertilizer production are each highly scaling (e.g. 
depositing hard incrustations inside process vessels) services, and 
pressure taps necessary for continuous pressure drop monitoring readily 
scale over in both services. The commenter said that while it is 
certainly possible to operate a continuous pressure drop monitoring 
system in these services, keeping the pressure taps from scaling over 
can be a maintenance-intensive effort. So, the commenter suggested that 
the final version of the proposed rule should allow for continuous 
monitoring and recording of some other appropriate indicator 
parameter(s) in lieu of pressure drop in cases where other parameters 
provide a more accurate indication of scrubber performance.
    Response. Since the scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate are 
direct indicators of the operation of the control device and its 
performance during the most recent testing, the final standards 
continue to require that those parameters be monitored. The commenters' 
suggestions that other ``relevant'' or ``appropriate'' indicators 
should be specified in lieu of pressure drop and liquid flow rate are 
vague and would result in case-by-case debates as to whether any of 
innumerable options may or may not accomplish the same degree of 
feedback on the performance of emissions controls. The commenters 
provided no data as to how other parameters correlate with emissions 
limits. Likewise, establishment of the required operating ranges on the 
basis of any relevant data or information, including engineering 
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations, as suggested by the 
commenters, would be insufficient because there would be no link 
established between such ranges and the emission limits as is the case 
when ranges are set during performance testing. The general provisions 
provide the opportunity for sources to obtain consideration of 
alternative monitoring, as needed.
3. Frequency of Testing
    Comment. Two commenters said that the proposed one-time performance 
testing was inadequate. The commenters cited the example of one source 
that is required to test WPPA plants, phosphate rock dryers and 
calciners, DAP/MAP plants and GTSP plants on an annual basis. The 
commenters recommended that the Agency require testing either annually 
or once every permit cycle. The commenters consider one-time 
performance testing insufficient and a step backwards from their 
current requirements.
    The commenters considered the proposed one-time performance test 
requirement for sources ineffective and inadequate to demonstrate 
compliance with each applicable numerical emission limit for total 
fluorides and particulate matter (surrogate pollutants). They stated 
that most sources at the affected facilities currently perform at least 
annual stack testing for the surrogate pollutants identified above. 
They commented that air pollution control agencies have required this 
level of testing because their experience indicates that these sources 
are prone to problems with control device maintenance. They note that 
many affected facilities, which represent large industrial complexes 
that have undertaken this type of stack testing for numerous years, use 
their own environmental compliance staff to conduct the tests, 
minimizing any economic burden. Accordingly, the commenters recommended 
that the minimum requirement for ensuring compliance with the proposed 
emission standards should be annual stack testing using the methods 
described in the performance tests and compliance provisions sections 
(Secs. 63.606 and 63.626).
    Response. The Agency has taken note of the comments that the 
equipment and control devices in these source categories are subject to 
harsh conditions that cause corrosion and scaling of the process 
components and that State agencies already require annual tests of 
these facilities. So, the performance of the emissions controls will 
vary over time and so may emissions. Thus, the Agency is promulgating a 
requirement for annual

[[Page 31367]]

testing in the final rule. This change is also important in light of 
the decision not to make operating parameter exceedances violations of 
the emission standards, which raises concerns as to how to ensure 
appropriate enforcement of the NESHAP. As was noted by commenters, most 
jurisdictions already require annual, or more frequent testing and, so, 
this will add minimal burden beyond that already required of the 
sources.
    Comment. One commenter said that in the event that the Agency 
retains the provisions for designating exceedances of operating 
parameter ranges as violations, he supports the alternative method of 
setting the operating range for parameters of the air pollution control 
device.
    Response. The alternative for establishing operating ranges based 
upon prior performance test results was retained in the final rule.
4. Simultaneous Testing
    Comment. Two commenters said the requirement for simultaneous 
testing would be burdensome for most facilities with multiple emission 
points because, read strictly, this would require multiple test crews 
and equipment whenever dealing with multiple emission points. One of 
the commenters said this requirement would add nothing to the quality 
of the information gathered. The other commenter found ambiguity in the 
word ``simultaneous.'' He questioned whether ``simultaneous'' meant 
exactly at the same time, or within a certain number of minutes or 
hours. Also, the commenter said the processes undertaken at these 
facilities are continuous operations and variations within these 
continuous operations would be expected to be slight. Finally, the 
commenter said simultaneous performance testing had never been required 
by the existing NSPS on which the proposed NESHAP were based. The 
commenter said under the NSPS, the relevant regulatory authority 
establishes performance testing requirements based on the circumstances 
presented by individual facilities. The commenter said that the NSPS 
performance testing requirements have been in place for more than 20 
years and there is no suggestion that the current approach to 
performance testing is inadequate or inappropriate. So, he recommended 
that the timing of performance testing be decided by the Administrator 
on a case-by-case basis.
    Response. Since there is a limited number of sources where multiple 
emissions points are present and there are no known instances where 
testing has been a problem in the past, the Agency decided not to make 
simultaneous testing mandatory in the final rule. The site-specific 
test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c)(2) of the general provisions will 
cause development of test plans that can address the concerns which 
lead the Agency to propose simultaneous testing.
5. Process Monitoring Requirements for Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) 
Plants
    Comment. One commenter recommended that the proposed process feed 
rate monitoring requirements be amended to delete reference to PPA 
plants. They noted that their plant records P2O5 
feed to the process on a daily basis, and that, given the averaging 
period for MIBK additions, continuous recording of feed rate is 
unnecessary. In addition, the commenter recommended substituting 
``product'' for ``stripped'' in connection with the descriptions of the 
acid streams in proposed Sec. 63.604(f)(1) to distinguish them from 
those referenced in proposed Sec. 63.604(f)(2).
    Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and the regulations 
have been appropriately changed.
6. Other
    Comment. One commenter opined that approval authority for operating 
parameter ranges should be broadened. As proposed, Secs. 63.604(d)(2) 
and 63.624(d)(2) required that pressure drop and liquid flow rate 
ranges be approved by ``the permitting authority.'' The commenter was 
concerned that limiting approval authority to the permitting authority 
was unnecessarily restrictive and could result in the inability of an 
owner or operator to establish operating parameter ranges because there 
may be, at the relevant time, no ``permitting authority'' to give 
approval. To address this potential problem, the commenter recommended 
that operating parameter range approval authority be vested in the 
``Administrator.''
    Response. That term was deleted from the final rule which, instead, 
now refers to the Administrator as defined in the General Provisions 40 
CFR, part 63, 63.2 Definitions.
    Comment. One commenter recommended that the proposal 
(Secs. 63.605(c)(3)(ii) and 63.625(c)(3)(ii)), which would require that 
the P2O5 content of the feed to the processes 
subject to the NESHAP be determined in accordance with Method 9 of the 
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), be revised. The 
commenter observed that Method 9 was the accepted method for 
P2O5 determinations in 1974 when it was specified 
by, and incorporated by reference in, the NSPS for the processes 
subject to the proposed NESHAP. In the intervening 23 years, AOAC has 
developed and specified more advanced methods for making the 
P2O5 determination, including Methods 962.02, 
969.02, and 978.03. The commenter recommended that in order to avoid 
specifying outdated methods for the P2O5 
determination; and in order to keep this section of the NESHAP 
``evergreen,'' proposed 40 CFR 63.605(c)(3)(ii) and 63.625(c)(3)(ii) be 
revised to read: ``(ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of 
the feed shall be determined in accordance with the method(s) of the 
Association of Official Analytical Chemists.''
    Response. The Agency agrees that the specified AOAC methods are 
appropriate methods to determine the total phosphorus content of 
fertilizer, has amended Sec. 63.14 to incorporate by reference AOAC 
methods 929.01, 929.02, 957.02, 958.01, 962.02, 969.02, and 978.01, and 
has added appropriate references to those methods in the rule. The 
Agency also has identified appropriate test methods published by The 
Association of Florida Phosphate Chemists to quantify total phosphorus 
content of fertilizer. In addition the Agency has added appropriate 
references to methods published by The Association of Florida Phosphate 
Chemists to quantify total phosphorus content of phosphoric acid, 
superphosphoric acid, triple superphosphate, and ammonium phosphate.
    The commenter suggested that a general reference to AOAC methods 
was a way to avoid citing outdated methods. The Agency does not agree 
that this is acceptable since changes to a method could affect the 
stringency of the regulation. It is therefore important that the Agency 
review changes in consensus methods to assure that this does not 
inadvertently happen. The Agency accomplishes this by citing a specific 
version of a consensus method.
    Comment. A commenter recommended that the determination of whether 
pressure drop is measured across each scrubber in the process scrubbing 
system or across the entire scrubbing system be left to the 
Administrator on a case-by-case basis. The commenter noted that 
production facilities subject to the NESHAP employ various types of 
scrubbers, and various scrubber configurations, as a means of achieving 
compliance with the current NSPS and that these same systems will be 
used to achieve compliance with the NESHAP. The commenter said that, 
because of the variation in the types and configurations of scrubbers 
used to achieve compliance, a requirement to

[[Page 31368]]

measure the total pressure drop across each scrubber in the process 
scrubbing system in all cases could be unnecessarily burdensome. The 
commenter went on to say that monitoring of both pressure drop and flow 
rate may not be appropriate in all cases and that the determination of 
the appropriate operating parameter(s) for monitoring should be made on 
a case-by-case basis. The commenter posited that the requirement to 
install continuous parameter monitoring systems for both pressure drop 
and flow rate in all cases could be unduly burdensome, inappropriate 
and not supported by the record. The commenter said whether pressure 
drop or flow rate is the relevant parameter for monitoring turns 
largely on the HAP being controlled by the relevant NESHAP.
    Response. The documentation of the proposed NESHAP made clear that 
the Agency was aware of the wide range of possible scrubber 
configurations that can be and are used to meet the NESHAP level of 
control. As written, the rules provide sources with flexibility to meet 
the emission limits in the manner most efficient for a given source. 
Accordingly, when choosing to use multiple control devices to achieve 
limits that can be met by a single device, a source also accepts the 
requirements attendant to operating and monitoring those devices. To 
allow sources to monitor only chosen components of control systems as 
suggested by the commenters would undermine the effectiveness of the 
monitoring requirements in assessing the overall performance of 
controls. The control systems are essentially doing the same job 
regardless of whether removal of pollutants is occurring in one or a 
series of vessels. The main concern is one of providing sufficient time 
for the effluent gases to contact an absorbent liquid. The key 
parameters therefore are contact time as reflected by pressure drop and 
sufficient quantities of absorbent as reflected by liquid flow rate. 
The overall operating effectiveness of the controls is reflected in 
those two parameters.
    Comment. One commenter questioned the two hour test time in 
proposed Sec. 63.605(e)(1) which would require that the sampling time 
for each run of a performance test for phosphate rock calciner 
particulate matter emissions be ``at least 2 hours.'' Further, the 
commenter believed that the equipment employed in performing the 
relevant reference method would be incapable of producing accurate 
results when operated for a two-hour period due to the plugging of the 
particulate matter filters involved. Consequently, the commenter 
suggested that the per-run sampling time for particulate matter 
performance testing of phosphate rock calciners be set at one hour.
    Response. There are two factors generally considered when 
specifying a minimum particulate matter (Method 5) sampling time in a 
regulation. The first priority is to assure that sufficient sample mass 
would be collected to obtain quantitative results with an acceptable 
degree of confidence at the level of the emission limit. The sample 
size needed to determine compliance at concentrations of 0.040 grains 
per dry standard cubic foot is small enough that one hour is a 
sufficient sampling time. The second factor is the time necessary to 
obtain a sample that represents normal process operational cycles. 
Calcination is a continuous operation. Hence, this is not an overriding 
factor. Thus, consistent with the commenter's suggestion, the Agency is 
specifying a minimum sampling time for each performance test run of 1 
hour.
    Comment. One commenter said the Agency recognized in the preamble 
to the proposed NESHAP that performance testing requirements for 
uncontrolled GTSP storage buildings have not yet been proposed by the 
agency and reserved the right to comment on these performance testing 
requirements when they are proposed.
    Response. The Agency previously promulgated Methods 13 A and B 
which are applicable to GTSP storage buildings. Sources electing to 
determine compliance without control devices or stacks need to develop 
site-specific test protocols that are equivalent to Method 13. Source 
owners wanting to assure compliance in an alternative manner should 
propose a measurement procedure in their site-specific test plans, 
required by Sec. 63.7(c)(2). The regulation requires that the owner or 
operator submit those plans to the Agency for review within twelve 
months of promulgation. The Administrator's review procedure is 
governed by Sec. 63.7(c)(3). In the interest of maintaining uniformity 
in the implementation of the NESHAP, the Administrator has retained 
from delegation the authority to approve site-specific test plans for 
uncontrolled granular triple superphosphate storage buildings developed 
pursuant to Sec. 63.7(c)(2)(i). This retention of authority is 
contained in Sec. 63.629 entitled ``Miscellaneous requirements.''

C. Emission Limits

1. General
    Comment. One commenter expressed the opinion that the Agency has 
proposed reasonable emissions limits which can be reasonably met using 
commercially available control technologies.
    Response. None required.
2. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid (WPPA) Plants
    Comment. One commenter said the Agency should amend the standard 
for existing WPPA facilities to be the same as for new WPPA facilities 
because the proposed action failed to consider and analyze the economic 
advantage that the proposed standard would give existing facilities 
over new facilities.
    Also, the commenter said the proposed MACT floor standard for 
existing facilities failed to consider the benefits of airborne 
radionuclides reductions achieved by the proposed new facility 
standard. Citing the Agency's proposal not to exercise its statutory 
authority to go ``beyond-the-floor'' and require more stringent 
controls on existing WPPA plants based upon EPA's analysis of the 
health impacts of HF and HAP metals, the commenter was unaware of any 
Agency analysis of the human health and environmental benefit. The 
commenter maintained that the Agency was required by section 112(d) to 
evaluate the public health benefit and the environmental benefit which 
would result from the decreased radionuclide emissions associated with 
the particulate if existing WPPA facilities were required to meet the 
new source WPPA standard for HF emissions.
    Response. The Agency's actions have been guided by the language of 
the Act. The Act clearly states that standards for new and existing 
sources should be determined differently. The commenter was correct in 
his observation that the Agency has a duty to consider going beyond the 
floor level of control for existing sources.
    For this rulemaking, there were no data which to base analyses of 
additional reductions in radionuclide emissions. There was information 
on HF and HAP metals emissions. So, the Agency's analysis for going 
beyond the MACT floor focused upon those pollutants.
    As a part of that consideration, the Agency first explored the 
possibility that different control technologies were available and 
demonstrated for the classes of sources being controlled by today's 
action. None were found that had been demonstrated and could be applied 
without creating additional negative impacts on other environmental 
media. The Agency also considered whether the new source emission 
limits could be applied to

[[Page 31369]]

existing sources. The emissions data showed that high levels of control 
were being achieved in both cases and that there was minimal 
opportunity for incremental reductions to be achieved in a cost-
effective manner by going from the existing-source MACT floors to the 
levels of new source MACT. As discussed above (I. B.), a simple 
calculation of the application of new source MACT in place of existing 
source MACT for the subcategory of WPPA plants, which have the greatest 
differential between the two levels of control, indicates that the 
costs would be unreasonable. In that example, the annualized capital 
cost of achieving the additional annual HF reduction of 0.34 tons per 
year was $17,253 per year. There, the cost effectiveness of the 
additional reduction would be $50,744 per ton of additional HF removed, 
which the Agency considers to be inappropriate at this time.
3. Evaporative Cooling Towers at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
    Comment. Commenters support the Agency's proposed requirement to 
forbid the introduction of liquids containing the effluent from air 
pollution control devices into any evaporative cooling tower. They 
agree that it does not make sense to scrub hydrogen fluoride and other 
HAPs from potential emission points and then allow these HAPs to 
evaporate when the scrubber water is routed to evaporative cooling 
towers.
    One commenter said that separating water discharges of pollution 
control devices from the evaporative cooling towers would cost one 
source in its jurisdiction approximately $0.4 million for process 
alterations. The commenter stated that it could cause the source 
various operational problems of increased water consumption and plant 
water effluent, for which the source has no water effluent-handling 
facilities outside of land application.
    One commenter stated that his is the only existing facility 
affected by this proposal and estimates compliance costs will be 
several hundred thousand dollars. He commented that the Agency had not 
considered the benefits or the compliance costs of the proposed work 
standard and that Sec. 63.602(e) should be deleted.
    Response. For phosphoric acid manufacturing, the Agency has elected 
to base NESHAP upon the floor level of control. This is the least 
stringent option permitted by the Act. Any consideration of costs would 
be of significance only for consideration of options for control levels 
exceeding the floor level of stringency.
    Comment. Two commenters noted that the language for existing and 
new evaporative cooling towers does not agree and proposed that 
Sec. 63.602(e) should be used for both.
    Response. The Agency agrees that the language for existing and new 
evaporative cooling towers should have been identical. It was the 
Agency's intent to use the language described for existing sources for 
new ones also and this has been changed on the final rule.
4. Phosphate Rock Calciners and Dryers
    Comment. One commenter expressed the opinion that the proposed 
particulate matter limit of 0.040 grain per dry standard cubic foot 
(gr/dscf) for calciners is readily achievable and went on to note that 
emissions below 0.025 gr/dscf have been achieved for at least one 
calciner. The commenter suggested that the Agency should also limit 
emissions of fluorides from calciners.
    Response. The Agency agrees with the comments upon the 
achievability of the proposed emissions limits. The first number 
referred to by the commenter was selected as MACT for existing 
calciners via the rationale in the proposal. The limit selected for 
existing sources was established on the basis of test data for several 
calciners that actually process phosphate ore and the data show that 
the emissions limits can be met on an ongoing basis. The lower number 
given by the commenter has been achieved by calciners in other 
categories. However, the commenter provided no information that this 
level of control is achievable for phosphate rock calciners. The 
selection of new source MACT described in the proposal was made using 
data specific to this industry to ensure achievability. The Agency did 
consider setting a fluoride limit for calciners. The wet scrubbers used 
in the industry for control of particulate matter also capture hydrogen 
fluoride. Even if the Agency had established an HF floor, it would have 
been based upon the same control devices that provided the basis for 
setting the particulate limit.
5. Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) Plants
    Comment. One commenter initially recommended that the level of the 
proposed MIBK standard should be changed from that which was proposed. 
Included with the comments was information describing plant 
modifications, updated MIBK inventory records and process records from 
which emissions could be determined. The Agency reviewed the updated 
information and concluded that it supported neither the proposed 
standards nor those suggested in the commenter's recommendations. To 
clarify the comment, the commenter consulted with its State air 
pollution control agency to discuss alternatives. Two commenters stated 
that the leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart H would be a workable means of addressing fugitive emissions. 
Other commenters stated that the LDAR program would not address tank 
and stack emissions and they supported keeping the proposed 
requirements to maintain the chiller stack temperature and the MIBK 
concentration of the raffinate (process waste materials) and product 
acid within specified limits.
    Response. One commenter manufactures PPA through a solvent 
extraction method. The plant emits MIBK, which is a HAP. Fugitive 
emissions of MIBK from valves, flanges, and seals are reduced by means 
of an ongoing maintenance and repair program. As the lone PPA facility 
in the source category, its control methods constitute the MACT floor 
for controlling fugitive emissions of MIBK. At proposal, the Agency 
translated the source's maintenance and repair program into a numerical 
limit on MIBK that was to be determined through plant production and 
MIBK makeup records. The proposal was based upon the premise that the 
MIBK makeup requirement was a result of fugitive emissions. That 
approach was proposed because the Agency thought that doing so would 
simplify enforcement of a standard based upon effectiveness of the work 
practices in place at the plant for limiting process losses of MIBK. In 
response to a commenter, the Agency reviewed information in the record 
prior to proposal and the additional information provided by the 
commenter for the purpose of determining whether the proposed numerical 
limit would be an appropriate means of implementing MACT. The data 
indicated that a numerical limit could not be established. Emissions 
were not related to production and, therefore, the proposed standard 
which tied allowable emissions to the production rate was not a valid 
approach.
    The MIBK cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and 
constructed to capture this pollutant.
    Upon consideration of the fugitive nature of these emissions, the 
available information and the public comments received, the Agency has 
concluded that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission 
standard for control of these emissions. In section 112(h)(1), the Act 
provides that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard

[[Page 31370]]

consistent with the provisions of section 112(d) in lieu of an emission 
standard, if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission 
standard for control of a HAP. In this instance, the work practices at 
the plant constitute the floor level of control. The Agency agrees with 
the commenters recommendation that the leak detection and repair (LDAR) 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H provides a means of expressing 
the work practices as a regulatory requirement. The LDAR provisions in 
subpart H were determined during development of the hazardous organics 
NESHAP to be MACT for fugitive emissions sources with similar 
characteristics to those of the one plant emitting MIBK. After 
considering all available information, the Agency has concluded that 
subpart H is at least equivalent to the facility's current practices 
and has adopted the LDAR provisions of the HON as part of the MACT 
controls for this process. Accordingly, the Agency has referenced the 
subpart H requirements in today's rulemaking. The Agency is keeping the 
proposed requirements to monitor and maintain the chiller stack 
temperature and the MIBK concentration of the raffinate and product 
acid within specified limits.
    Comment. One commenter suggested generalizing the definition of a 
PPA plant by modifying the proposed language to read as follows: 
``Purified phosphoric acid plant means any facility which uses solvent 
extraction to separate impurities from wet process phosphoric acid 
product acid for the purposes of rendering the product suitable for 
industrial, manufacturing or food grade uses.''
    Response. The Agency found the commenter's suggestion acceptable 
and has incorporated it into the final rule with a wording change that 
clarifies that coverage is limited to those sources employing a HAP 
compound as a solvent. So, the rules will effectively cover only one of 
the two processes now in use because the second process does not emit 
HAPs.
6. Granular Triple Superphosphate (GTSP) Storage Buildings
    Comment. One commenter supported the Agency's proposed approach 
limiting applicability for GTSP storage buildings to only those storage 
buildings co-located with GTSP plants. The commenter concurred with the 
Agency's rationale and cited additional reasons why the NESHAP for GTSP 
storage buildings should be made applicable only to such storage 
buildings collocated with GTSP plants. The commenter said requirements 
of the proposed NESHAP for such facilities were based directly upon the 
pre-existing NSPS and said his review of the background documents 
associated with the original NSPS rulemaking indicated it was clear 
that the Agency intended that the NSPS apply only to collocated GTSP 
storage facilities. Furthermore, he noted the only GTSP storage 
facilities sampled in connection with the development of the NSPS were 
collocated facilities.
    As a consequence of review of the public record, the commenter made 
several specific suggestions about the proposed rules. First, he said 
the definition of ``fresh'' GTSP in proposed Sec. 63.621 should be 
redefined if the Agency does not limit the applicability of the NESHAP 
to collocated GTSP storage facilities. The commenter suggested that for 
regulatory purposes, the appropriate inquiry is the extent to which 
GTSP in storage actually emits significant amounts of fluorides. The 
commenter provided engineering data on measured fluoride emissions from 
stored GTSP and said the data demonstrate that the vast majority of 
fluoride emissions occur within 48 hours of the production of GTSP. The 
commenter recommended that the definition of ``fresh'' GTSP be revised 
to read: ``Fresh granular Triple superphosphate means granular Triple 
superphosphate produced within the preceding 72 hours'' based on the 
data provided.
    The commenter also said that the percentage of fresh GTSP that must 
be present during performance testing would also have to be revised 
accordingly. If this were not done, no existing GTSP plant would be 
capable of producing ``fresh'' GTSP at a rate which would permit the 
current 20 percent limitation to be met. The commenter recommended that 
the percentage of the total amount of stored GTSP which must be fresh 
at performance testing should also be revised from 20 percent to six 
percent.
    Response. In general, the Agency agrees with the commenter's 
conclusions and recommendations. The proposed approach was to adopt the 
technical component of the NSPS and to add language exempting GTSP 
storage buildings co-located with GTSP process lines. Shortly after 
proposal, the co-location issue and the technical concerns raised by 
the commenter also arose in the context of the NSPS itself. The NSPS 
was subsequently revised (see 62 FR 18308) to address those concerns. 
The main features of the revised NSPS were a change to the definition 
of ``fresh GTSP'' that was consistent with the commenter's 
recommendation and a provision requiring producers of GTSP not to ship 
freshly produced GTSP until it had cured. In effect, the producers were 
to hold the GTSP in their storage buildings until the HF emissions had 
tapered off as a result of curing. This, in effect, accomplished the 
purpose of the proposed NESHAP with regard to limiting applicability to 
co-located storage buildings. In fact, the approach of the revised NSPS 
better accomplished that purpose by more clearly addressing which 
storage buildings were subject to the rules. Since, the revised NSPS 
addresses the concerns voiced by the commenter and the Agency considers 
the revised NSPS to better accomplish the purposes of establishing 
MACT, the final rule for this NESHAP has been amended to reflect the 
requirements of the NSPS, as revised.
7. Cooling Ponds.
    Comment. One commenter said that the Agency must regulate the 
corrosive hazardous waste in the cooling pond either under this rule or 
by a definitive deadline under RCRA. The commenter said that the 
proposed HF standards would require the discharge of air pollution 
scrubber water containing HF into cooling pond water resulting in 
unregulated corrosive hazardous waste discharge to ground waters and 
surface waters. The commenter added that the Agency's analysis of the 
non-air impacts of releases of pollution from cooling ponds did not 
discuss the cooling pond water pH issue and the commenter was unable to 
find any discussion of the non-air impacts of the surface and 
groundwater releases from these ponds resulting from putting additional 
HF into the ponds. The commenter suggested that addition of more HF to 
the cooling ponds will lower the pH of these ponds even further below 
the corrosive hazardous waste standard of a pH of 2.0. As such, the 
commenter maintained that the proposal did not accomplish the section 
112(d)(2) mandate that emission standards ``shall require the maximum 
degree of reduction in the emissions of the hazardous air pollutants 
subject to this section'' achievable ``taking into consideration costs 
and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
impacts.'' The commenter believed that section 112(d)(2) required EPA 
to consider: (a) the enclosure of systems to eliminate emissions; (b) 
the collection, capture or treatment of such pollutants when released 
from a process, stack or storage facility; or, (c) design standards for 
processes.
    In addition, the commenter said the proposed rule also did not 
comply with

[[Page 31371]]

the Pollution Prevention Act because the proposed rule did not address 
the cooling pond water corrosive hazardous issue by EPA using its 
powers under section 112 of the Act or under RCRA to eliminate or 
reduce the surface and groundwater pollution from the HF in the cooling 
ponds.
    Response. Although this rulemaking is focused upon air emissions 
and regulating cooling ponds with respect to RCRA goals would be 
outside the scope of this action, the Agency has considered the impacts 
of MACT upon other media. An engineering analysis of options for 
addressing the HF content of cooling ponds was included in the docket 
prior to proposal as item II-B-9. As part of that analysis, 
consideration was given to a process that would eliminate flows to 
cooling ponds as encouraged by the Pollution Prevention Act. While the 
Agency found the new process promising, it was not demonstrated under 
commercial conditions and could not be adopted as an available control 
technology. This was specifically discussed in the proposal (61 FR 
68444).
    As the preamble to the proposed rules indicated, it is the Agency's 
expectation that five process lines would need to upgrade or replace 
existing controls to meet the NESHAP. Since those facilities currently 
route their scrubber effluent to cooling ponds, the effects of the rule 
would constitute a very small incremental change to current practices 
at those facilities. Given the relatively small contribution of 
scrubber effluent to the ponds and buffering effects of the complex 
mixture of chemicals in the ponds, there would be no observable effect 
resulting from changes to the air pollution controls.

D. Other Comments

1. Determination of Major Source Status
    Comment. One commenter noted that pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1 (b)(3), 
owners or operators of stationary sources potentially subject to the 
NESHAP must make an initial applicability determination concerning 
whether or not they are a major source and, therefore, subject to the 
NESHAP. The commenter acknowledged that this applicability 
determination is specifically made the responsibility of the owner or 
operator of a stationary source. The commenter asked that in order to 
ensure that the statements concerning the number of major sources 
contained in the December 27, 1996 preamble do not inadvertently lead 
to ``prejudgments'' on major source determinations, the Agency should 
specifically recognize, in the preamble to the final NESHAP, that the 
calculations and the permit report used as the basis for the estimates 
referred to in the proposal notice are not the exclusive sources to be 
relied upon in making such major source determinations. The commenter 
requested the Agency to explicitly state that such determinations may 
be made upon any relevant data or information, including, but not 
limited to, the calculation procedure used by the Agency.
    Response. It is a normal practice for the Agency to examine the 
impacts of its rules upon the environment and upon the regulated 
community. In its estimates of the impacts of the proposed rules, the 
Agency projected that 15 facilities may be major sources subject to 
this NESHAP. Those estimates are the Agency's expectations and do not 
constitute a determination of major source status for individual 
sources for purposes of Title V operating permits. However, the Agency 
does consider its methods of estimation to be sound and would carefully 
examine any analyses provided by sources that indicated lesser amounts 
of emissions. In particular, the argument by industry that silica or 
free ammonia remove all available HF is not supported by the FTIR data 
available for this rulemaking. If one could assume that sufficient 
quantities of reactants, such as silica and ammonia in this case, were 
present to theoretically drive a reaction to completion, real world 
actualities such as imperfect mixing or equilibrium limitations would 
prevent complete reactions of available ingredients from occurring. 
Thus, regardless of the silica or ammonia content of the emissions 
streams for this industry, it is expected that HF will be present in 
the final exhaust. The most definitive approach for sources to employ 
to determine their individual major source status would be for sources 
to directly measure for HAP compounds using FTIR via a test method 
validated per EPA Method 301.
2. NSPS Exemption
    Comment. One commenter observed that proposed Secs. 63.610 and 
63.630 would exempt any ``process component'' subject to the NESHAP 
from otherwise applicable NSPS. The commenter stated that the term 
``process component'' is not defined in the proposed NESHAP or in the 
Act. In order to avoid any subsequent confusion on the scope of the 
NSPS exemption, the commenter recommended that the term ``process 
component'' be replaced by the term ``affected source'' or, 
alternatively, that the term ``process component'' be specifically 
defined.
    Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and has replaced the 
term ``process component'' with the term ``affected source.'' Further, 
while reviewing the proposed exemption to determine its response to the 
commenter, the Agency found that the timing of the performance test as 
required in the general provisions could lead to further confusion as 
to a source's compliance status during the period between the 
compliance date of the NESHAP and completion of the performance test. 
The final rule has been re-worded to require the source to demonstrate 
compliance via a performance test by the compliance date for the NESHAP 
and to have a valid operating permit pursuant to Title V to qualify for 
the NSPS exemption.
3. Draft Technical Support Document (TSD)
    Comment. One commenter said that throughout the draft TSD, 
companies involved in the manufacture of phosphoric acid or the 
production of phosphate fertilizer were often misidentified. Also, the 
commenter noted that several of the production and other values given 
in the TSD were inaccurate and urged the Agency to use the most 
accurate and up-to-date values available. With regard to the discussion 
on nutrient carry-over and industry trends, the commenter cited some 
concerns and asked that the sections quoted in his comment letter be 
deleted from the draft TSD or revised.
    One commenter provided additional information on the type of 
processes present at two plants in its jurisdiction. The commenter 
highlighted the production of a unique kind of GTSP from phosphate ore 
and limestone at one plant. That source makes ``GTSP'' by acidizing 
limestone with phosphoric acid and is different from the normal process 
which acidifies phosphate ore with phosphoric acid. The commenter said 
GTSP thus made from limestone does not fall under the definition stated 
in the proposed standards. The information about the second source 
noted a change of ownership.
    Response. The original draft of the TSD was sent to outside 
reviewers, including the commenters, and was subsequently revised 
according to comments received. The draft TSD in the docket was current 
as of May 1995. The purpose of the draft TSD was to assemble the 
information upon which MACT could be established and various 
environmental and economic impacts could be assessed. The draft TSD 
also presented the Agency's methodologies and projections of the 
impacts of the NESHAP as they were envisioned at that

[[Page 31372]]

time. Subsequently, companies have been bought and sold and the 
productive output of the industry has changed. Newer information and 
analyses pertinent to the rulemaking have since been made available and 
added to the docket. Thus, given that the draft TSD has served its 
original purpose and any newer relevant information is in the docket, 
the Agency will not revise the draft TSD.
4. Applicability Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phosphate (DAP/MAP) 
Emission Limits
    Comment. One commenter described one of his sources that 
manufactures MAP/DAP using thermal process phosphoric acid, instead of 
WPPA. The commenter cited the information in the TSD to support his 
observation that information available to the Agency indicate that HAP 
emissions are a concern only in those instances where WPPA is used to 
manufacture DAP/MAP. The commenter requested that the Agency clarify 
the applicability of the NESHAP to exclude those sources not using WPPA 
to manufacture DAP/MAP.
    Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and the regulations 
in subpart BB have been revised by incorporating language the commenter 
provided.
5. Applicability--Research and Development Facilities
    Comment. One commenter recommended that the Agency include an 
exemption for research and development (R&D) facilities. The commenter 
cited section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and its 
direction to establish a separate source category for R&D facilities as 
necessary to ensure equitable treatment of such facilities. The 
commenter cited other recent NESHAP that have included R&D exemptions 
and said that this rulemaking needed to include such an exemption for 
consistency. The commenter suggested that the following language be 
added to the definitions contained in the rule: ``Research and 
development activities means (1) activities conducted at a laboratory 
to analyze air, soil, water or product samples for contaminants, 
environmental impact, or quality control, (2) activities conducted to 
test more efficient production processes or methods for preventing or 
reducing adverse environmental impacts, provided that the activities do 
not include the production of an intermediate or final product for sale 
or exchange for commercial profit, except in a de minimis manner, and 
(3) activities conducted at a research or laboratory facility that is 
operated under the close supervision of technically trained personnel 
the primary purpose of which is to conduct research and development 
into new processes and products and that is not engaged in the 
manufacture of products for sale or exchange for commercial profit, 
except in a de minimis manner.''
    Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and has added 
appropriate language, including an R&D facility definition similar to 
the commenter's, into the rules. The Agency plans to issue a NESHAP 
applicable to R&D facilities at a later date.
6. Notification
    Comment. One commenter recommended that notification, recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements should be coextensive with those required 
under the current NSPS. The proposed rules would apply Secs. 63.9 and 
63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions with their recordkeeping and 
reporting that in the commenter's opinion is neither appropriate nor 
justified. The commenter said the record of the NESHAP general 
provisions rulemaking makes it clear that the notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements were developed to address 
situations where the NESHAP for a particular chemical or process would 
be the initial federal regulation addressing that chemical or process. 
The commenter said that phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate 
fertilizer production facilities have long been subject to federal 
regulation under the NSPS and State regulation under provisions similar 
to the NSPS and owner/operators of regulated sources and government 
regulators are familiar and adept with these preexisting notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The commenter recommended 
that notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements be 
coextensive with the requirements of the pre-existing NSPS and 
submitted that such an approach is consistent with 40 CFR 63.10(a)(7) 
which permits owners and operators subject to both NSPS and NESHAP, 
along with the Administrator or the state permitting authority, to 
mutually agree on a common schedule for submitting required reports. 
The commenter said his recommendation was also consistent with 40 CFR 
63.10(f) which permits the Administrator to waive the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of the NESHAP general provisions.
    Response. The Agency discussion in the preambles proposing and 
promulgating the part 63 general provisions did not support the 
commenter's points concerning their application to sources subject to 
prior regulations. Instead, the discussions made clear that the part 63 
requirements, while patterned after those parts 60 and 61, were made 
more extensive because of the need to incorporate specific legal 
requirements added by the 1990 Amendments to the Act. The Agency also 
mentioned the importance of maintaining consistent requirements for the 
various source categories affected by NESHAP and minimizing case-by-
case negotiations on timing and content of notification and 
recordkeeping activities. Last, the Agency does not concur with the 
commenter's interpretation of 40 CFR 63.10(a)(7). That language is 
specifically aimed at instances where affected sources are subject to 
both NSPS and NESHAP. Since this rule specifically exempts those 
sources subject to its requirements from duplicate coverage by NSPS, 
the language of Sec. 63.10(a)(7) is not applicable.
    Comment. One commenter asked for the intent of Secs. 63.608 and 
63.628 to be clarified. The commenter said proposed Secs. 63.608 and 
63.628 specified that particular reporting requirements of Sec. 63.10 
would be applicable to owners and operators of phosphoric acid 
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer production facilities. 
Furthermore, proposed Secs. 63.604 and 63.605 specified the monitoring 
requirements applicable to owners and operators of such facilities. 
Certain of the monitoring requirements otherwise applicable under 40 
CFR 63.8 were not made applicable to phosphoric acid manufacturing and 
phosphate fertilizer production facilities. Concomitantly, the 
reporting requirements of Sec. 63.10 associated with those monitoring 
requirements also were not made applicable to such facilities by 
proposed Secs. 63.608 and 63.628. However, the excess emissions report 
which was made applicable to such facilities by proposed 
Secs. 63.608(a)(2) and 63.628(a)(2) was required, by the NESHAP general 
provisions, to include information concerning certain of the monitoring 
requirements not made applicable to phosphoric acid manufacturing and 
phosphate fertilizer production facilities. The commenter asked that 
the Agency's intent be made specific in the final NESHAP so that it 
would be clear that the excess emissions report required by proposed 
Secs. 63.608(a)(2) and 63.628(a)(2) is to include only the information 
relevant to the monitoring requirements

[[Page 31373]]

specifically imposed on phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate 
fertilizer production facilities pursuant to proposed Secs. 63.604 and 
63.624.
    Response. The Agency explored the commenter's concerns and came to 
agree that the coordination of the general provisions requirements for 
notification, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance dates as 
proposed could be improved. The sections of the rule addressing those 
points have been re-structured and a table has been added to 
specifically state the applicability of the components of the general 
provisions. The timing of the initial performance test relative to the 
compliance date and the exemption from new source performance standards 
were further clarified to eliminate ambiguity. These changes should 
ease implementation via Title V operating permits.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is 
a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review. The nationwide capital and 
annualized costs of the NESHAP, including emission controls and 
associated monitoring equipment, are estimated at $1.4 million and 
$862,000/yr, respectively.

C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, the Agency may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a 
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. 
If the Agency complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires 
the Agency to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of the Agency's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State, 
local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any 
sources subject to this rule and therefore are not required to purchase 
control systems to meet the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to 
this rule. Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with 
States to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must 
have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that these final rules do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. The EPA projects that annual economic 
impacts would be far less than $100 million. Thus, today's final rules 
are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that these final rules 
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because they do not impose any enforceable 
duties on small governments; such governments own or operate no sources 
subject to these proposed rules and therefore would not be required to 
purchase control systems to meet the requirements of these proposed 
rules.

[[Page 31374]]

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Agency has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The 
Agency has also determined that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency 
has found that two of the twenty-one firms that potentially could be 
subject to the standards are small firms. Of the two, data indicate 
that one is an area source which would not be covered by the standards. 
The second source could be major and subject to the requirements of the 
standards. Information available to the Agency shows that the second 
source is able to achieve the control levels of the NESHAP using 
existing equipment. The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are essentially identical to current 
requirements and, thus, should cause little or no change in these 
burdens.

F. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The Agency will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0361.
    The information to be collected includes the results of annual 
performance testing to be conducted to demonstrate compliance with the 
emissions limits in the rules. At the time that performance testing 
will be performed, sources will be required to measure and record 
operating parameters for the processes and control devices. Following 
the performance testing, sources will be required under authority of 
the Clean Air Act to monitor and record operating parameters to assure 
that they were maintained within approved ranges, based upon values 
determined during the performance tests. One source will be required to 
monitor potential emissions from equipment leaks and to keep records of 
leaks detected and repairs made to correct leaks. The purpose of the 
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements is to provide implementing 
agencies information to assure that MACT is implemented on an ongoing 
basis.
    The Agency estimated the projected cost and hour burden of the 
standards. The average annual reporting burden was estimated to be 132 
hours per response. There will be fifteen likely respondents and 
reports will required twice a year. The total burden would equate to 
3790 hours per year nationwide and the corresponding cost was estimated 
to be $121,773 per year. The total capital cost of the monitoring 
devices was estimated to be $564,200 of which the major cost would be 
for the installation of sensors to measure and record the flow of 
scrubbing liquid to the control devices. The annualized cost of that 
capital would be $53,200 per year and the operation and maintenance of 
the monitoring equipment was estimated as $13,300 per year. Thus, the 
total annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs were 
estimated to be $66,500 per year.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is amending the 
table in 40 CFR part 9, Sec. 9.1 of currently approved ICR control 
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information 
requirements contained in this final rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) developed or adapted by one or more voluntary consensus 
bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, 
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does 
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Consistent with the requirements of the NTTAA, today's rulemaking 
incorporates the analytical methods of two consensus standard bodies. 
Instead of developing its own methods for determining the phosphate 
content of feedstocks to the processes covered by the standards, the 
Agency is incorporating by reference into today's rules certain 
analytical protocols of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 
and of The Association of Florida Phosphate Chemists.
    Also, consistant with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to 
identify voluntary consensus standards for emissions test methods. The 
search identified 17 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to 
have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, 
after reviewing available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the 
candidate consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of the 
HAPs or surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not 
be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data 
and other important technical and policy considerations. Five of the 
remaining candidate consensus standards are new standards under 
development that EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a 
later date. This rule requires standard EPA methods known to the 
industry and States. Approved alternative methods also may be used with 
prior EPA epproval.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885,

[[Page 31375]]

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) 
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to 
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on 
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately 
affect children.

J. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any 
enforceable duties on the communities of Indian tribal governments, 
because they do not own or operate any sources subject to this rule and 
therefore are not required to purchase control systems to meet the 
requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference. Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: April 14, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as 
follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding new entries under the 
indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                 *        *        *        *        *
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                              Categories 3
 
 
              *        *        *        *        *
63.602-63.603..............................................    2060-0361
63.605-63.608..............................................    2060-0361
63.625-63.628..............................................    2060-0361
63.630.....................................................    2060-0361
 
              *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
  applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
  which are not independent information collection requirements.

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

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

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

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding new paragraphs (g) and (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.14  Incorporation by Reference.

* * * * *
    (g) The materials listed below are available for purchase from AOAC 
International, Customer Services, Suite 400, 2200 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, Virginia, 22201-3301, Telephone (703) 522-3032, Fax (703) 
522-5468.
    (1) AOAC Official Method 978.01 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Automated Method, Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved for 
Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (2) AOAC Official Method 969.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Alkalimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth edition, 
1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (3) AOAC Official Method 962.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Gravimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth edition, 
1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (4) AOAC Official Method 957.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Preparation of Sample Solution, Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 
for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (5) AOAC Official Method 929.01 Sampling of Solid Fertilizers, 
Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (6) AOAC Official Method 929.02 Preparation of Fertilizer Sample, 
Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (7) AOAC Official Method 958.01 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Spectrophotometric Molybdovanadophosphate Method, Sixteenth edition, 
1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
    (h) The materials listed below are available for purchase from The 
Association of Florida Phosphate Chemists, P.O. Box 1645, Bartow, 
Florida, 33830, Book of Methods Used and Adopted By The Association of 
Florida Phosphate Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, IBR.
    (1) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 
Preparation of Sample, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and 
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
    (2) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus--P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method A-Volumetric Method, 
IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
    (3) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method B--Gravimetric 
Quimociac Method, IBR

[[Page 31376]]

approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
    (4) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method C--
Spectrophotometric Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and 
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
    (5) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A--Volumetric 
Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii), Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii), 
and Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(v).
    (6) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B--Gravimetric 
Quimociac Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii), 
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(v).
    (7) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C--
Spectrophotometric Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii), 
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(v).
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AA consisting of 
Secs. 63.600 through 63.610 to read as follows:

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

Sec.
63.600  Applicability.
63.601  Definitions.
63.602  Standards for existing sources.
63.603  Standards for new sources.
63.604  Operating requirements.
63.605  Monitoring requirements.
63.606  Performance tests and compliance provisions.
63.607  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.608  Applicability of general provisions.
63.609  Compliance dates.
63.610  Exemption from new source performance standards.

Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart AA

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


Sec. 63.600  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each 
phosphoric acid manufacturing plant.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following new or 
existing affected sources at a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant:
    (1) Each wet-process phosphoric acid process line. The requirements 
of this subpart apply to the following emission points which are 
components of a wet-process phosphoric acid process line: reactors, 
filters, evaporators, and hot wells;
    (2) Each evaporative cooling tower at a phosphoric acid 
manufacturing plant;
    (3) Each phosphate rock dryer located at a phosphoric acid 
manufacturing plant;
    (4) Each phosphate rock calciner located at a phosphoric acid 
manufacturing plant;
    (5) Each superphosphoric acid process line. The requirements of 
this subpart apply to the following emission points which are 
components of a superphosphoric acid process line: evaporators, hot 
wells, acid sumps, and cooling tanks; and
    (6) Each purified acid process line. The requirements of this 
subpart apply to the following emission points which are components of 
a purified phosphoric acid process line: solvent extraction process 
equipment, solvent stripping and recovery equipment, seal tanks, carbon 
treatment equipment, cooling towers, storage tanks, pumps and process 
piping.
    (c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or 
operator of a new or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant that 
is not a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (d) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to research and 
development facilities as defined in Sec. 63.601.


Sec. 63.601  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Equivalent P2O5 feed means the quantity of 
phosphorus, expressed as phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the process.
    Evaporative cooling tower means an open water recirculating device 
that uses fans or natural draft to draw or force ambient air through 
the device to remove heat from process water by direct contact.
    Exceedance means a departure from an indicator range established 
under this subpart, consistent with any averaging period specified for 
averaging the results of the monitoring.
    HAP metals mean those metals and their compounds (in particulate or 
volatile form) that are included on the list of hazardous air 
pollutants in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. HAP metals include, but 
are not limited to: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium expressed as particulate matter 
as measured by the methods and procedures in this subpart or an 
approved alternative method. For the purposes of this subpart, HAP 
metals are expressed as particulate matter as measured by 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A, Method 5.
    Phosphate rock calciner means the equipment used to remove moisture 
and organic matter from phosphate rock through direct or indirect 
heating.
    Phosphate rock dryer means the equipment used to reduce the 
moisture content of phosphate rock through direct or indirect heating.
    Phosphate rock feed means all material entering any phosphate rock 
dryer or phosphate rock calciner including moisture and extraneous 
material as well as the following ore materials: fluorapatite, 
hydroxylapatite, chlorapatite, and carbonateapatite.
    Purified phosphoric acid process line means any process line which 
uses a HAP as a solvent in the separation of impurities from the 
product acid for the purposes of rendering that product suitable for 
industrial, manufacturing or food grade uses.
    Research and development facility means research or laboratory 
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development 
into new processes and products, where the operations are under the 
close supervision of technically trained personnel, and where the 
facility is not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial 
sale in commerce or other off-site distribution, except in a de minimis 
manner.
    Superphosphoric acid process line means any process line which 
concentrates wet-process phosphoric acid to 66 percent or greater 
P2O5 content by weight.
    Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride 
compounds, including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as measured by 
reference methods specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A , Method 13 A 
or B, or by equivalent or alternative methods approved by the 
Administrator pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f).
    Wet process phosphoric acid process line means any process line 
manufacturing phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid.


Sec. 63.602  Standards for existing sources.

    (a) Wet process phosphoric acid process line. On and after the date 
on which the performance test required to

[[Page 31377]]

be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be completed, no 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases 
which contain total fluorides in excess of 10.0 gram/metric ton of 
equivalent P2O5 feed (0.020 lb/ton).
    (b) Superphosphoric acid process line.
    (1) Vacuum evaporation process. On and after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is 
required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total 
fluorides in excess of 5.0 gram/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.010 lb/ton).
    (2) Submerged combustion process. On and after the date on which 
the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 
is required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total 
fluorides in excess of 100.0 gram/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.20 lb/ton).
    (c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is 
required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain particulate 
matter in excess of 0.10750 kilogram/metric ton of phosphate rock feed 
(0.2150 lb/ton).
    (d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is 
required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain particulate 
matter in excess of 0.1380 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) 
[0.060 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)].
    (e) Evaporative cooling tower. No owner or operator shall introduce 
into any evaporative cooling tower any liquid effluent from any wet 
scrubbing device installed to control emissions from process equipment. 
Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this paragraph 
(e) must certify to the Administrator annually that he/she has complied 
with the requirements contained in this section.
    (f) Purified phosphoric acid process line.
    (1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall comply with the provisions of subpart H of this part.
    (2) For any existing purified phosphoric acid process line, any of 
the following shall constitute a violation of this subpart:
    (i) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of 
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts per million for each 
product acid stream.
    (ii) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of 
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts per million for each 
raffinate stream.
    (iii) A daily average chiller stack exit gas stream temperature in 
excess of fifty degrees Fahrenheit.


Sec. 63.603  Standards for new sources.

    (a) Wet process phosphoric acid process line. On and after the date 
on which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 
and 63.606 is required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total 
fluorides in excess of 6.750 gram/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.01350 lb/ton).
    (b) Superphosphoric acid process line. On and after the date on 
which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 
63.606 is required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total 
fluorides in excess of 4.350 gram/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.00870 lb/ton).
    (c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is 
required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain particulate 
matter in excess of 0.030 kilogram/metric ton per megagram of phosphate 
rock feed (0.060 lb/ton).
    (d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is 
required to be completed, no owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain particulate 
matter in excess of 0.0920 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) 
[0.040 grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)].
    (e) Evaporative cooling tower. No owner or operator shall introduce 
into any evaporative cooling tower any liquid effluent from any wet 
scrubbing device installed to control emissions from process equipment. 
Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this paragraph 
(e) must certify to the Administrator annually that he/she has complied 
with the requirements contained in this section.
    (f) Purified phosphoric acid process line.
    (1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall comply with the provisions of subpart H of this part.
    (2) For any new purified phosphoric acid process line, any of the 
following shall constitute a violation of this subpart:
    (i) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of 
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts per million for each 
product acid stream.
    (ii) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of 
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts per million for each 
raffinate stream.
    (iii) A daily average chiller stack exit gas stream temperature in 
excess of fifty degrees Fahrenheit.


Sec. 63.604  Operating requirements.

    On or after the date on which the performance test required to be 
conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be completed, the 
owner/operator using a wet scrubbing emission control system must 
maintain three-hour averages of the pressure drop across each scrubber 
and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber within 
the allowable ranges established pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec. 63.605(d)(1) or (2).


Sec. 63.605  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process 
phosphoric acid process line, superphosphoric acid process line, 
phosphate rock dryer, or phosphate rock calciner subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a monitoring system which can be used to determine and 
permanently record the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing feed material to 
the process. The monitoring system shall have an accuracy of 
5 percent over its operating range.
    (b)(1) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process 
phosphoric acid process line or superphosphoric acid process line 
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain a daily record 
of equivalent P2O5 feed by first determining the 
total mass rate in metric ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed using a 
monitoring system for

[[Page 31378]]

measuring mass flowrate which meets the requirements of paragraph (a) 
of this section and then by proceeding according to Sec. 63.606(c)(3).
    (2) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock 
calciner or phosphate rock dryer subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall maintain a daily record of phosphate rock feed by 
determining the total mass rate in metric ton/hour of phosphorus 
bearing feed using a monitoring system for measuring mass flowrate 
which meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process 
phosphoric acid process line, superphosphoric acid process line, 
phosphate rock dryer or phosphate rock calciner using a wet scrubbing 
emission control system shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 
the following monitoring systems:
    (1) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently 
records the pressure drop across each scrubber in the process scrubbing 
system in 15-minute block averages. The monitoring system shall be 
certified by the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 
percent over its operating range.
    (2) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently 
records the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the 
process scrubbing system in 15-minute block averages. The monitoring 
system shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 
5 percent over its operating range.
    (d) Following the date on which the performance test required in 
Sec. 63.606 is completed, the owner or operator of a new or existing 
affected source using a wet scrubbing emission control system and 
subject to emissions limitations for total fluorides or particulate 
matter contained in this subpart must establish allowable ranges for 
operating parameters using the methodology of either paragraph (d)(1) 
or (2) of this section:
    (1) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop 
across each scrubber and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to 
each scrubber in the process scrubbing system is  20 
percent of the baseline average value determined as a requirement of 
Sec. 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). 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, but, in no instance shall 
the adjustment be reduced to less than  10 percent. The 
owner or operator must notify the Administrator of the baseline average 
value and must notify the Administrator each time that the baseline 
value is changed as a result of the most recent performance test. The 
baseline average values used for compliance shall be based on the 
values determined during the most recent performance test. The new 
baseline average value shall be effective on the date following the 
performance test.
    (2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source 
shall establish, and provide to the Administrator for approval, 
allowable ranges of baseline average values for the pressure drop 
across and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in 
the process scrubbing system for the purpose of assuring compliance 
with this subpart. Allowable ranges may be based upon baseline average 
values recorded during previous performance tests using the test 
methods required in this subpart and established in the manner required 
in Sec. 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). As an alternative, the owner 
or operator can establish the allowable ranges of baseline average 
values using the results of performance tests conducted specifically 
for the purposes of this paragraph using the test methods required in 
this subpart and established in the manner required in 
Sec. 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). The source shall certify that the 
control devices and processes have not been modified subsequent to the 
testing upon which the data used to establish the allowable ranges were 
obtained. The allowable ranges of baseline average values developed 
pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph must be submitted to the 
Administrator for approval. The owner or operator must request and 
obtain approval of the Administrator for changes to the allowable 
ranges of baseline values. When a source using the methodology of this 
paragraph is retested, the owner operator shall determine new allowable 
ranges of baseline average values unless the retest indicates no change 
in the operating parameters from previous tests. Any new allowable 
ranges of baseline average values resulting from the most recent 
performance test shall be effective on the date following the retest. 
Until changes to allowable ranges of baseline average values are 
approved by the Administrator, the allowable ranges for use in 
Sec. 63.604 shall be based upon the range of baseline average values 
proposed for approval.
    (e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing purified phosphoric 
acid process line shall:
    (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring system 
which continuously measures and permanently records the stack gas exit 
temperature for each chiller stack.
    (2) Measure and record the concentration of methyl isobutyl ketone 
in each product acid stream and each raffinate stream once daily.


Sec. 63.606  Performance tests and compliance provisions.

    (a)(1) On or before the applicable compliance date in Sec. 63.609 
and once per annum thereafter, each owner or operator of a phosphoric 
acid manufacturing plant shall conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standard for each 
existing wet-process phosphoric acid process line, superphosphoric acid 
process line, phosphate rock dryer, and phosphate rock calciner. The 
owner or operator shall conduct the performance test according to the 
procedures in subpart A of this part and in this section.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.7(a)(2) and once per annum thereafter, 
each owner or operator of a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant shall 
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission standard for each new wet-process phosphoric acid 
process line, superphosphoric acid process line, phosphate rock dryer, 
and phosphate rock calciner. The owner or operator shall conduct the 
performance test according to the procedures in subpart A of this part 
and in this section.
    (b) In conducting performance tests, each owner or operator of an 
affected source shall use as reference methods and procedures the test 
methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or other methods and procedures 
as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
    (c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process 
phosphoric acid process line or superphosphoric acid process line shall 
determine compliance with the applicable total fluorides standards in 
Sec. 63.602 or Sec. 63.603 as follows:
    (1) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for 
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN99.000

Where:

E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of 
equivalent P2O5 feed.

[[Page 31379]]

Csi = concentration of total fluorides from emission point 
``i,'' mg/dscm (mg/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission 
point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
N = number of emission points associated with the affected facility.
P = equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr 
(ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).

    (2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to 
determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and 
volumetric flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of 
the emission points. If Method 13B is used, the fusion of the filtered 
material described in Section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable 
aliquots of containers 1 and 2, described in section 7.3.3 and 7.3.4. 
in Method 13 A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for 
each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
    (3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall 
be computed using the following equation:

P = Mp Rp

Where:

Mp = total mass flow rate of phosphorus-bearing feed, metric 
ton/hr (ton/hr).
Rp = P2O5 content, decimal fraction.

    (i) The accountability system described in Sec. 63.605(a) and (b) 
shall be used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the 
phosphorus-bearing feed.
    (ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the 
feed shall be determined using as appropriate the following methods 
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the Book of 
Methods Used and Adopted By The Association Of Florida Phosphate 
Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, where applicable:
    (A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 1 
Preparation of Sample.
    (B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method A-Volumetric Method.
    (C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method B-Gravimetric 
Quimociac Method.
    (D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method C-Spectrophotometric 
Method.
    (E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A-Volumetric 
Method.
    (F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B-Gravimetric 
Quimociac Method.
    (G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C-
Spectrophotometric Method.
    (4) To comply with Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator 
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.605(c) to determine the 
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the 
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the 
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during 
each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three 
runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of 
Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2).
    (d) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock 
dryer shall demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter 
standards in Sec. 63.602 or Sec. 63.603 as follows:
    (1) The emission rate (E) of particulate matter shall be computed 
for each run using the following equation:

E = (Cs Qsd)/(P K)

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of phosphate 
rock feed.
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (g/dscf).
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/
hr).
P = phosphate rock feed rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (453.6 g/lb).

    (2) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to 
determine the particulate matter concentration (cs) and 
volumetric flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The sampling 
time and sample volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 
0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
    (3) The system described in Sec. 63.605(a) shall be used to 
determine the phosphate rock feed rate (P) for each run.
    (4) To comply with Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator 
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.605(c) to determine the 
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the 
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the 
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during 
each of the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic average of the one-
hour averages determined during the three test runs shall be used as 
the baseline average values for the purposes of Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or 
(2).
    (e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock 
calciner shall demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter 
standards in Secs. 63.602 and 63.603 as follows:
    (1) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to 
determine the particulate matter concentration. The sampling time and 
volume for each test run shall be at least 60 minutes and 1.70 dscm.
    (2) To comply with Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator 
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.605(c) to determine the 
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the 
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the 
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during 
each of the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic average of the one-
hour averages determined during the three test runs shall be used as 
the baseline average values for the purposes of Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or 
(2).


Sec. 63.607  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this 
subpart shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.
    (b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this 
subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with 
the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 as follows:
    (1) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner 
or operator shall report the results of the initial and annual 
performance tests as part of the notification of compliance status 
required in Sec. 63.9.
    (2) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner 
or operator of an affected source shall submit an excess emissions 
report for any exceedance of an operating parameter limit. The report 
shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10. When no 
exceedances of an operating parameter have occurred, such information 
shall be included in the report. The report shall be submitted 
semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 
following the end of the calendar half. If exceedances are reported, 
the owner or operator shall report quarterly until a request to reduce 
reporting frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.

[[Page 31380]]

    (3) Summary report. If the total duration of control system 
exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the 
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator 
shall submit a summary report containing the information specified in 
Sec. 63.10 rather than the full excess emissions report, unless 
required by the Administrator. The summary report shall be submitted 
semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 
following the end of the calendar half.
    (4) If the total duration of control system operating parameter 
exceedances for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the 
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator 
shall submit a summary report and the excess emissions report.


Sec. 63.608  Applicability of general provisions.

    The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part that are applicable to the owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart are shown in appendix A to this subpart.


Sec. 63.609  Compliance dates.

    (a) Each owner or operator of an existing affected source at a 
phosphoric acid manufacturing plant shall achieve compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart no later than June 10, 2002. 
Notwithstanding the requirements of Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(iii), each owner or 
operator of an existing source at an affected existing phosphoric acid 
manufacturing plant shall fulfill the applicable requirements of 
Sec. 63.606 no later than June 10, 2002.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant 
that commences construction or reconstruction of an affected source 
after December 27, 1996 shall achieve compliance with the requirements 
of this subpart upon startup of operations or by June 10, 1999, 
whichever is later.


Sec. 63.610  Exemption from new source performance standards.

    Any affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart is 
exempted from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard 
contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart T, subpart U or subpart NN. To be 
exempt, a source must have a current operating permit pursuant to Title 
V of the Act and the source must be in compliance with all requirements 
of this subpart. For each affected source, this exemption is effective 
upon the date that the owner or operator demonstrates to the 
Administrator that the requirements of Secs. 63.604, 63.605 and 63.606 
have been met.

                   Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart AA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           40 CFR citation                      Requirement             Applies to  subpart AA                           Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1) through (4)...............  General Applicability........  Yes.
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6) through (8)...............  .............................  Yes.
63.1(a)(9)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10) through (14).............  .............................  Yes.
63.1(b)..............................  Initial Applicability          Yes.
                                        Determination.
63.1(c)(1)...........................  Applicability After Standard   Yes.
                                        Established.
63.1(c)(2)...........................  .............................  Yes......................  Some plants may be area sources.
63.1(c)(3)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4) and (5)...................  .............................  Yes.
63.1(d)..............................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit        Yes.
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions..................  Yes......................  Additional definitions in Sec.  63.601.
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations......  Yes.
63.4(a)(1) through (3)...............  Prohibited Activities........  Yes.
63.4(a)(4)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.4(b) and (c)......................  Circumvention/Severability...  Yes.
63.5(a)..............................  Construction/Reconstruction    Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Existing, New, Reconstructed   Yes.
                                        Sources Requirements.
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3) through (6)...............  .............................  Yes.
63.5(c)..............................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..............................  Application for Approval of    Yes.
                                        Construction/ Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of Construction/      Yes.
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(f)..............................  Approval of Construction/      Yes.
                                        Reconstruction Based on
                                        State Review.
63.6(a)..............................  Compliance with Standards and  Yes.
                                        Maintenance Applicability.
63.6(b)(1) through (5)...............  New and Reconstructed Sources  Yes.                       See also Sec.  63.609.
                                        Dates.
63.6(b)(6)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(c)(1)...........................  Existing Sources Dates.......  Yes.                       Sec.  63.609 specifies dates.
63.6(c)(2)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(c)(3) and (4)...................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(d)..............................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1) and (2)...................  Operation & Maintenance        Yes.                       Sec.  63.604 specifies additional requirements.
                                        Requirements.

[[Page 31381]]

 
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown, and         Yes.                       Sec.  63.604 specifies additional requirements.
                                        Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)..............................  Compliance with Emission       Yes.                       Secs.  63.602 through 605 specify additional
                                        Standards.                                                requirements.
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Standard.........  Yes.
63.6(h)..............................  Compliance with Opacity/VE     No.......................  Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity standards.
                                        Standards.
63.6(i)(1) through (14)..............  Extension of Compliance......  Yes.
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(j)..............................  Exemption from Compliance....  Yes.
63.7(a)..............................  Performance Test Requirements  Yes.                       Sec.  63.609(a) applies rather than Sec.
                                        Applicability.                                            63.7(a)(2)(iii).
63.7(b)..............................  Notification.................  Yes.
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance/Test Plan..  Yes.
63.7(d)..............................  Testing Facilities...........  Yes.
63.7(e)..............................  Conduct of Tests.............  Yes.                       Secs.  63.604 and 63.605 specify additional
                                                                                                  requirements.
63.7(f)..............................  Alternative Test Method......  Yes.
63.7(g)..............................  Data Analysis................  Yes.
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Tests..............  Yes.
63.8(a)(1)...........................  Monitoring Requirements        Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.8(a)(2)...........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require CMS performance
                                                                                                  specifications.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.8(b)..............................  Conduct of Monitoring........  Yes.
63.8(c)(1) through (4)...............  CMS Operation/Maintenance....  Yes.
63.8(c)(5) through (8)...............  .............................  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require COMS/CEMS or CMS
                                                                                                  performance specifications.
63.8(d)..............................  Quality Control..............  Yes.
63.8(e)..............................  CMS Performance Evaluation...  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require CMS performance evaluations
63.8(f)(1) through (5)...............  Alternative Monitoring Method  Yes.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Alternative to RATA Test.....  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1)...........................  Data Reduction...............  Yes.
63.8(g)(2)...........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require COMS or CEMS
63.8(g)(3) through (5)...............  .............................  Yes.
63.9(a)..............................  Notification Requirements      Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)..............................  Initial Notifications........  Yes.
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance         Yes.
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification for    Yes.
                                        Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of Performance    Yes.
                                        Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/Opacity     No.......................  Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity standards.
                                        Test.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS Notifications.  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require CMS performance evaluation,
                                                                                                  COMS, or CEMS.
63.9(h)(1) through (3)...............  Notification of Compliance     Yes.
                                        Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5) and (6)...................  .............................  Yes.
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines......  Yes.
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous             Yes.
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting-       Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b).............................  General Recordkeeping          Yes.
                                        Requirements.
63.10(c)(1)..........................  Additional CMS Recordkeeping.  Yes.
63.10(c)(2) through (4)..............  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)..........................  .............................  Yes.
63.10(c)(6)..........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require CMS performance
                                                                                                  specifications.
63.10(c)(7) and (8)..................  .............................  Yes.
63.10(c)(9)..........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10) through (13)............  .............................  Yes.
63.10(c)(14).........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require a CMS quality control
                                                                                                  program.
63.10(c)(15).........................  .............................  Yes.
63.10(d)(1)..........................  General Reporting              Yes.
                                        Requirements.

[[Page 31382]]

 
63.10(d)(2)..........................  Performance Test Results.....  Yes.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Opacity or VE Observations...  No.......................  Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity standards.
63.10(d)(4) and (5)..................  Progress Reports/Startup,      Yes.
                                        Shutdown, and Malfunction
                                        Reports.
63.10(e)(1) and (2)..................  Additional CMS Reports.......  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require CEMS or CMS performance
                                                                                                  evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess Emissions/CMS           Yes......................  Sec.  63.606(c)(2) includes additional requirements. A
                                        Performance Reports.                                      CMS performance report is not required.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  COMS Data Reports............  No.......................  Subpart AA does not require COMS.
63.10(f).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting        Yes.
                                        Waiver.
63.11(a).............................  Control Device Requirements    Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.11(b).............................  Flares.......................  No.......................  Flares not applicable.
63.12................................  State Authority and            Yes.
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses....................  Yes.
63.14................................  Incorporation by Reference...  Yes.
63.15................................  Information Availability/      Yes.
                                        Confidentiality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BB consisting of 
Secs. 63.620 through 63.631 to read as follows:

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

Sec.
63.620  Applicability
63.621  Definitions.
63.622  Standards for existing sources.
63.623  Standards for new sources.
63.624  Operating requirements.
63.625  Monitoring requirements.
63.626  Performance tests and compliance provisions.
63.627  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.628  Applicability of general provisions.
63.629  Miscellaneous requirements.
63.630  Compliance dates.
63.631  Exemption from new source performance standards.

Appendix A to Subpart BB of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart BB

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


Sec. 63.620  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each 
phosphate fertilizers production plant.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following new or 
existing affected sources at a phosphate fertilizers production plant:
    (1) Each diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process line. The 
requirements of this subpart apply to the following emission points 
which are components of a diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate 
process line: reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and 
mills.
    (2) Each granular triple superphosphate process line. The 
requirements of this subpart apply to the following emission points 
which are components of a granular triple superphosphate process line: 
mixers, curing belts (dens), reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, 
screens, and mills.
    (3) Each granular triple superphosphate storage building. The 
requirements of this subpart apply to the following emission points 
which are components of a granular triple superphosphate storage 
building: storage or curing buildings, conveyors, elevators, screens 
and mills.
    (c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or 
operator of a new or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant 
that is not a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (d) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to research and 
development facilities as defined in Sec. 63.621.


Sec. 63.621  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process line means any 
process line manufacturing granular diammonium and/or monoammonium 
phosphate by reacting ammonia with phosphoric acid which has been 
derived from or manufactured by reacting phosphate rock and acid.
    Equivalent P2O5 feed means the quantity of 
phosphorus, expressed as phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the process.
    Equivalent P2O5 stored means the quantity of 
phosphorus, expressed as phosphorus pentoxide, being cured or stored in 
the affected facility.
    Exceedance means a departure from an indicator range established 
for monitoring under this subpart, consistent with any averaging period 
specified for averaging the results of the monitoring.
    Fresh granular triple superphosphate means granular triple 
superphosphate produced within the preceding 72 hours.
    Granular triple superphosphate process line means any process line, 
not including storage buildings, manufacturing granular triple 
superphosphate by reacting phosphate rock with phosphoric acid.
    Granular triple superphosphate storage building means any building 
curing or storing fresh granular triple superphosphate.
    Research and development facility means research or laboratory 
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development 
into new processes and products, where the operations are under the 
close supervision of technically trained personnel, and where the 
facility is not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial 
sale in commerce or other off-site distribution, except in a de minimis 
manner.
    Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride 
compounds, including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as measured by 
reference methods

[[Page 31383]]

specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 13 A or B, or by 
equivalent or alternative methods approved by the Administrator 
pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f).


Sec. 63.622  Standards for existing sources.

    (a) Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process line. On and 
after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted 
by Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, no owner or 
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be 
discharged into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases which 
contain total fluorides in excess of 30 grams/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.060 lb/ton).
    (b) Granular triple superphosphate process line. On and after the 
date on which the performance test required to be conducted by 
Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, no owner or operator 
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged 
into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain 
total fluorides in excess of 75 grams/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.150 lb/ton).
    (c) Granular triple superphosphate storage building.
    (1) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, no 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases 
which contain total fluorides in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton of 
equivalent P2O5 stored (5.0 X 10-4 lb/
hr/ton of equivalent P2O5 stored).
    (2) No owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall ship fresh granular triple superphosphate from an affected 
facility.


Sec. 63.623  Standards for new sources.

    (a) Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process line. On and 
after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted 
by Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, no owner or 
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be 
discharged into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases which 
contain total fluorides in excess of 29.0 grams/metric ton of 
equivalent P2O5 feed (0.0580 lb/ton).
    (b) Granular triple superphosphate process line. On and after the 
date on which the performance test required to be conducted by 
Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, no owner or operator 
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged 
into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain 
total fluorides in excess of 61.50 grams/metric ton of equivalent 
P2O5 feed (0.1230 lb/ton).
    (c) Granular triple superphosphate storage building
    (1) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, no 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected source any gases 
which contain total fluorides in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton of 
equivalent P2O5 stored (5.0 X 10-4 lb/
hr/ton of equivalent P2O5 stored).
    (2) No owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall ship fresh granular triple superphosphate from an affected 
facility.


Sec. 63.624  Operating requirements.

    On or after the date on which the performance test required to be 
conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be completed, the 
owner/operator using a wet scrubbing emission control system must 
maintain three-hour averages of the pressure drop across each scrubber 
and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber within 
the allowable ranges established pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec. 63.625(f)(1) or (2).


Sec. 63.625  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or 
monoammonium phosphate process line or granular triple superphosphate 
process line subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring system which can be used 
to determine and permanently record the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing 
feed material to the process. The monitoring system shall have an 
accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or 
monoammonium phosphate process line or granular triple superphosphate 
process line subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain a 
daily record of equivalent P2O5 feed by first 
determining the total mass rate in metric ton/hour of phosphorus 
bearing feed using a monitoring system for measuring mass flowrate 
which meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and then 
by proceeding according to Sec. 63.626(c)(3).
    (c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or 
monoammonium phosphate process line, granular triple superphosphate 
process line, or granular triple superphosphate storage building using 
a wet scrubbing emission control system shall install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate the following monitoring systems:
    (1) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently 
records the pressure drop across each scrubber in the process scrubbing 
system in 15-minute block averages. The monitoring system shall be 
certified by the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 
percent over its operating range.
    (2) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently 
records the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the 
process scrubbing system in 15-minute block averages. The monitoring 
system shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 
5 percent over its operating range.
    (d) The owner or operator of any granular triple superphosphate 
storage building subject to the provisions of this subpart shall 
maintain an accurate account of granular triple superphosphate in 
storage to permit the determination of the amount of equivalent 
P2O5 stored.
    (e)(1) Each owner or operator of a new or existing granular triple 
superphosphate storage building subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall maintain a daily record of total equivalent 
P2O5 stored by multiplying the percentage 
P2O5 content, as determined by Sec. 63.626(d)(3), 
times the total mass of granular triple superphosphate stored.
    (2) The owner or operator of any granular triple superphosphate 
storage building subject to the provisions of this subpart shall 
develop for approval by the Administrator a site-specific methodology 
including sufficient recordkeeping for the purposes of demonstrating 
compliance with Sec. 63.622(c)(2) or Sec. 63.623(c)(2), as applicable.
    (f) Following the date on which the performance test required in 
Sec. 63.626 is completed, the owner or operator of a new or existing 
affected source using a wet scrubbing emission control system and 
subject to emissions limitations for total fluorides or particulate 
matter contained in this subpart must establish allowable ranges for 
operating parameters using the methodology of either paragraph (f)(1) 
or (2) of this section:
    (1) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop 
across each scrubber and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to 
each scrubber in the process scrubbing system is 20 percent 
of the baseline average value determined as a requirement of 
Sec. 63.626(c)(4) or (d)(4). The

[[Page 31384]]

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, 
but, in no instance shall the adjustment be reduced to less than 
10 percent. The owner or operator must notify the 
Administrator of the baseline average value and must notify the 
Administrator each time that the baseline value is changed as a result 
of the most recent performance test. The baseline average values used 
for compliance shall be based on the values determined during the most 
recent performance test. The new baseline average value shall be 
effective on the date following the performance test.
    (2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source 
shall establish, and provide to the Administrator for approval, 
allowable ranges of baseline average values for the pressure drop 
across and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in 
the process scrubbing system for the purpose of assuring compliance 
with this subpart. Allowable ranges may be based upon baseline average 
values recorded during previous performance tests using the test 
methods required in this subpart and established in the manner required 
in Sec. 63.626(c)(4) or (d)(4). As an alternative, the owner or 
operator can establish the allowable ranges of baseline average values 
using the results of performance tests conducted specifically for the 
purposes of this paragraph using the test methods required in this 
subpart and established in the manner required in Sec. 63.626(c)(4) or 
(d)(4). The source shall certify that the control devices and processes 
have not been modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data 
used to establish the allowable ranges were obtained. The allowable 
ranges of baseline average values developed pursuant to the provisions 
of this paragraph must be submitted to the Administrator for approval. 
The owner or operator must request and obtain approval of the 
Administrator for changes to the allowable ranges of baseline average 
values. When a source using the methodology of this paragraph is 
retested, the owner operator shall determine new allowable ranges of 
baseline average values unless the retest indicates no change in the 
operating parameters from previous tests. Any new allowable ranges of 
baseline average values resulting from the most recent performance test 
shall be effective on the date following the retest. Until changes to 
allowable ranges of baseline average values are approved by the 
Administrator, the allowable ranges for use in Sec. 63.624 shall be 
based upon the range of baseline average values proposed for approval.


Sec. 63.626  Performance tests and compliance provisions.

    (a)(1) On or before the applicable compliance date in Sec. 63.630 
and once per annum thereafter, each owner or operator of a phosphate 
fertilizers production plant subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission standard for each existing diammonium and/or 
monoammonium phosphate process line, granular triple superphosphate 
process line, or granular triple superphosphate storage building. The 
owner or operator shall conduct the performance test according to the 
procedures in subpart A of this part and in this section.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.7(a)(2) and once per annum thereafter, 
each owner or operator of a phosphate fertilizers production plant 
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall conduct a performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standard 
for each new diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate process line, 
granular triple superphosphate process line, or granular triple 
superphosphate storage building. The owner or operator shall conduct 
the performance test according to the procedures in subpart A of this 
part and in this section.
    (b) In conducting performance tests, each owner or operator of an 
affected source shall use as reference methods and procedures the test 
methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or other methods and procedures 
as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
    (c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or 
monoammonium phosphate process line or granular triple superphosphate 
process line shall determine compliance with the applicable total 
fluorides standards in Sec. 63.622 or Sec. 63.623 as follows:
    (1) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for 
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN99.001

Where:

E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of 
equivalent P2O5 feed.
Csi = concentration of total fluorides from emission point 
``i,'' mg/dscm (mg/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission 
point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
N = number of emission points associated with the affected facility.
P = equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr 
(ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).

    (2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to 
determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and 
volumetric flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of 
the emission points. If Method 13 B is used, the fusion of the filtered 
material described in section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable 
aliquots of containers 1 and 2, described in sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 
in Method 13 A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for 
each run shall be at least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
    (3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall 
be computed using the following equation:

P = Mp Rp

Where:

Mp = total mass flow rate of phosphorus-bearing feed, metric 
ton/hr (ton/hr).
Rp = P2O5 content, decimal fraction.

    (i) The accountability system described in Sec. 63.625(a) and (b) 
shall be used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the 
phosphorus-bearing feed.
    (ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the 
feed shall be determined using as appropriate the following methods 
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the Book of 
Methods Used and Adopted By The Association Of Florida Phosphate 
Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, where applicable:
    (A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 
Preparation of Sample.
    (B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus--P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method A--Volumetric 
Method.
    (C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method B--Gravimetric 
Quimociac Method.
    (D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 
Phosphorus-P2O5 or 
Ca3(PO4)2, Method C--Spectrophotometric Method.
    (E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A--Volumetric 
Method.
    (F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate,

[[Page 31385]]

Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total Phosphorus-
P2O5, Method B--Gravimetric Quimociac Method.
    (G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C--
Spectrophotometric Method.
    (4) To comply with Sec. 63.625(f)(1) or (2), the owner or operator 
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.625(c) to determine the 
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the 
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the 
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during 
each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three 
runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of 
Sec. 63.625(f)(1) or (2).
    (d) Each owner or operator of a new or existing granular triple 
superphosphate storage building shall determine compliance with the 
applicable total fluorides standards in Sec. 63.622 or Sec. 63.623 as 
follows:
    (1) The owner or operator shall conduct performance tests only when 
the following quantities of product are being cured or stored in the 
facility.
    (i) Total granular triple superphosphate is at least 10 percent of 
the building capacity, and
    (ii) Fresh granular triple superphosphate is at least six percent 
of the total amount of granular triple superphosphate, or
    (iii) If the provision in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section 
exceeds production capabilities for fresh granular triple 
superphosphate, fresh granular triple superphosphate is equal to at 
least 5 days maximum production.
    (2) In conducting the performance test, the owner or operator shall 
use as reference methods and procedures the test methods in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A, or other methods and procedures as specified in this 
section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
    (3) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the total 
fluorides standard in Secs. 63.622 and 63.623 as follows:
    (i) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for 
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN99.002

Where:

E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/hr/metric ton (lb/hr/ton) of 
equivalent P2O5 stored.
Csi = concentration of total fluorides from emission point 
``i,'' mg/dscm (mg/dscf).
    Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from 
emission point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
N = number of emission points in the affected facility.
P = equivalent P2O5 stored, metric tons (tons).
K = conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).

    (ii) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used 
to determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and 
volumetric flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of 
the emission points. If Method 13B is used, the fusion of the filtered 
material described in section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable 
aliquots of containers 1 and 2, described in Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 
in Method 13 A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for 
each run shall be at least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
    (iii) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall 
be computed using the following equation:
P = Mp Rp

Where:

Mp = amount of product in storage, metric ton (ton).
Rp = P2O5 content of product in 
storage, weight fraction.

    (iv) The accountability system described in Sec. 63.625(d) and (e) 
shall be used to determine the amount of product (Mp) in 
storage.
    (v) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the 
product stored shall be determined using as appropriate the following 
methods (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the 
Book of Methods Used and Adopted By The Association Of Florida 
Phosphate Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, where applicable:
    (A) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus--P2O5, Method A--Volumetric 
Method.
    (B) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus--P2O5, Method B--Gravimetric 
Quimociac Method.
    (C) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid, 
Superphosphate, Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 
Total Phosphorus--P2O5, Method C--
Spectrophotometric Method, or,
    (vi) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the 
product stored shall be determined using as appropriate the following 
methods (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the 
Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, sixteenth Edition, 
1995, where applicable:
    (A) AOAC Official Method 957.02 Phosphorus (Total) In Fertilizers, 
Preparation of Sample Solution.
    (B) AOAC Official Method 929.01 Sampling of Solid Fertilizers.
    (C) AOAC Official Method 929.02 Preparation of Fertilizer Sample.
    (D) AOAC Official Method 978.01 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Automated Method.
    (E) AOAC Official Method 969.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Alkalimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method.
    (F) AOAC Official Method 962.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Gravimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method.
    (G) AOAC Official Method 958.01 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 
Spectrophotometric Molybdovanadophosphate Method.
    (4) To comply with Sec. 63.625(f) (1) or (2), the owner or operator 
shall use the monitoring systems described in Sec. 63.625(c) to 
determine the average pressure loss of the gas stream across each 
scrubber in the process scrubbing system and to determine the average 
flow rate of the scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process 
scrubbing system during each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic 
averages of the three runs shall be used as the baseline average values 
for the purposes of Sec. 63.625(f) (1) or (2).


Sec. 63.627  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this 
subpart shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.
    (b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this 
subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with 
the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 as follows:
    (1) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner 
or operator shall report the results of the initial and annual 
performance tests as part of the notification of compliance status 
required in Sec. 63.9.
    (2) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner 
or operator of an affected source shall submit an excess emissions 
report for any exceedance of an operating parameter limit. The report 
shall contain the information specified in

[[Page 31386]]

Sec. 63.10. When no exceedances of an operating parameter have 
occurred, such information shall be included in the report. The report 
shall be submitted semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by 
the 30th day following the end of the calendar half. If exceedances are 
reported, the owner or operator shall report quarterly until a request 
to reduce reporting frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.
    (3) Summary report. If the total duration of control system 
exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the 
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator 
shall submit a summary report containing the information specified in 
Sec. 63.10 rather than the full excess emissions report, unless 
required by the Administrator. The summary report shall be submitted 
semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 
following the end of the calendar half.
    (4) If the total duration of control system operating parameter 
exceedances for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the 
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator 
shall submit a summary report and the excess emissions report.


Sec. 63.628  Applicability of general provisions.

    The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part that are applicable to the owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart are shown in appendix A to this subpart.


Sec. 63.629  Miscellaneous requirements.

    The Administrator retains the authority to approve site-specific 
test plans for uncontrolled granular triple superphosphate storage 
buildings developed pursuant to Sec. 63.7(c)(2)(i).


Sec. 63.630  Compliance dates.

    (a) Each owner or operator of an existing affected source at a 
phosphate fertilizers production plant shall achieve compliance with 
the requirements of this subpart no later than June 10, 2002. 
Notwithstanding the requirements of Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(iii), each owner or 
operator of an existing affected source at a phosphate fertilizers 
production plant shall fulfill the applicable requirements of 
Sec. 63.626 no later than June 10, 2002.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a phosphate fertilizers production 
plant that commences construction or reconstruction of an affected 
source after December 27, 1996 shall achieve compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart upon startup of operations or by June 10, 
1999, whichever is later.
    (c) The owner or operator of any existing uncontrolled granular 
triple superphosphate storage building subject to the provisions of 
this subpart shall submit for approval by the Administrator a site-
specific test plan for each such building according to the provisions 
of Sec. 63.7(b)(2)(i) no later than June 12, 2000.


Sec. 63.631  Exemption from new source performance standards.

    Any affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart is 
exempted from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard 
contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart V, subpart W, or subpart X. To be 
exempt, a source must have a current operating permit pursuant to Title 
V of the Act and the source must be in compliance with all requirements 
of this subpart. For each affected source, this exemption is effective 
upon the date that the owner or operator demonstrates to the 
Administrator that the requirements of Secs. 63.624, 63.625 and 63.626 
have been met.

                   Appendix A to Subpart BB of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart BB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           40 CFR citation                      Requirement             Applies to subpart BB                            Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1) through (4)...............  General Applicability........  Yes.
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6) through (8)...............  .............................  Yes.
63.1(a)(9)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10) through (14).............  .............................  Yes.
63.1(b)..............................  Initial Applicability          Yes.
                                        Determination.
63.1(c)(1)...........................  Applicability After Standard   Yes.
                                        Established.
63.1(c)(2)...........................  .............................  Yes......................  Some plants may be area sources.
63.1(c)(3)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4) and (5)...................  .............................  Yes......................
63.1(d)..............................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit        Yes.
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions..................  Yes......................  Additional definitions in Sec.  63.621.
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations......  Yes.
63.4(a)(1) through (3)...............  Prohibited Activities........  Yes.
63.4(a)(4)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.4(b) and (c)......................  Circumvention/Severability...  Yes.
63.5(a)..............................  Construction/Reconstruction    Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Existing, New, Reconstructed   Yes.
                                        Sources Requirements.
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3) through (6)...............  .............................  Yes.
63.5(c)..............................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..............................  Application for Approval of    Yes.
                                        Construction/Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of Construction/      Yes.
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(f)..............................  Approval of Construction/      Yes.
                                        Reconstruction Based on
                                        State Review.
63.6(a)..............................  Compliance with Standards and  Yes.
                                        Maintenance Applicability.
63.6(b)(1) through (5)...............  New and Reconstructed Sources  Yes......................  See also Sec.  63.629.
                                        Dates.
63.6(b)(6)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].

[[Page 31387]]

 
63.6(b)(7)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(c)(1)...........................  Existing Sources Dates.......  Yes......................  Sec.  63.629 specifies dates.
63.6(c)(2)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(c)(3) and (4)...................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(d)..............................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1) and (2)...................  Operation & Maintenance        Yes......................  Sec.  63.624 specifies additional requirements.
                                        Requirements.
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown, and         Yes......................  Sec.  63.624 specifies additional requirements.
                                        Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)..............................  Compliance with Emission       Yes......................  Secs.  63.622 through 625 specify additional
                                        Standards.                                                requirements.
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Standard.........  Yes.
63.6(h)..............................  Compliance with Opacity/VE     No.......................  Subpart BB does not include VE/opacity standards.
                                        Standards.
63.6(i)(1) through (14)..............  Extension of Compliance......  Yes.
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..........................  .............................  Yes.
63.6(j)..............................  Exemption from Compliance....  Yes.
63.7(a)..............................  Performance Test Requirements  Yes......................  Sec.  63.629(a) applies rather than Sec.
                                        Applicability.                                            63.7(a)(2)(iii).
63.7(b)..............................  Notification.................  Yes.
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance/Test Plan..  Yes.
63.7(d)..............................  Testing Facilities...........  Yes.
63.7(e)..............................  Conduct of Tests.............  Yes......................  Secs.  63.624 and 63.625 specify additional
                                                                                                  requirements.
63.7(f)..............................  Alternative Test Method......  Yes.
63.7(g)..............................  Data Analysis................  Yes.
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Tests..............  Yes.
63.8(a)(1)...........................  Monitoring Requirements        Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.8(a)(2)...........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require CMS performance
                                                                                                  specifications.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)...........................  .............................  Yes.
63.8(b)..............................  Conduct of Monitoring........  Yes.
63.8(c)(1) through (4)...............  CMS Operation/Maintenance....  Yes.
63.8(c)(5) through (8)...............  .............................  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require COMS/CEMS or CMS
                                                                                                  performance specifications.
63.8(d)..............................  Quality Control..............  Yes.
63.8(e)..............................  CMS Performance Evaluation...  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require CMS performance
                                                                                                  evaluations.
63.8(f)(1) through (5)...............  Alternative Monitoring Method  Yes.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Alternative to RATA Test.....  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1)...........................  Data Reduction...............  Yes.
63.8(g)(2)...........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require COMS or CEMS.
63.8(g)(3) through (5)...............  .............................  Yes.
63.9(a)..............................  Notification Requirements      Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)..............................  Initial Notifications........  Yes.
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance         Yes.
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification for    Yes.
                                        Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of Performance    Yes.
                                        Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/Opacity     No.......................  Subpart BB does not include VE/opacity standards.
                                        Test.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS Notifications.  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require CMS performance evaluation,
                                                                                                  COMS, or CEMS.
63.9(h)(1) through (3)...............  Notification of Compliance     Yes.
                                        Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5) and (6)...................  .............................  Yes.
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines......  Yes.
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous             Yes.
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting-       Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b).............................  General Recordkeeping          Yes.
                                        Requirements.
63.10(c)(1)..........................  Additional CMS Recordkeeping.  Yes.
63.10(c)(2) through (4)..............  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)..........................  .............................  Yes.

[[Page 31388]]

 
63.10(c)(6)..........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require CMS performance
                                                                                                  specifications.
63.10(c)(7) and (8)..................  .............................  Yes.
63.10(c)(9)..........................  .............................  No.......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10 ) through (13)...........  .............................  Yes.
63.10(c)(14).........................  .............................  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require a CMS quality control
                                                                                                  program.
63.10(c)(15).........................  .............................  Yes.
63.10(d)(1)..........................  General Reporting              Yes.
                                        Requirements.
63.10(d)(2)..........................  Performance Test Results.....  Yes.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Opacity or VE Observations...  No.......................  Subpart BB does not include VE/opacity standards.
63.10(d)(4) and (5)..................  Progress Reports/Startup,      Yes.
                                        Shutdown, and Malfunction
                                        Reports.
63.10(e)(1) and (2)..................  Additional CMS Reports.......  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require CEMS or CMS performance
                                                                                                  evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess Emissions/CMS           Yes......................  Sec.  63.626(c)(2) includes additional requirements. A
                                        Performance Reports.                                      CMS performance report is not required.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  COMS Data Reports............  No.......................  Subpart BB does not require COMS.
63.10(f).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting        Yes.
                                        Waiver.
63.11(a).............................  Control Device Requirements    Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.11(b).............................  Flares.......................  No.......................  Flares not applicable.
63.12................................  State Authority and            Yes......................  Authority for approval of site-specific test plans for
                                        Delegations.                                              GTSP storage buildings is retained (see Sec.
                                                                                                  63.628(a)).
63.13................................  Addresses....................  Yes.
63.14................................  Incorporation by Reference...  Yes.
63.15................................  Information Availability/      Yes.
                                        Confidentiality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-10412 Filed 6-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P