[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69508-69512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24280]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016; FRL-10015-94-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU25


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes an amendment to the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid 
Manufacturing source category. The final amendment is in response to a 
petition for rulemaking on the mercury emission limit for existing 
phosphate rock calciners that was finalized on August 19, 2015 (``2015 
Rule''). That emission limit was based on the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) floor for existing sources. All six of the 
existing calciners used to set this MACT floor are located at the PCS 
Phosphate Company, Inc. (``PCS Phosphate'') facility in Aurora, North 
Carolina (``PCS Aurora''). PCS Phosphate asserted that data received 
since the rule's promulgation indicate that the MACT floor did not 
accurately reflect the average emission limitation achieved by the 
units used to set the standard. Based on these new data, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a revision of the 
mercury MACT floor for existing calciners.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the 
public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed 
to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of 
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide 
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further 
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, 
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. John Feather, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-3052; fax number: (919) 541-4991 and email 
address: feather.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BTF beyond-the-floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
ICR Information Collection Request
lb/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code

    Background information. On April 7, 2020, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing NESHAP (85 FR 19412). In 
this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We 
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. 
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's 
responses to those comments is available in the Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing NESHAP, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Amendments
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

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

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate

[[Page 69509]]

NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any 
aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/phosphate-fertilizer-production-plants-and-phosphoric-acid. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the court) by January 4, 2021. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 
and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, 
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

    In the 2015 Rule, the EPA published final amendments to the 
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production 
NESHAP (80 FR 50386). As part of that action, we established MACT-based 
mercury emission limits for new and existing calciners within the 
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category. These limits were based 
on emission data from the six identical calciners at the PCS Aurora 
facility. Because these six sources are of identical design and use the 
same fuel and feed, we determined that they should be treated as a 
single source for purposes of MACT floor development. As a result, we 
combined the emission test results for the different calciners into a 
single database that we used as the basis to set MACT floor emission 
limits for both new and existing sources. We also evaluated a beyond-
the-floor (BTF) option for MACT for existing calciners but did not 
select the BTF option as MACT because we determined that the economic 
impacts to the facility would not be reasonable. We did set a BTF limit 
for new calciners.
    Following promulgation of the 2015 Rule, PCS Phosphate petitioned 
for reconsideration, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, on 
October 16, 2015. The EPA granted the petition for reconsideration of 
the issues presented at the time relating to the compliance schedules, 
monitoring, and compliance options for air oxidation reactors and 
scrubbers. This reconsideration was finalized on September 28, 2017 (82 
FR 45193). However, subsequent to this petition for reconsideration, 
compliance testing of the calciners for mercury emissions in 2016 
showed that three calciners at the Aurora facility exceeded the MACT 
limit, with the three other calciners near the limit. For reference, 
the mean calciner compliance emissions concentration in 2016 was 0.143 
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) at 3-percent oxygen, 
higher than the MACT limit of 0.14 mg/dscm at 3-percent oxygen. The 
mean of the 2016 compliance emissions concentrations was 44 percent 
higher than the mean of the data from the 2010 and 2014 Information 
Collection Requests (ICRs) that were used to develop the 2015 Rule's 
emission limit. On May 10, 2016, PCS Phosphate submitted a letter to 
the EPA requesting a revision to the calciner mercury MACT floor 
standard. On September 6, 2016, PCS Phosphate added the calciner 
mercury limit to its earlier petition for reconsideration. This 
additional request was not raised with reasonable specificity or within 
60 days of the publication of the 2015 Rule, so the mercury MACT floor 
issue was not included in the EPA's 2017 reconsideration of the 2015 
Rule. However, on the basis of the test data presented, the EPA was 
convinced there was justification to review the mercury calciner limit 
and include new emissions data in analysis of that limit.
    Because of our evaluation of the emission data, as explained in 
more detail in the proposal and supporting documents (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016), the EPA proposed to revise the mercury emission 
standard for existing calciners. We received public comments on the 
proposed rule amendment from six parties. Copies of all comments 
submitted are available electronically through the docket. In this 
document, the EPA is taking final action on this revision as proposed.

III. Summary of the Final Amendments

    The EPA is amending 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA. This amendment is 
in response to a petition for a rulemaking to amend the 2015 Rule's 
calciner mercury MACT floor emission limit, submitted by PCS Phosphate 
to the Agency on September 6, 2016. The petition is available in the 
docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016-0007). The 
EPA is increasing the MACT floor-based mercury emission limit for 
existing calciners from 0.14 mg/dscm at 3-percent oxygen to 0.23 mg/
dscm at 3-percent oxygen. Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Existing 
Source Emission Limits, is reproduced in its entirety at the end of 
this preamble for the sake of clarity. The EPA is amending only the 
existing source mercury limit for phosphate rock calciners, along with 
references to its accompanying compliance date. This amendment does not 
impact any other aspect of the table or regulatory text. The EPA is not 
amending the mercury emission limit for new sources.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed amendments to mercury emission standards for existing 
phosphate rock calciners and our responses to these comments.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the EPA did not 
sufficiently consider the risk effects, particularly related to 
inhalation, of mercury emissions associated with a

[[Page 69510]]

less stringent standard, and whether stricter limits may be required.
    Response: In its recent decision in Citizens for Pennsylvania's 
Future, et al., v. Wheeler, 19-cv-02004-VC (N.D. Cal. 2020), the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of California affirmed 
that 42 U.S.C. 7412(f)(2)(A) does not impose a mandatory duty for the 
EPA to revisit risk assessments when we revise technology-based 
standards. Moreover, in this case a reassessment of the risks was 
unnecessary given the conservativism in our risk analysis completed in 
2015. The risk assessment supporting the 2015 Rule (``Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Phosphate Fertilizer and Phosphoric Acid Source 
Categories in Support of the July 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0081) evaluated risks due 
to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from calciners, 
including human health effects from chronic and acute inhalation 
exposure to mercury emissions. The 2015 Rule's risk assessment 
conservatively modeled phosphoric acid calciner mercury emissions of 
352 pounds per year (lb/yr), which is considerably greater than the 264 
lb/yr that we estimate will be emitted in compliance with the revised 
mercury emission limit. The calciner mercury emission values used to 
model risk were overestimates because they were based on inaccurate 
production values and because of the different test method used to 
derive the emissions estimates used in the risk assessment. As 
described in the 2015 Rule's emission data memorandum (``Emissions Data 
Used in Residual Risk Modeling: Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate 
Fertilizer Production Source Categories,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0522-0011), an inaccurate projection was made of calciner 
emissions based on the annual production value and emissions of the one 
calciner tested in the 2010 ICR. This overestimate applied to all 
calciner HAP emissions used for modeling purposes, including mercury 
values. The BTF memorandum (``Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Phosphate 
Rock Calciners at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants--Final Rule,'' 
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0082) further explained that the 
risk assessment used speciated mercury data obtained from the Ontario-
Hydro test method. These data provided information on the relative 
prevalence of divalent mercury compared to elemental mercury, but also 
showed higher emissions than those obtained using EPA Method 30B. EPA 
Method 30B is the method used to determine facility compliance and is 
the basis of the calciner mercury estimates in this action and the 2015 
Rule. We originally calculated allowable emissions by scaling measured 
emissions to the permitted design capacity, so increased operational 
throughputs would not change that evaluation. Using the conservative 
mercury emission estimates from our 2015 Rule's risk assessment, we 
still determined that the risk posed by emissions from the category, 
including mercury calciner emissions, was acceptable, that the 
standards provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
and that no additional standards were necessary to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect. These conclusions have not changed.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA did not evaluate 
increased emissions of HAP other than mercury, such as lead, and 
whether calcination of higher mercury materials may affect lead 
emissions. The commenter feels these data should be included in the 
risk evaluation.
    Response: The EPA is unaware of any evidence of a correlation 
between mercury and lead emissions from sources in this source 
category. This revision of the mercury emission limit for existing 
calciners is based on additional data that became available for 
analysis. Emissions of other HAP, such as lead, will not be changed by 
this action. No operational changes are expected as a result of this 
action. As discussed in the previous response, any changes in calciner 
operations since relevant data were originally gathered do not change 
the determinations made based on the 2015 Rule's risk assessment. This 
action does not affect emission limits for non-mercury HAP surrogates, 
which remain subject to current compliance requirements and are out of 
the scope of this action.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that test reports for EPA Method 30B 
data were not available and that this precluded quality assurance or 
proper evaluation of analyses by the facility or the EPA.
    Response: Compliance test reports are publicly available through 
WebFire (https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/). In addition, the mercury 
compliance test reports, along with the mercury study carried out as 
part of the consent order, have been added to the docket. We verified 
that the reported information was the same as that used to calculate 
the revised MACT floor. These methods and reports have been validated 
and have undergone quality assurance. Extensive data summaries used by 
the EPA to analyze the MACT floor were posted in the docket for the 
proposed rule and were sufficient to allow proper evaluation of 
relevant analyses.
    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed decisions to revise 
the 2015 calciner mercury MACT floor standard and not pursue a BTF 
standard. The commenter agreed that the risk assessment shows add-on 
controls are not required to protect human health or the environment.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support of the EPA's 
proposed decisions.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA did not consider 
mercury control by raw material selection and that the feasibility of 
determining the spatial variability of mercury concentration in 
phosphate rock resources has been demonstrated. Another commenter 
provided information which demonstrates that ore-switching is both 
technically infeasible and inconsistent with current permit 
requirements.
    Response: The MACT floor for calciners was established pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(3) as the average emission limitation achieved by a 
single facility that uses a single source of raw material, which is 
mined on-site. Once the MACT floor has been established, raw material 
selection would be a BTF control option, discussed in CAA section 
112(d)(2). In this case, raw material selection is not a feasible 
option to implement, as is supported by statements from another 
commenter. The EPA's site visit report for PCS Aurora (Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0016-0008) describes that this facility operates by 
processing phosphate rock that was mined on-site. The facility is 
constrained by their mining permit to mine certain areas of the 
phosphate rock in a certain order. In addition, the mining process 
itself inherently results in the ore being thoroughly mixed. Low-
mercury phosphate rock could not be selectively targeted for mining and 
calciner processing. Material substitution would not be a feasible 
means to reduce HAP emissions.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    Only the PCS Aurora facility and its six calciners are expected to 
be affected by the change to the existing calciner MACT floor emission 
limit for mercury finalized in this action. We are revising the MACT 
floor based on new data from PCS Phosphate for the existing calciners. 
Since neither this amendment

[[Page 69511]]

nor the 2015 Rule anticipated a need to install controls, we do not 
anticipate a change in actual mercury emissions as a result of this 
action. Currently, we estimate total actual emissions of mercury from 
all six calciners to be 264 lb/yr, less than the 352 lb/yr 
conservatively estimated for modeling purposes in the 2015 Rule, so our 
conclusions related to human health risk are unchanged and we continue 
to anticipate no adverse environmental impact. The 2015 Rule set a 
mercury limit of 0.14 mg/dscm at 3-percent oxygen that the existing 
calciners could not achieve under normal operations. Without this 
amendment, additional controls such as an activated carbon injection 
system would be necessary to comply with the 2015 Rule's standard. The 
revised standard that does not require installation of those controls 
represents a cost-savings for the facility, since those expenditures 
are no longer expected to be necessary. We estimate that installing new 
activated carbon injection control equipment to meet the 2015 Rule's 
calciner mercury standard would have resulted in a present value cost 
of approximately $26 million (2017 dollars) discounted at 7 percent to 
2019 over a 5-year analytical period. Therefore, this action will 
result in a total cost savings of $26 million over the analytical 
period. For more detail, see the economic impact analysis memorandum in 
the docket, unchanged since the proposal (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0016-0013).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be 
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0361. With this action, the EPA is finalizing 
amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, rule language narrowly 
concerning the existing calciner mercury MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA 
believes that there are no changes to the information collection 
requirements of the 2015 Rule. The information collection estimate of 
projected cost and hour burden has not been revised due to any impacts 
from this action.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The single 
facility subject to the existing calciner mercury MACT floor 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, is not a small entity.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
environmental justice finding in the 2015 Rule remains relevant in this 
action, which is finalizing amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
AA, existing rule language narrowly concerning the calciner mercury 
MACT floor.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 
CFR part 63 as follows:

[[Page 69512]]

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

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  63.602, revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.602  Standards and compliance dates.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) You must comply with the mercury emission limit specified in 
Table 1 to this subpart beginning on November 3, 2020.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise table 1 to subpart AA of part 63 to read as follows:

                      Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63--Existing Source Emission Limits a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          You must meet the emission limits for the specified pollutant . . .
 For the following existing sources . --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 . .                       Total fluorides         Total particulate             Mercury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Line.....  0.020 lb/ton of
                                        equivalent P2O5 feed.
Superphosphoric Acid Process Line c..  0.010 lb/ton of
                                        equivalent P2O5 feed.
Superphosphoric Acid Process Line      0.20 lb/ton of
 with a Submerged Combustion Process.   equivalent P2O5 feed.
Phosphate Rock Dryer.................  .......................  0.2150 lb/ton of
                                                                 phosphate rock feed.
Phosphate Rock Calciner..............  9.0E-04 lb/ton of rock   0.181 g/dscm...........  0.23 mg/dscm corrected
                                        feed d.                                           to 3-percent oxygen e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The existing source compliance data is June 10, 2002, except as noted.
b During periods of startup and shutdown, for emission limits stated in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of
  feed, you are subject to the work practice standards specified in Sec.   63.602(f).
c Beginning on August 19, 2018, you must include oxidation reactors in superphosphoric acid process lines when
  determining compliance with the total fluorides limit.
d Compliance date is August 19, 2015.
e Compliance date November 3, 2020.


[FR Doc. 2020-24280 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


