[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48174-48195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23083]



[[Page 48173]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrocholoric 
Acid Production; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48174]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7057-1]
RIN 2060-AH75


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Hydrochloric Acid Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid (HCl) production 
facilities, including HCl production at fume silica facilities. The EPA 
has identified these facilities as major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emissions, primarily HCl. Hydrochloric acid is 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects include chronic health disorders (for example, effects 
on the central nervous system, blood, and heart) and acute health 
disorders (for example, irritation of eyes, throat, and mucous 
membranes and damage to the liver and kidneys).
    These proposed NESHAP would implement section 112(d) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) by requiring all HCl production facilities that are major 
sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of 
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The EPA estimates 
that these proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAP 
from HCl production by approximately 1,620 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 
(1,790 tons per year (tpy)). The emissions reductions achieved by these 
proposed NESHAP, when combined with the emissions reductions achieved 
by other similar standards, would provide protection to the public and 
achieve a primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before November 19, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by October 9, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
October 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-99-41, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 
A-99-41, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
10:00 a.m. in EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-99-41 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Maxwell, Combustion Group, 
Emission Standards Division, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number 
(919) 541-5430; facsimile number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail 
address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Comments 
submitted by e-mail must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use 
of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be 
accepted on disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file 
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note 
the docket number: A-99-41. No confidential business information (CBI) 
should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online 
at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Bill Maxwell, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The 
EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent 
allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, 
the information may be made available to the public without further 
notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. A request for a public hearing must be made by the 
date specified under the DATES section. People interested in presenting 
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held 
should contact: Ms. Kelly Hayes, Combustion Group, Emission Standards 
Division, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5578 at 
least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. People interested in 
attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Hayes to verify the 
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will 
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or 
arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered in the development of this proposed rule. The 
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the 
rulemaking process. 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 CAA.) The 
regulatory text and other materials related to this proposed rule are 
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request 
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted 
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. Additional related information may 
also be found on the Air Toxics Website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is 
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

[[Page 48175]]

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by 
this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                       SIC \a\     NAICS \b\             Regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................         2819       325188  Hydrochloric Acid Production.
                                                       2821       325211
                                                       2869      325199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide 
regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in section Sec. 63.8985 of the proposed 
NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the health effects associated with HCl emissions?
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
    A. What is the source category?
    B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the 
emissions?
      C. What is the affected source?
    D. What are the emission limitations and work practice 
standards?
    E. What are the performance testing, initial compliance, and 
continuous compliance requirements?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we select the form of the standards?
    D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
standards for existing and new sources?
    E. How did we select the testing, and initial and continuous 
compliance requirements?
    F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts.
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
    C. What are the cost and economic impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 
601 et. seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Hydrochloric 
acid production and fume silica production were listed as source 
categories under the production of inorganic chemicals group on EPA's 
initial list of major source categories published in the Federal 
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).\1\ Today, we are combining 
these two source categories for regulatory purposes under the 
production of inorganic chemicals group and renaming the source 
category as HCl production. The next revision to the source category 
list will reflect this change. Major sources of HAP are those that have 
the potential to emit greater than 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP or 
23 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Later listing notices (e.g., 66 FR 8220) refer to the source 
category as ``fumed'' silica.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum level allowed for NESHAP and is 
defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor 
ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major 
sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that 
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in 
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor 
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources (for which we have emissions information) in the category or 
subcategory or by the best-performing 5 sources (for which we have or 
could reasonably obtain emissions information) for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, 
and energy impacts.

C. What Are the Health Effects Associated with HCl Emissions?

    The primary HAP emitted from HCl production is HCl. Chlorine gas is 
also emitted. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each 
of the facilities covered by the emissions standards for this source 
category, nor for the people living around the facilities, that would 
be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population 
exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for 
resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which 
the adverse health effects described below occur in the populations 
surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse 
effects do occur, the proposed rule will

[[Page 48176]]

reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
    A discussion of the HAP-specific health effects is discussed below.
1. Hydrochloric Acid
    Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous 
membranes. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose, 
and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema 
in humans. Chronic (long-term) occupational exposure to HCl has been 
reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. 
Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental 
discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the 
reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed 
to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in 
females and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have 
been reported in offspring. We have not classified HCl for 
carcinogenicity.
2. Chlorine
    Acute exposure to high levels of chlorine in humans can result in 
chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. At lower 
levels, chlorine is a potent irritant to the eyes, the upper 
respiratory tract, and lungs. Chronic exposure to chlorine gas in 
workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and throat 
irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have reported 
decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation, nonneoplastic 
nasal lesions, and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia from chronic 
inhalation exposure to chlorine. No information is available on the 
carcinogenic effects of chlorine in humans from inhalation exposure. We 
have not classified chlorine for potential carcinogenicity.

II. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. What Is the Source Category?

    The HCl production source category and the fume silica source 
category include HCl production facilities that are, or are part of, a 
major source of HAP emissions. The proposed rule defines an HCl 
production facility as the collection of equipment used to produce, 
store, and transfer for shipping HCl at a concentration of 10 percent 
by weight or greater. In other words, an HCl production facility is any 
process that routes a gaseous stream that contains HCl to an absorber, 
thereby creating a liquid HCl product. As noted above, to be covered by 
the proposed rule, the concentration of HCl in the liquid aqueous 
product must be 10 percent or greater, by weight.
    There are numerous types of processes that produce the HCl-
containing stream that is the starting point for an HCl facility. These 
include organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing processes that 
produce HCl as a by-product; the reaction of salts and sulfuric acid 
(Mannheim process); the reaction of a salt, sulfur dioxide, oxygen, and 
water (Hargreaves process); the combustion of chlorinated organic 
compounds; the direct synthesis of HCl via the burning of chlorine in 
the presence of hydrogen; and fume silica production, including the 
combustion of silicon tetrachloride in hydrogen-oxygen furnaces. The 
proposed rule is ``blind'' to the type of process that generates the 
HCl, as an HCl production facility begins at the point where the HCl-
containing stream enters the absorber. For this reason, we decided to 
combine fume silica HCl production with other HCl production facilities 
and regulate both under this NESHAP.
    The proposed rule excludes HCl production facilities under certain 
circumstances. First, even if 10-percent HCl (or greater) is produced, 
an HCl production facility is not subject to the proposed rule if all 
of the HCl and chlorine vent streams from the equipment (including 
absorbers, storage tanks and transfer operations) at the HCl production 
facility are recycled or routed to another process prior to being 
discharged to the atmosphere.
    In addition, the proposed rule excludes certain HCl production 
facilities that are part of other source categories. Only around 5 
percent of HCl is produced via a process where HCl is the primary 
intended product. Most HCl is produced as a by-product of other 
processes. Some of these processes are, or will be, subject to other 
Federal air pollution standards. For example, some operations produce 
liquid HCl following the incineration of chlorinated waste gas streams. 
If these operations are subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) 
requirements for HCl control after an incinerator that is used as a 
control device for halogenated group 1 process vents, that source is 
exempt from the proposed HCl NESHAP. The proposed NESHAP also excludes 
HCl production facilities when the operations that produce HCl are part 
of an affected source of another part 63 standard (e.g., the Steel 
Pickling NESHAP). For a more detailed discussion of these exclusions 
and how the proposed source category was selected, see section III.A of 
this preamble.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?

    The primary HAP known to be released from HCl production is HCl. 
Chlorine may also be emitted from HCl production. While HCl is produced 
through many different types of processes (discussed above), potential 
HCl and chlorine emission sources are essentially the same for all 
processes. These potential emission sources include process vents, 
storage tanks, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and wastewater.
1. Types of Emission Sources
    Most HCl production processes begin with a gaseous stream 
containing HCl. The stream can be a by-product stream from another 
process, an outlet stream from a combustion device that is treating 
chlorinated organic compounds, or a stream from a direct synthesis 
reaction furnace where hydrogen and chlorine are burned. No matter the 
origin of the HCl-containing stream, the process from that point 
forward is basically the same. The gaseous HCl-containing stream is 
routed to an HCl recovery absorption column, where the HCl is absorbed 
into either water or dilute HCl. The liquid leaving this column 
contains concentrated HCl.
    The gaseous stream leaving the absorption column contains HCl that 
was not absorbed into the liquid in the tower and any chlorine present 
in the inlet stream. This outlet stream may be routed (or recycled) to 
another process, in which case it is no longer part of the HCl 
production affected source. However, if the outlet stream is directly 
discharged to the atmosphere or it is routed through other recovery/
control devices before being discharged to the atmosphere, it is 
considered a process vent from an HCl production process.
    If the liquid HCl leaving the absorption tower is routed to a 
storage tank, there is the potential for HCl emissions from the tank. 
The storage tanks are typically atmospheric storage tanks, and working 
loss emissions will occur as the tank is filled and emptied. While less 
significant, there are also breathing losses from atmospheric 
temperature and pressure changes. There is also the potential for 
emissions when HCl is loaded from a storage tank to a tank truck or 
rail car. Plants often reduce HCl emissions from storage tanks and 
transfer operations by using a scrubber.
    Another potential source of HCl emissions is fugitive losses from 
equipment leaks. However, owners and operators of HCl production 
processes presumably have an incentive to

[[Page 48177]]

identify and repair equipment leaks of HCl and chlorine because of 
their highly corrosive nature. The leaks can be easily identified, as 
the presence of ambient moisture (humidity) results in rapid corrosion 
on or around leaking equipment components.
    The bottoms from scrubbers used to reduce HCl and chlorine 
emissions from process vents, storage vessels, and transfer operations 
are typically routed to wastewater treatment systems. In most cases, 
the HCl or chlorine has been chemically converted in the scrubber to 
sodium hypochlorite (bleach). Any residual chlorine or HCl would be 
quite small. We estimate that wastewater emissions represent less than 
1 percent of total emissions from the source category. Therefore, we 
believe that wastewater streams do not represent a significant 
potential source of emissions.
2. Estimated Emissions
    We have calculated the nationwide baseline emissions for each of 
the HCl production facility emission sources. Process vents emit a 
total of 2,810 Mg/yr (3,100 tpy) of combined HCl and chlorine 
emissions. Storage tanks emit 54 Mg/yr (59 tpy) of HCl, transfer 
operations emit 16 Mg/yr (17 tpy) of HCl, leaking equipment emits 240 
Mg/yr (270 tpy) of HCl, and wastewater emits 11 Mg/yr (13 tpy) HCl. 
Total baseline emissions from the industry are 3,130 Mg/yr (3,450 tpy).

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    The proposed rule defines the HCl production facility as the 
affected source. The affected source contains the five emission points 
described in the previous section: process vents, storage tanks, 
transfer operations, leaking equipment, and wastewater treatment 
operations. However, as described in section III.D of this preamble, 
there are no emission limitations or other requirements for wastewater 
treatment operations in the proposed rule.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards?

    We are proposing that new and existing affected sources maintain an 
outlet concentration of less than or equal to 12 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) HCl and 20 ppmv chlorine from each process vent, 
determined using EPA Test Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The 
proposed rule also would require that owners or operators establish 
site-specific operating limits for the final control device, based on 
monitored parameters and levels established during the performance 
test. For example, if you use a caustic scrubber to meet the emission 
limits, you must maintain the daily average scrubber inlet liquid flow 
rate above the minimum value established during the performance test. 
You also must maintain the daily average scrubber effluent pH within 
the operating range value established during the performance test.
    For each storage tank and transfer operation at a new or existing 
affected source, the HCl emission limit (an outlet concentration of 12 
ppmv or less) and operating limits are the same as for process vents. 
There are no chlorine emissions from these sources.
    For leaking equipment, we are proposing a work practice standard. 
We would require you to prepare, and at all times operate according to, 
an equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) plan that describes in 
detail the measures that will be put in place to control leaking 
equipment emissions at the facility. You would be required to submit 
the plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the 
compliance date.
    We are not proposing any emission limitations or work practice 
standards for wastewater treatment, for the reasons discussed in 
section III(D)(5) of this preamble.

E. What Are the Performance Testing, Initial Compliance, and Continuous 
Compliance Requirements?

    For process vents at new and existing affected sources, we are 
proposing to require that you demonstrate initial compliance by 
conducting a performance test that demonstrates that emissions are at 
an outlet concentration of less than or equal to 12 ppmv HCl and 20 
ppmv chlorine. You must also establish site-specific operating limits 
based on control device parameters. These operating limits would be 
established for each parameter based on monitoring conducted during the 
initial performance test when the outlet concentration of both 
pollutants is less than or equal to the required emission limits (as 
reported in the facility's Notification of Compliance Status report).
    Specifically for water or caustic scrubbers, which we believe will 
be the control device of choice in most situations, the proposed rule 
would require that you establish operating limits for pH of the 
scrubber effluent and the scrubber liquid inlet flow rate. For any 
other type of control device, you would be required to establish the 
operating limits based on an approved monitoring plan that identifies 
appropriate parameters. Continuous compliance would be demonstrated by 
these monitored parameters staying within the operating limits.
    The HCl emission limit and associated operating limits for new and 
existing storage tanks and transfer operations are the same as those 
for process vents.

F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We are proposing to require owners or operators of affected sources 
to submit the following notification and reports:
     Initial Notification.
     Notification of Intent to Conduct a Performance Test.
     Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS).
     Compliance Reports.
     Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports.
We would require that each owner or operator maintain records of 
reported information and other information necessary to document 
compliance (for example, records related to malfunctions, records that 
show continuous compliance with emission limits) for 5 years.
    For the Initial Notification, we are proposing that each owner or 
operator notify us that his or her facility is subject to the HCl 
production NESHAP and that he or she provide specified basic 
information about their facility. This notification would be required 
to be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the facility 
becomes subject to this subpart. For existing sources that are 
operating at this time, the Initial Notification would be due [120 DAYS 
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    For the Notification of Intent report, we are proposing that each 
owner or operator notify us in writing of the intent to conduct a 
performance test at least 60 days before the performance test is 
scheduled to begin.
    For each new or existing process vent, storage tank, and transfer 
operation at an affected source, we are proposing to require a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with proposed HCl 
concentration limit. This test would be conducted by the compliance 
date for existing sources and within 180 days of the compliance date 
for new or reconstructed sources. We are proposing that the NOCS report 
be submitted within 60 days of completion of the performance test. A 
certified notification of compliance that states the compliance status 
of the facility, along with supporting information (e.g., performance 
test methods and results, description of air pollution control 
equipment, and operating parameter

[[Page 48178]]

values and ranges), would be submitted as part of the NOCS.
    For the Compliance Report, we are proposing that facilities subject 
to control requirements under the proposed rule report on continued 
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits semi-annually. 
Specifically, the compliance report must contain the following 
information:
     Company name and address.
     Statement certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
     Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
     Information on actions taken for any startups, shutdowns, 
or malfunctions that were consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
     If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period.
     If there were no periods during which the continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) was out-of-control, as specified in 
the monitoring plan, a statement that there were no periods during 
which the continuous monitoring system (CMS) was out-of-control during 
the reporting period.
    You will demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice 
standards for leaking equipment by demonstrating that you have a LDAR 
plan. Your semiannual compliance report will verify your continued use 
of the plan and contain information on instances where you deviated 
from the plan and the corrective actions taken.
    Finally, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction report if you have taken an action that is not consistent 
with the facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. This 
report must describe actions taken for the event and contain the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Category?

    The HCl production source category and the fume silica source 
category were both on our initial list of major source categories 
published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The 
HCl production source category description in the initial listing 
included any facility engaged in the production of HCl. The listing 
document further stated that ``the category includes, but is not 
limited to, production of HCl via any of the following methods: 
production of HCl as a by-product in the manufacture of organic 
chemicals, direct reaction of salts and sulfuric acid (Mannheim 
process), reaction of a salt, sulfur dioxide, oxygen, and water 
(Hargreaves process), and burning chlorine in the presence of hydrogen 
gas.''
    The fume silica production source category included any facility 
engaged in the production of fume silica. Fume silica is a fine white 
powder used as a thickener, thixotropic, or reinforcing agent in inks, 
resins, rubber, paints, and cosmetics. The initial fume silica source 
category included the production of fume silica by the combustion of 
silicon tetrachloride in hydrogen-oxygen furnaces. Hydrochloric acid 
and chlorine emissions are the primary HAP released from fume silica 
production facilities and result from the HCl recovery/production 
system. Because the largest HAP emission source at fume silica 
facilities is related to the HCl recovery/production system, we decided 
to combine fume silica sources and HCl production sources for 
regulation under the proposed NESHAP.
    We considered whether the source category should be limited to the 
production of a liquid HCl product, or if the source category should 
also include gaseous HCl streams. The majority of HCl is produced as a 
gaseous by-product, rather than being directly synthesized. Some owners 
and operators choose to route the HCl-containing stream to an absorber 
to make a liquid product, and some do not. Those that do not make a 
liquid product may use the gaseous HCl stream by routing it to another 
process or by recycling it. They may also route the stream through a 
control device and discharge it to the atmosphere. Since, in most 
cases, this HCl is not intentionally being produced, and since these 
plants are not performing additional steps to process this HCl, we 
concluded that these situations do not constitute ``production'' and 
should not be included in the source category. Therefore, we limited 
the source category to those processes producing a liquid HCl product.
    Consequently, the starting point for an HCl production facility is 
the HCl-containing gaseous stream from one of the types of processes 
listed above. We considered defining the source category in terms of 
the processes used to create the gaseous HCl stream. However, the 
production of the liquid HCl product in the absorption tower is 
relatively consistent for all HCl production, with no regard for the 
type of process generating the HCl gaseous stream. We concluded that 
the source category did not need to address the process that is the 
source of the HCl gaseous stream, only the unit operations that 
generate the liquid HCl product from that gaseous stream. In other 
words, we considered that the gaseous HCl stream was the feedstock to 
the HCl production process and not part of the process. Therefore, the 
proposed rule does not consider the type of process that creates the 
HCl gaseous stream in defining an HCl production facility.
    We also wanted the proposed rule to focus on producers of 
``commercial'' HCl and not on incidental producers. We considered 
accomplishing this by limiting the scope of the proposed rule to 
facilities that offer the liquid HCl product for sale. However, we 
rejected this approach because we recognize that this would 
artificially separate similar processes based on whether the product is 
used on-site (and, thus, not ``sold''), or is offered for sale on the 
commercial market. We also considered limiting the source category 
based on how the liquid HCl product is used. For instance, we could 
have defined an HCl production facility as one that produces HCl used 
as a feedstock for another process. However, we determined that it was 
not feasible to separate incidental and non-incidental uses in a non-
arbitrary manner.
    We then tried to identify a minimum grade (or concentration) of 
HCl, above which all the commercial production of HCl would fall. The 
most common way to define the grade of HCl appears to be percent HCl by 
weight. Common shipping concentrations range from 31.45 to 37 percent 
by weight, which we believe also probably represents common 
manufacturing concentrations of HCl sold in commerce. The available 
literature indicates that the vast majority of HCl is produced at or 
above the azeotropic concentration of 20 percent by weight, but any 
concentration of HCl can be produced depending on how the absorber is 
operated. The lowest documented concentration is 10 percent by weight, 
which is that typically produced by the Hargreaves process. However, 
our information in this area is limited, and there may be a market for 
a lower concentration product. For example, oil field service companies 
use HCl concentrations of 5-27 percent, and literature searches have 
revealed material safety data sheets for concentrations as low as 0.7 
percent. There was no indication in the literature whether these lower 
concentrations were produced directly or by diluting higher 
concentration products after manufacture.

[[Page 48179]]

    Based on the available information, we are proposing that the HCl 
production source category include equipment at facilities used to 
produce, store, and transfer for shipping liquid HCl product at a 
concentration of 10 percent by weight or greater. We believe that the 
definition would include all of the HCl producers in the U.S. and 
exclude incidental production of HCl. We are requesting comment on 
whether concentration by weight is the most appropriate method for 
defining the grade of HCl. We are also requesting comment on whether a 
concentration of 10 percent by weight or greater is an appropriate 
cutoff to include commercial HCl production in the U.S. and exclude 
incidental production.
    We also considered whether some HCl production facilities that meet 
the definition should be excluded from the HCl production source 
category. First, we are aware that a facility could produce a liquid 
HCl product, but not have any emission points that discharge to the 
atmosphere. An example would be a process that recycles the vent from 
the absorber and that routes the liquid directly to another process. We 
believe that such processes should not be subject to the rule, so the 
proposed rule excludes them from the source category.
    It is possible that the process from which the gaseous HCl stream 
originates will be subject to another MACT standard, and that the HCl 
and other HAP emissions from that stream would be subject to control 
requirements under that standard. We want to avoid overlapping 
requirements where possible, and have specifically excluded from the 
HCl production source category those operations that produce HCl that 
are also part of an affected source under one of the following 
subparts:
     40 CFR part 63, subpart S, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry.
     40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC, National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities 
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
     40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production.
     40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors.
    The Pharmaceuticals Production MACT (40 CFR 63, subpart GGG) is 
another source category where potential overlap could occur since 
chlorinated compounds are used, and the rule covers all HAP emissions, 
including HCl and chlorine. However, we are not aware of processes at a 
pharmaceutical production facility that produce a liquid HCl product of 
concentrations of 10 percent or greater. Therefore, the proposed rule 
does not exempt sources subject to subpart GGG. We would be interested 
in comments on any actual situations where overlap between the 
pharmaceutical rule and the proposed HCl rule occur.
    There is also the potential for regulatory overlap when the 
operations that produce liquid HCl occur following the incineration of 
chlorinated waste gas streams, and the operations are subject to one of 
the following requirements:
     40 CFR part 63.113(c), subpart G, National Emission 
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage 
Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater.
     40 CFR part 264.343(b), Standards for Owners and Operators 
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, subpart 
O, Incinerators.
     40 CFR Part 266.107, subpart H, Burning of Hazardous Waste 
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
    For example, producers of synthetic organic chemicals are subject 
to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, or HON. At a HON facility, HCl is 
created when chlorinated organic compounds from a HON process unit are 
combusted in an incinerator. The HON requires that the HCl emissions 
from the incinerator be reduced by 99 percent. If an owner or operator 
routes the incinerator outlet stream to an absorber and produces a 
liquid HCl product, it would be considered part of the system that 
achieves the required 99-percent reduction. Since the HCl production 
process and the HCl emissions would be covered by the HON, we would 
want to exclude such a process from the HCl production source category. 
Therefore, the proposed rule specifically excludes processes subject to 
Sec. 63.113(c) of subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
    Some HON units produce HCl as a by-product (not as a result of the 
combustion of chlorinated organic compounds). While the HCl production 
process would be part of the HON affected source, the HCl emissions 
from these operations are not covered by the HON. Therefore, a process 
that produces a liquid HCl product (in concentrations equal to or 
greater than 10 percent by weight) in this situation would be included 
in the proposed HCl source category definition.
    We know of three other situations that could result in regulatory 
overlap: MACT standards for chlorine production, primary magnesium 
refining, and the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Production and 
Processes MACT, or the MON. However, these rules are still in the 
developmental stages, and we cannot determine whether there is actually 
an overlap. Depending on the outcome of the chlorine production, 
primary magnesium refining, and MON rulemaking efforts, we would 
consider exempting overlapping affected sources when we finalize the 
HCl production rule, if the other rules are also promulgated by then. 
Alternatively, we would consider revising the final HCl production rule 
after the other rules are promulgated if we determine there is a need 
to exempt the resulting overlapping affected sources.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    For the purposes of implementing a NESHAP, an affected source is 
defined to mean the stationary source, or portion of a stationary 
source, that is regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement 
established under section 112 of the CAA. In other words, the affected 
source specifies the group of unit operations, equipment, and emission 
points that are subject to the proposed rule. Under each relevant 
standard, we must designate the ``affected source'' for the purpose of 
implementing that standard. We do this for each source category (or 
subcategory) by deciding which HAP emission sources (i.e., emission 
points or groupings of emission points) are most appropriate for 
establishing separate emission standards or work practices in the 
context of the CAA statutory requirements and the industry operating 
practices for the particular source category.
    We can define the affected source as narrowly as a single item of 
equipment or as broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used 
to produce the product that defines the source category. The affected 
source also defines the collection of equipment that would be evaluated 
to determine whether replacement of components at an existing affected 
source would qualify as reconstruction. If we define the affected 
source narrowly, it could affect whether some parts of a process unit 
would be subject to new source requirements and others subject to 
existing source requirements.
    We decided to treat each collection of all connected equipment that 
is used to produce, store, and transfer HCl (in concentrations equal to 
or greater than 10 percent by weight) at a plant site as

[[Page 48180]]

a single affected source. While we could have created separate affected 
sources for the equipment associated with each type of emission source 
(that is process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, etc.), we 
believe that the operations are inter-related to the extent that any 
such separation would be problematic for owners and operators and for 
regulators. We believe a broad affected source is more feasible because 
all of the emission sources for which we are proposing emission limits 
(process vents, storage tanks, and transfer operations) can be 
controlled with a single control device.
    As discussed in section III.d of this preamble, we are not 
proposing emission limits or work practice standards for wastewater 
streams. However, we decided to include wastewater streams in the 
affected source to eliminate the confusion of how these emission 
streams should be considered under future site-specific MACT 
determinations or other rulemakings. For instance, including all of the 
HCl production facility emission streams in the affected source will 
ensure that they will be considered together under future site-specific 
MACT determinations.

C. How Did We Select the Form of the Standards?

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that standards be specified as a 
numerical emission standard, whenever possible. However, if it is 
determined that ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 
emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or 
pollutants,'' section 112(h) indicates that a design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standard may be specified. As with any 
standard, the MACT floor may be expressed several different ways. If an 
emission limit is not possible, the decision as to which format to use 
depends on availability of data, burden imposed on industry and 
regulatory agencies, and whether the format is verifiable and 
replicable.
    An emission limit format is feasible for process vents, transfer 
operations, and storage tanks and could take the form of mass of 
pollutant emitted per some other normalizing factor, such as time or a 
measure of production. Time is almost never used because it does not 
take into account different production processes and production rates 
from one source to another. Similarly, normalizing on a measure of 
production does not take into account different production processes 
that emit pollutants at different rates.
    It is also unclear what basis was used for reporting the amount of 
HCl produced in the available data, which is presently based on State 
permit applications. A common practice in this industry (although not 
followed by all facilities) is to report production and shipping 
quantities on the basis of 100 percent HCl; however, there was no 
indication in the permit application data whether the reported amount 
produced was the actual quantity or whether it was normalized to a 100-
percent basis. Since this would have a profound effect on the emission 
factors, it was not possible to develop a normalized emission limit for 
using the available data.
    We also considered a percent reduction format. However, this format 
would make it difficult to determine the reduction from a control 
device versus a process. For example, it might be unfair to require a 
single reduction level from the last control device before the emission 
stream is emitted to the atmosphere, depending on the way the 
absorption column is designed.
    Based on these considerations, we selected a concentration limit 
format for process vents, transfer operations, and storage tanks. This 
format is both verifiable and repeatable. Current test methods can 
measure outlet concentration directly, and parameter monitoring is an 
acceptable means of ensuring continued proper operation and maintenance 
of the control device. We believe this format will minimize the burden 
on industry and regulatory agencies with minimal risk of allowing 
excess emissions.
    We expect that all emission streams from HCl production processes 
will contain HCl, and process vents may also contain chlorine. 
Therefore, we selected an outlet concentration (ppmv) for both 
pollutants.
    The format for the equipment leak standards are work practices. We 
selected this format because it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce 
emission standards. Equipment leak emissions cannot be emitted through 
a conveyance device, and the application of a measurement technology is 
not practicable due to technological or economic limitations.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Existing and New Sources?

    As discussed in section I.B of this preamble, for source 
categories/subcategories with greater than 30 sources, MACT for 
existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources (for which we have emissions information). Further, MACT for 
source categories/subcategories with fewer than 30 sources cannot be 
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 5 sources (for which we have or could reasonably obtain 
emissions information). We have determined that ``average'' means any 
measure of central tendency, whether it be the arithmetic mean, median, 
or mode, or some other measure based on the best measure decided on for 
determining the central tendency of a data set (59 FR 29196).
    The MACT floor determination was made based on State permit data 
for 26 HCl production facilities for 20 plant sites: Louisiana (18 
facilities), West Virginia (3 facilities), Kentucky (1 facility), New 
York (1 facility), Ohio (1 facility), and Texas (2 facilities). We also 
considered data from 5 other HCl production facilities, which were 
obtained from trip reports (i.e., documentation of visits to plants 
sites.) We used this information to develop the MACT floor analysis, 
presented in the following sections.
    The HCl production affected source MACT floor determinations are 
based on the performance of add-on control devices or work practice 
standards. We could not consider process changes to reduce emissions, 
such as using different raw materials, at the floor or beyond-the-floor 
because our definition of the HCl production source category is limited 
to those processes producing a liquid HCl product (see section III.A of 
this preamble for more discussion). Process changes that would minimize 
HCl emissions after liquid product production are outside of the source 
category to be addressed by the proposed rule. Because fuels used in 
HCl production processes do not contribute to the HAP emissions from 
this source category, we did not consider fuel switching as an emission 
reduction option in the floor determination or in beyond-the-floor 
analyses.
1. Process Vents MACT
    We have process vent control information for 25 units. Units 
equipped with scrubbers have the 5 highest reported control 
efficiencies for HCl emissions: 99.4 percent (2), >99 percent (2), and 
99 percent. We selected 99.4 percent control efficiency as the median 
of the 3 units where actual efficiencies were reported. The scrubbers 
with the 5 highest control efficiencies for chlorine emissions are 99.8 
percent (2), 99.4 percent, and >99 (2) percent. We selected 99.8 
percent as the median of the 3 units where actual control efficiencies 
were reported. These

[[Page 48181]]

efficiencies represent the MACT floor for both new and existing 
sources.
    We have not identified a beyond-the-floor control option for 
process vents, because we have insufficient information to determine 
whether all types of sources can employ a scrubber and operate it in 
such a manner as to achieve >99.4 percent control for HCl (>99.8 
percent control for chlorine) on a consistent basis. Therefore, we are 
proposing that the MACT floor be used to establish MACT for new and 
existing sources.
    As described in the format of the standard selection, we believe an 
outlet concentration format is needed for the proposed rule. Therefore, 
we have selected HCl and chlorine emission limits that correlate with 
the MACT level of control. We determined this value based on 
performance test data for eight emission points for HCl and three 
emission points for chlorine. We obtained or calculated an uncontrolled 
outlet emission stream concentration for each of these emission points. 
Then we applied the MACT floor percent reduction to all of the 
uncontrolled concentrations.
    The concentrations associated with the 99.4 percent control HCl 
MACT for process vents ranged from 0.03 ppmv to 12.3 ppmv. We selected 
the highest value in this range, 12 ppmv, as representing the 
concentration that every facility with a control device capable of 
meeting the MACT floor percent reduction could meet. Similarly, the 
concentrations associated with the 99.8 percent chlorine MACT ranged 
from 1.5 ppmv to 19.3 ppmv. We selected 20 ppmv as the concentration 
that every facility with a control device capable of meeting the MACT 
floor percent reduction could meet.
2. Storage Tanks MACT
    We have information on control efficiencies for 18 HCl storage tank 
scrubbers. Of these, the 5 highest control efficiencies are 99.9 
percent, 99.85 percent, >99 percent, 99 percent, and 98 percent. We 
selected 99.4 percent as the median of the 4 units where actual 
efficiencies were reported.
    Requiring a 99.9 percent control efficiency as a beyond-the-floor 
option is theoretically possible, based on the data described above. 
However, such a requirement could result in the need for a dedicated 
control device for storage tank emissions, in the event the process 
vent scrubber could not be modified to achieve the higher control 
efficiency. This change would achieve only a minor incremental emission 
reduction (less than one ton per year, industry wide) for existing 
sources and would result in an incremental cost of approximately 
$156,000 per ton of pollutant reduced. Therefore, we do not believe 
this is a reasonable beyond-the-floor alternative.
    We believe the MACT floor for existing sources is representative of 
new sources, because we have insufficient information to determine 
whether all types of sources can employ a scrubber and operate it in 
such a manner as to achieve a 99.9 percent or greater control on a 
consistent basis. Therefore, we are proposing a MACT level of control 
that is the same for new and existing sources, based on the MACT floor 
analysis. This would allow storage tanks to be vented to the same 
scrubbers or other controls used for process vents, thus, conserving 
energy and reducing the amount of wastewater generated. In addition, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burdens would be minimized. 
These sources would be required to meet the 12 ppmv concentration limit 
for HCl.
3. Transfer Operation MACT
    We only have information on transfer operation controls from four 
units. Of these, 2 report >99 percent control, 1 reports controls but 
no associated efficiency, and 1 unit is uncontrolled. We selected >99 
percent as the floor value. We have not identified a beyond-the-floor 
control option for transfer operations, because we have insufficient 
information to determine whether all types of sources can employ a 
scrubber and operate it in such a manner as to achieve a higher level 
of control on a consistent basis. Therefore, we are proposing that the 
MACT floor be used to establish MACT for new and existing sources. We 
propose that these sources meet the 12 ppmv concentration limit as 
well. This would allow transfer operations to be vented to the same 
scrubbers or other controls used for process vents and/or storage 
tanks, conserving energy and reducing the amount of wastewater 
generated. In addition, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
burdens would be minimized.
4. Leaking Equipment MACT
    Because of the corrosive nature of HCl, equipment leaks are readily 
apparent, and such leaks have a severe, detrimental effect on 
equipment, piping, and structural components of the facility. 
Hydrochloric acid production facilities, therefore, have an incentive 
to identify and quickly repair equipment leaks because of these 
effects. Identification of equipment leaks is typically done simply by 
visual observation, as the corrosive nature of HCl make such leaks 
readily apparent.
    Details that are typically included in EPA equipment leak 
regulations (i.e., frequency of inspections, time interval between when 
a leak is detected and when the equipment must be repaired, etc.) were 
not available for the programs at HCl production facilities. Therefore, 
we generally determined that the MACT floor for leaking equipment 
emissions is a plan to detect and repair leaking equipment. We 
considered a formal LDAR program, such as the HON provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart H), as a beyond-the-floor option. However, the HON 
equipment program, and all similar programs (such as 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV) are limited to control of organic HAP or volatile organic 
compound emissions. The EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is 
specified as the method to detect the leaks in those rules. Method 21 
is specific to organic pollutants. There is no comparable EPA reference 
method to detect HCl or chlorine emissions from leaking equipment. 
Therefore, we concluded that a formal LDAR program based on the 
measurement of HCl or chlorine leaks is not a viable regulatory 
alternative. Therefore, we selected the MACT floor level for the 
proposed rule. As noted above, we did not have sufficient information 
to draft specific LDAR procedures. Therefore, the proposed rule 
contains the requirement that each HCl production facility establish a 
site-specific program to identify and repair equipment leaks.
5. Wastewater Treatment Operations MACT
    No add-on controls to reduce HCl emissions from wastewater were 
reported in the available data. In addition, no process modifications 
or other pollution prevention type measures that reduce HCl emissions 
from wastewater were identified. Therefore, we determined that the new 
and existing source MACT floors for wastewater were no emission 
reduction. Since no add-on controls were reported to be in use at 
existing HCl production facilities, we determined that requiring add-on 
control was not a viable option more stringent than the floor. We also 
concluded that a beyond-the-floor option based on process modifications 
was not feasible, based on the following reasons. First, there are 
numerous types of processes that produce an HCl by-product, which 
results in a variety of wastewater scenarios. Therefore, we do not 
believe that any process or raw material change could be expected to be 
universally applied to wastewater streams at all types of HCl 
production

[[Page 48182]]

facilities. Further, wastewater treatment is highly sensitive to pH, 
and HCl has a significant impact on pH. For example, an activated 
sludge treatment system normally consists of an equalization basin, a 
settling tank (primary clarifier), aeration basin, a secondary 
clarifier, and a sludge recycle line. Equalization of pH and other 
parameters such as flow, temperature, and pollutant loads is necessary 
to perform consistent, adequate treatment. We believe that the 
potential negative impacts of upsetting existing wastewater systems is 
not worthwhile, especially given the very small level of HCl emissions 
from wastewater (less than 1 percent of total HCl emissions are from 
wastewater operations). Therefore, the proposed rule does not contain 
any requirements for wastewater.

E. How Did We Select the Testing, and Initial and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?

    We selected the proposed testing and initial and continuous 
compliance requirements based on requirements specified in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements were 
adopted for HCl production facilities to be consistent with other part 
63 NESHAP. These requirements would ensure that we obtain or have 
access to information sufficient to determine whether an affected 
source is complying with the standards specified in the proposed rule.
    The proposed NESHAP would require a compliance test to determine 
initial compliance with the outlet concentration limit proposed for 
process vents, storage tanks, and transfer operations by using Method 
26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The General Provisions (at 
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)) specify that each test consist of at least three 
separate test runs. The proposed rule adopts this requirement. Further, 
the proposed rule requires that each test run be at least 1 hour long.
    In order to assure continuous compliance with the emissions limit 
for process vents, storage tanks, and transfer operations, we are 
proposing to require the use of CPMS to monitor operating parameters 
(e.g., pH of the scrubber liquid) to ensure proper operation of the 
control device. You would demonstrate continuous compliance by 
maintaining the monitored parameters within the operating limits which 
would be established using data collected during the initial 
performance test. We chose the parameters to be measured to demonstrate 
continuous compliance because they are the best indicators of continued 
performance of proper control device operation.
    We considered requiring the use of continuous HCl and chlorine 
emission monitoring systems, but rejected the option. While there are 
readily available HCl and chlorine continuous emissions monitoring 
systems, the cost of these compared to the cost of the monitoring 
control device parameters is unreasonable. The annualized cost to 
install and operate a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy system to 
monitor both HCl and chlorine is approximately $206,000, with 
approximately $77,000 in annualized costs. In contrast, the capital 
costs for parametric monitoring devices and a data recording device 
would be less than $5,000 per control device with an annualized cost of 
less than $900.

F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We selected the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements based on requirements specified in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). As with the proposed initial 
and continuous compliance requirements, these requirements were adapted 
for HCl production facilities to be consistent with other part 63 
national emission standards.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    Nationwide baseline emissions are approximately 2,260 Mg/yr (2,490 
tpy) of HCl and 880 Mg/yr (970 tpy) of chlorine. The total annual 
emissions reductions resulting from the proposed rule is 1,090 Mg/yr 
(1,200 tpy) of HCl and 540 Mg/yr (590 tpy) of chlorine.

B. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

    We do not expect that there will be any significant adverse non-air 
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the proposed 
standards for HCl production plants. The proposed rule will result in 
the generation of additional wastewater from scrubbers. We have 
calculated this amount to be approximately 103,000 gallons per process 
vent scrubber, resulting in an estimated treatment cost of $390 per 
scrubber, or $25,000 for the 64 existing facilities.

C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

    The total estimated capital cost of the proposed rule for HCl 
production is $9,981.000. The total estimated annual cost of the 
proposed rule is $5,975,000, which includes the annualized costs of 
control and monitoring equipment, other operation and maintenance, and 
the annual labor to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of the proposed rule once the sources are in compliance.
    The economic impact analysis, which is a comparison of compliance 
costs for the affected parent firms with their revenues, shows that the 
estimated costs associated with the MACT floor option are no more than 
1.0 percent of the revenues for any of the 32 affected firms. It is 
likely that the expected reduction in affected HCl output is no more 
than 0.01 percent or less from that industry. It should be noted that 
these results are based on the application of costs from a subset of 
the affected facilities to the remaining facilities. This is necessary 
due to incomplete facility-level cost data. Therefore, it is likely 
that there is no adverse impact expected to HCl producers as a result 
of implementation of the proposed rule.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions 
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposed rule from all 
interested parties. You will need to submit full supporting data and 
detailed analysis with your comments to allow us to make the best use 
of them.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we 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 Executive 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

[[Page 48183]]

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. 
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposed rule 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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule applies to 
affected sources in the HCl production industry, not to States or local 
governments. State law will not be preempted, nor any mandates be 
imposed on States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
rule from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA 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.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 
technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's 
risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist 
that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. 
Additionally, this proposed rule is not ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, we 
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us 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 us 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 we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal 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 our regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    We have determined that this proposed rule does 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 1 year. The total annual cost of this proposed 
rule for any 1 year has been estimated at $6 million per year. Thus, 
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that this 
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations 
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

[[Page 48184]]

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as a small business according to 
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) category of the owning 
parent entity. The small business size standard for the affected 
industries (NAICS 325181, Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing, and 
NAICS 325188, All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing) is a 
maximum of 1,000 employees for an entity.
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with 
the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., we conducted 
an assessment of the proposed rule on small businesses within the 
industries affected by the proposed rule. Based on SBA size definitions 
for the affected industries and reported sales and employment data, we 
identified 4 affected small businesses out of 32 affected parent 
businesses (or 13 percent of the total number). In order to estimate 
impacts to affected small businesses, we conducted a screening analysis 
that consists of estimates of the annual compliance costs these 
businesses are expected to occur as compared to their revenues. Since 
the data are such that costs can only be estimated for a subset of the 
affected facilities, the available data were used to determine the 
costs to the facilities outside of this subset. The results of this 
screening analysis show that all but one of the small businesses are 
expected to have annual compliance costs of 1 percent or less. 
Therefore, this analysis allows us to certify that there will not be a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities from the 
implementation of this proposed rule. For more information, consult the 
docket for this project.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR Number 2032.01), and you may obtain a copy 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division 
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective 
until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    According to the ICR, the total 3-year monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection is 148,032 labor hours, and 
the annual average burden is 49,675 labor hours. The labor cost over 
the 3-year period is $6,331,734, or $2,110,578 per year. The annualized 
capital cost for monitoring equipment is $25,632. Annual operation and 
maintenance costs are $1,256,063 over 3 years, averaging $418,688 per 
year. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating 
compliance, annual compliance certificate reports, notifications, and 
recordkeeping.
    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.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 18, 2001, a comment to OMB 
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 
18, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes 
in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 4, and 
26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in 
addition to these EPA methods. No

[[Page 48185]]

applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA 
Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, and 2G. The search and review results have been 
documented and are placed in the docket (A-99-41) for this proposed 
rule.
    This search for emission measurement procedures identified eight 
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to this proposed 
rule. The EPA determined that six of these eight standards were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this 
proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA does not propose to adopt these 
standards today. The reasons for this determination for the six methods 
are discussed below.
    The standard ISO 10780:1994, ``Stationary Source Emissions--
Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts,'' 
is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in this proposed rule. 
This standard, ISO 10780:1994, recommends the use of L-shaped pitots, 
which historically have not been recommended by EPA because the S-type 
design has large openings which are less likely to plug up with dust.
    The standard ASTM D3464-96, ``Standard Test Method Average Velocity 
in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' is impractical as an 
alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of this proposed rule 
primarily because applicability specifications are not clearly defined, 
e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits. Also, the lack of 
supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and 
specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately 
addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a definitive 
comparison of the method in these areas.
    The European standard EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ``Stationary Source 
Emissions--Manual Method of Determination of HCl--Part 1: Sampling of 
Gases Ratified European Text--Part 2: Gaseous Compounds Absorption 
Ratified European Text--Part 3: Adsorption Solutions Analysis and 
Calculation Ratified European Text,'' is impractical as an alternative 
to EPA Method 26A. Part 3 of this standard cannot be considered 
equivalent to EPA Method 26 or 26A because the sample absorbing 
solution (water) would be expected to capture both HCl and chlorine 
gas, if present, without the ability to distinguish between the two. 
The EPA Methods 26 and 26A use an acidified absorbing solution to first 
separate HCl and chlorine gas so that they can be selectively absorbed, 
analyzed, and reported separately. In addition, in EN 1911 the 
absorption efficiency for chlorine gas would be expected to vary as the 
pH of the water changed during sampling.
    Three of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule 
because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed 
to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3154-91, 
``Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' 
for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, and 4; ASTM 3796-90 (Reapproved 1996), 
``Standard Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,'' for EPA 
Method 2; and ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method 
for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and 
Dry-Bulb Temperatures),'' for EPA Method 4.
    The following two of the eight voluntary consensus standards 
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was 
conducted for the purposes of this proposed rule because they are under 
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in 
Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' 
for EPA Method 2; and ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity 
Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2). While we are not 
proposing to include these two voluntary consensus standards in today's 
proposal, the EPA will consider the standards when final.
    The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
proposed in this proposed rule and specifically invites the public to 
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt 
these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's 
test methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used 
to validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Section 63.9020 to subpart NNNNN lists the EPA testing methods 
included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.8 of subpart A of the 
General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use 
alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: September 7, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.8980  What is the purpose of this subpart?
Sec. 63.8985  Am I subject to this subpart?
Sec. 63.8990  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
Sec. 63.8995  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.9000  What emission limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.9005  What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.9010  By what date must I conduct performance tests?
Sec. 63.9015  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
Sec. 63.9020  What performance tests and other procedures must I 
use?
Sec. 63.9025  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
Sec. 63.9030   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.9035  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?
Sec. 63.9040  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations and work practice standards?

[[Page 48186]]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.9045  What notifications must I submit and when?
Sec. 63.9050  What reports must I submit and when?
Sec. 63.9055  What records must I keep?
Sec. 63.9060  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.9065  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Sec. 63.9070  Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Sec. 63.9075  What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN--Emission Limits and Work Practice 
Standards
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN--Performance Test Requirements for HCl 
Production Affected Sources
Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN--Initial Compliance with Emission 
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN--Continuous Compliance with Emission 
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart NNNNN

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.8980  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) and work practice standards for HAP emitted 
from hydrochloric acid (HCl) production. This subpart also establishes 
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations and work practice standards.


Sec. 63.8985  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an HCl 
production facility that is located at or is part of a major source of 
HAP.
    (1) An HCl production facility is the collection of equipment used 
to produce, store, and transfer for shipping liquid HCl product at a 
concentration of 10 percent by weight or greater.
    (2) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
    (b) You are not subject to this subpart if the operations that 
produce liquid HCl are also subject to NESHAP under one of the subparts 
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry.
    (2) 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
    (3) 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.
    (4) 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors.
    (c) You are not subject to this subpart if the operations that 
produce liquid HCl occur following the incineration of chlorinated 
waste gas streams and the operations are subject to the one of the 
requirements listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) 40 CFR part 63.113(c), subpart G, National Emission Standards 
for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, 
Transfer Operations, and Wastewater.
    (2) 40 CFR part 264.343(b), Standards for Owners and Operators of 
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (subpart O, 
Incinerators).
    (3) 40 CFR Part 266.107, subpart H, Burning of Hazardous Waste in 
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
    (d) You are not subject to this subpart if all of the HCl and 
chlorine (Cl2) vent streams from the equipment (including 
absorbers, storage tanks and transfer operations) at the HCl production 
facility are recycled or routed to another process prior to being 
discharged to the atmosphere.


Sec. 63.8990  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source at an HCl production facility.
    (b) The affected source is the HCl production facility, which 
contains the collection of emission streams listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (5) of this section.
    (1) Each emission stream from an HCl process vent.
    (2) Each emission stream from an HCl storage tank.
    (3) Each emission stream from an HCl transfer operation.
    (4) Leaks from equipment in HCl/Cl2 service.
    (5) Each emission stream from HCl wastewater treatment operations. 
There are no emission limitations or other requirements in this subpart 
that apply to this equipment.
    (c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction of the affected source after September 18, 2001 and you 
met the applicability criteria of Sec. 63.8985 at the time you 
commenced construction.
    (d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.


Sec. 63.8995  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If you start up your affected source before [DATE THE FINAL 
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with the 
emission limitations and work practice standards in this subpart no 
later than [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) If you start up your affected source after [DATE THE FINAL RULE 
IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with the 
emission limitations and work practice standards in this subpart upon 
startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the emission limitations and work practice standards no later than 3 
years after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the 
provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
    (1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected 
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this 
subpart upon startup.
    (2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with this 
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the area source becomes a 
major source.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9045 
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.9045 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

[[Page 48187]]

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards


Sec. 63.9000  What emission limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in 
Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to you.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9005  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and 
work practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (c) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.8995 and the date upon which continuous 
compliance monitoring systems have been installed and validated and any 
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log 
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions 
control equipment.
    (d) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (e) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must 
develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring plan that 
addresses the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling 
probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each 
affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of 
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last 
control device).
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction system.
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (f) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Secs. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and 
(8), and 63.9030.
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and (e)(1) and (2)(i).

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9010  By what date must I conduct performance tests?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 
date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8995(a) and according 
to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must conduct 
performance tests no later than the compliance date that is specified 
for your existing affected source in Sec. 63.8995(b) and according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
September 18, 2001 and [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the 
proposed emission limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no 
later than 180 calendar days after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).


Sec. 63.9015  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct all applicable performance tests according to 
the procedures in Sec. 63.9020 on an annual basis. The first subsequent 
performance tests must be completed within 12 months of the initial 
performance test, but no earlier than 10 months after the initial 
performance test and every 12 months, thereafter.
    (b) You must report the results of annual performance tests within 
60 days after the completion of the test. This report should also 
verify that the operating limits for your affected source have not 
changed or provide documentation of revised operating parameters 
established as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. The reports for 
all subsequent performance tests should include all applicable 
information required in Sec. 63.9050.


Sec. 63.9020  What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) You must conduct each performance test according the site-
specific test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c)(2).
    (c) You must conduct each performance test under representative 
conditions according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under 
the specific conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 3.
    (d) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
    (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each 
performance test required in this section, as specified in 
Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (f) You must establish all applicable operating permit ranges that 
correspond to compliance with the emission limit as described in Table 
3 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.9025  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) For each operating parameter that you are required by 
Sec. 63.9020(f) to monitor, you must install, operate, and maintain 
each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.9005(e) and (f) and paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(6) of this section.
    (1) You must operate your CPMS at all times the process is 
operating.
    (2) You must collect data from at least four equally spaced periods 
each hour.
    (3) For at least 75 percent of the hours in a 24-hour period, you 
must have valid data (as defined in your site-specific monitoring plan) 
for at least 4 equally spaced periods each hour.
    (4) For each hour that you have valid data from at least four 
equally spaced periods, you must calculate the hourly average value 
using all valid data.
    (5) You must calculate the daily average using all of the hourly 
averages calculated according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section for 
the 24-hour period.
    (6) You must record the results for each inspection, calibration, 
and validation check as specified in your site-specific monitoring 
plan.
    (b) For liquid flow monitoring devices such as various types of 
flow meters, including magnetic, mass, thermal, fluidic oscillating, 
vortex formation, turbine, and positive displacement, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

[[Page 48188]]

    (1) You must locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment 
in or as close to a position that provides a representative flow.
    (2) You must use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 
uncertainty of two percent of the flow rate.
    (3) You must conduct at least semi-annually a flow sensor 
calibration check.
    (4) You must perform at least monthly inspections of all components 
for integrity, of all electrical connections for continuity, and of all 
mechanical connections for leakage.
    (5) You must record the results of the inspection and flow sensor 
calibration in a log.
    (c) For pH monitoring devices, you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must locate the pH sensor so that a representative pH is 
provided.
    (2) You must ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 
of the fluid to be measured.
    (3) You must check the pH meter's calibration on at least two 
points every 8 hours of process operation.
    (4) You must perform at least monthly inspections of all components 
for integrity and of all electrical connections for continuity.
    (5) You must record the results of the calibration and inspection 
in a log.
    (d) For any other control device, ensure that the CPMS is operated 
according to a monitoring plan submitted to the Administrator as 
required by Sec. 63.8(f). The monitoring plan must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 
Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to the 
Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator require 
an alternate monitoring scheme.
    (1) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that 
the control or capture efficiency measured during the initial 
compliance test is maintained.
    (2) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating 
ongoing compliance.
    (3) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.


Sec. 63.9030  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations and work practice standards?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limit and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 
4 to this subpart.
    (b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.9020 and Table 3 to this subpart.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9045(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9035  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) If you use a caustic scrubber or a water scrubber/absorber to 
meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to 
support your compliance demonstration.
    (1) Records of daily average scrubber inlet liquid flow rate.
    (2) Records of the daily average scrubber effluent pH.
    (c) If you use any other control device to meet the emission limits 
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must keep records of the operating 
parameter values identified in your monitoring plan in Sec. 63.9025(e) 
to support your compliance demonstration.
    (d) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the affected 
source is operating. A monitoring malfunction includes, but is not 
limited to, any sudden, infrequent, not reasonable failure of the 
monitoring equipment to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that 
are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 
malfunctions.
    (e) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum 
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control device and associated control system.


Sec. 63.9040  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations and work practice standards?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limit and work practice standard in Table 1 to this subpart that 
applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
    (b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating 
limit in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to you according to 
Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart.
    (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an 
emission limit, work practice standard or operating limit in Table 1 or 
2, respectively, to this subpart that applies to you. This includes 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are 
deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These 
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.9050.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.9045  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and 
(c), 63.8(f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you by 
the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected 
source before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 
calendar days after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit the application for 
construction or reconstruction required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1)(iii) in lieu 
of the initial notification.

[[Page 48189]]

    (d) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a 
performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test 
is scheduled to begin, as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) When you conduct a performance test as specified in Table 3 to 
this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status 
according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (f) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test 
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
    (g) The Notification of Compliance Status must also include the 
information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section that 
applies to you.
    (1) Each operating parameter value averaged over the full period of 
the performance test (for example, average pH).
    (2) Each operating parameter range within which HAP emissions are 
reduced to the level corresponding to meeting the applicable emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (3) A copy of the equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) plan 
(unless it has already been submitted).


Sec. 63.9050  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 6 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report 
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.8995 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8995.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.8995.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may 
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the 
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to 
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4).
    (c) The compliance report must contain the following information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that 
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control in accordance with the monitoring plan, a statement that there 
were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the 
reporting period.
    (7) Verification that you continue to use the equipment LDAR plan 
and information that explains any periods when the procedures in the 
plan were not followed and the corrective actions taken.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CPMS to comply with the emission 
limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section and the following 
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent 
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A brief description of the process units.
    (9) A description of any changes in CPMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source 
submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 6 to this subpart along 
with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 
CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report 
includes all required information concerning deviations from any 
emission limitation in this subpart, submission of the compliance 
report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of 
a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the 
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements 
to the permit authority.
    (f) For each startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting 
period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and 
malfunction report. Unless the Administrator has approved a different 
schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit 
each report according to paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) An initial report containing a description of the actions taken 
for the

[[Page 48190]]

event must be submitted by fax or telephone within 2 working days after 
starting actions inconsistent with the plan.
    (2) A follow-up report containing the information listed in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) must be submitted within 7 working days after the 
end of the event unless you have made alternative reporting 
arrangements with the permitting authority.


Sec. 63.9055  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you 
submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation 
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance 
Status that you submitted, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (b) You must also keep the following records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii)-(v) related to startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (2) Records of performance tests as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Records of operating parameter values that are consistent with 
your monitoring plan.
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) Copy of the equipment LDAR plan.


Sec. 63.9060  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious inspection and review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records off site for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.9065  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    (a) Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec. 63.9070  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, as well as U.S. EPA, 
has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should 
contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is 
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) that cannot be 
delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as follows.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Secs. 63.8980, 
63.8985, 63.8990, 63.8995, and 63.9000.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.9075  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as 
follows:
    Caustic scrubber means any add-on device that mixes an aqueous 
stream or slurry containing caustic solution (e.g., lime, limestone) 
with the exhaust gases from an affected HCl production facility to 
control emissions of and/or to absorb and neutralize HCl.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation;
    (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
    In HCl/Cl2 service means a piece of equipment (pump, 
compressor, valve, connector, etc.) at an HCl production facility that 
contains HCl and/or chlorine.
    Hydrochloric acid process vent means a process vent through which 
an emission stream containing HCl is vented to the atmosphere. The 
emission stream may or may not be treated by an HCl absorption column, 
chlorinated hydrocarbon stripping column, or HCl desorption column 
before venting to the atmosphere.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2 of this chapter.
    Transfer operation means the loading, into a tank truck or railcar, 
of liquid HCl from a transfer (or loading) rack (as defined in this 
section).
    Transfer (or loading) rack means the collection of loading arms and 
loading hoses, at a single loading rack, that are used to fill tank 
trucks and/or railcars with liquid HCl. Transfer rack includes the 
associated pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other 
piping and valves.
    Vent means to discharge emissions to the atmosphere from either an 
HCl process vent, storage tank, or transfer operation.
    Water scrubber/absorber means any add-on device that mixes an 
aqueous stream (not containing caustic solution) with the exhaust gases 
from an affected HCl production facility to control emissions of and/or 
to absorb and neutralize HCl.

Tables

[[Page 48191]]



 Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN.--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards
   [As stated in Sec.  63.9000(a), you must comply with the following
              emission limits and work practice standards]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         You must meet the following
           For each * * *              emission limit and work practice
                                                   standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emission stream from an HCl       outlet concentration shall not
 process vent.                        exceed 12 ppm by volume of HCl or
                                      20 ppm by volume of Cl2.
2. Emission stream from an HCl       outlet concentration shall not
 storage tank.                        exceed 12 ppm by volume of HCl.
3. Emission stream from an HCl       outlet concentration shall not
 transfer operation.                  exceed 12 ppm by volume of HCl.
4. Emission stream from leaking      a. prepare and operate at all times
 equipment in HCl/Cl2 service.        according to an equipment LDAR
                                      plan that describes in detail the
                                      measures that will be put in place
                                      to detect leaks and repair them in
                                      a timely fashion, and
                                     b. you may use existing manuals
                                      that describe the measures in
                                      place to control leaking equipment
                                      emissions required as part of
                                      other federally enforceable
                                      requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN.--Operating Limits
   [As stated in Sec.  63.9000(b), you must comply with the following
  operating limits for each affected source vented to a control device]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           For each * * *                       You must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Caustic scrubber or water         a. maintain the daily average
 scrubber/absorber.                   scrubber inlet liquid flow rate
                                      above the minimum value
                                      established during the performance
                                      test, and
                                     b. maintain the daily average
                                      scrubber effluent pH within the
                                      operating range value established
                                      during the performance test.
2. Other type of control device to   maintain your operating
 which HCl emissions are ducted.      parameter(s) within the ranges
                                      established during the performance
                                      test and according to your
                                      monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN.--Performance Test Requirements for HCl
                       Production Affected Sources
     [As stated in Sec.  63.9020, you must comply with the following
 requirements for performance tests for HCl production for each affected
                                 source]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       According to the
  For each affected source, you       Using * * *          following
           must * * *                                 requirements * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port           Method 1 or 1A in   sampling sites
 location(s) and the number of     appendix A to 40    must be located
 traverse points.                  CFR part 60 of      at the outlet of
                                   this chapter.       the scrubber and
                                                       prior to any
                                                       releases to the
                                                       atmosphere.
2. Determine velocity and         Method 2, 2A, 2C,
 volumetric flow rate.             2D, 2F, or 2G in
                                   appendix A to 40
                                   CFR part 60 of
                                   this chapter.
3. Determine gas molecular        not applicable....  assume a molecular
 weight.                                               weight of 29
                                                       (after moisture
                                                       correction) for
                                                       calculation
                                                       purposes.
4. Measure moisture content of    Method 4 in
 the stack gas.                    appendix A to 40
                                   CFR part 60 of
                                   this chapter.
5. Measure HCl concentration      Method 26A in       a. measure total
 from each affected source and     Appendix A to 40    emissions using
 Cl2 concentration from process    CFR part 60 of      Method 26A, and.
 vent affected sources.            this chapter.
                                                      b. collect
                                                       scrubber liquid
                                                       flow rate and
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH every 15
                                                       minutes during
                                                       the entire
                                                       duration of each
                                                       1-hour test run,
                                                       and determine the
                                                       average scrubber
                                                       liquid flow rate
                                                       and scrubber
                                                       effluent pH over
                                                       the period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       by computing the
                                                       average of all of
                                                       the 15-minute
                                                       readings.
6. Establish operating parameter  EPA-approved        conduct the
 limits with which you will        methods and data    performance tests
 demonstrate continuous            from the            and establish
 compliance with the emission      continuous          operating
 limit in Table 1 to this          parameter           parameter limits
 subpart, if you use any other     monitoring system.  according to site-
 control device than a caustic                         specific test
 scrubber or a water scrubber/                         plan submitted
 absorber.                                             according to Sec.
                                                        63.7(c)(2)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48192]]


 Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits and
                         Work Practice Standards
     [As stated in Sec.  63.9030, you must comply with the following
   requirements to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable
 emission limits for each affected source vented to a control device and
                      each work practice standard]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   For the following       You have
                                   emission limit or     demonstrated
         For each * * *              work practice     initial following
                                    standard * * *     compliance if * *
---------------------------------------------------------------*--------
1. Affected source using a        in Table 1 to this  the average HCl
 austic scrubber or water          subpart.            and Cl2 (if
 scrubber/absorber.                                    applicable)
                                                       concentration,
                                                       measured over the
                                                       period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       conducted
                                                       according to
                                                       Table 3 of this
                                                       subpart, is less
                                                       than the
                                                       concentration
                                                       limit specified
                                                       in Table 1 to
                                                       this subpart.
2. Affected source using any      in Table 1 to this  the average HCl
 other type of control device.     subpart.            and Cl2 (if
                                                       applicable)
                                                       concentration,
                                                       measured over the
                                                       period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       conducted
                                                       according to
                                                       Table 3 of this
                                                       subpart, is less
                                                       than the
                                                       concentration
                                                       limit specified
                                                       in Table 1 to
                                                       this subpart.
3. Leaking equipment affected     in Table 1 to this  submit a copy of
 source.                           subpart.            the equipment
                                                       LDAR plan to the
                                                       designated
                                                       permitting
                                                       authority on or
                                                       before the
                                                       applicable
                                                       compliance date
                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                        63.8995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN.--Continuous Compliance With Emission
                 Limitations and Work Practice Standards
     [As stated in Sec.  63.9040, you must comply with the following
  requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limitations for each affected source vented to a control device
                    and each work practice standard]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   For the following
                                       emission            You must
           For each...              limitation and        demonstrate
                                     work practice        continuous
                                      standard...      compliance by...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Affected source using a        in Tables 1 and 2   a. demonstrating
 caustic scrubber or water         to this subpart.    with the annual
 scrubber/absorber.                                    performance test
                                                       that the average
                                                       HCl and Cl2 (if
                                                       applicable)
                                                       concentration,
                                                       measured over the
                                                       period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       conducted
                                                       according to
                                                       Table 3 of this
                                                       subpart, is less
                                                       than the
                                                       concentration
                                                       limit specified
                                                       in Table 1 to
                                                       this subpart, and
                                                      b. collecting the
                                                       scrubber inlet
                                                       liquid flow rate
                                                       and effluent pH
                                                       monitoring data
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                        63.9025,
                                                       consistent with
                                                       your monitoring
                                                       plan, and
                                                      c. reducing the
                                                       data to 1-hour
                                                       and daily block
                                                       averages
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.  63.9025,
                                                       and
                                                      d. maintaining the
                                                       daily average
                                                       scrubber inlet
                                                       liquid flow rate
                                                       above the minimum
                                                       value established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test,
                                                       and
                                                      e. maintaining the
                                                       daily average
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH within the
                                                       operating range
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test.
2. Affected source using any      in Tables 1 and 2   a. demonstrating
 other control device.             to this supbart.    with the annual
                                                       performance test
                                                       that the average
                                                       HCl and Cl2
                                                       concentration (if
                                                       applicable),
                                                       measured over the
                                                       period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       conducted
                                                       according to
                                                       Table 3 of this
                                                       subpart, is less
                                                       than the
                                                       concentration
                                                       limit specified
                                                       in Table 1 to
                                                       this subpart, and
                                                      b. collecting the
                                                       scrubber inlet
                                                       liquid flow rate
                                                       and effluent pH
                                                       monitoring data
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                        63.9025,
                                                       consistent with
                                                       your monitoring
                                                       plan, and
                                                      c. reducing the
                                                       data to 1-hour
                                                       and daily block
                                                       averages
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.  63.9025,
                                                       and
                                                      d. maintaining the
                                                       daily average
                                                       scrubber inlet
                                                       liquid flow rate
                                                       above the minimum
                                                       value established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test,
                                                       and
                                                      e. maintaining the
                                                       daily average
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH within the
                                                       operating range
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test.

[[Page 48193]]

 
3. Leaking equipment affected     in Table 1 to this  a. verifying that
 source.                           subpart.            you continue to
                                                       use a LDAR plan,
                                                       and
                                                      b. reporting any
                                                       instances where
                                                       you deviated from
                                                       the plan and the
                                                       corrective
                                                       actions taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN.--Requirements for Reports
[As stated in Sec.  63.9050(a), you must submit a compliance report that
 includes the information in Sec.  63.9050(c) through (e) as well as the
    information in the following table. You must also submit startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) reports according to the requirements in
                   Sec.  63.9050(f) and the following]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Then you must submit a report
                If * * *                        or statement that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There are no deviations from any      there were no deviations from
 emission limitations that apply to you.  the emission limitations
                                          during the reporting period.
2. There were no periods during which    there were no periods during
 the operating parameter monitoring       which the CPMS were out-of-
 systems were out-of-control in           control during the reporting
 accordance with the monitoring plan.     period.
3. There was a deviation from any        contains the information in
 emission limitation during the           Sec.  63.9050(d).
 reporting period.
4. There were periods during which the   contains the information in
 operating parameter monitoring systems   Sec.  63.9050(d).
 were out-of-control in accordance with
 the monitoring plan.
5. There was a startup, shutdown, or     contains the information in
 malfunction during the reporting         Sec.  63.9050(f).
 period that is not consistent with
 your startup, shutdown, and
 malfunctions plan.
6. There were periods when the           contains the information in
 procedures in the LDAR the plan were     Sec.  63.9050(c)(7).
 not followed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
  [As stated in Sec.  63.9065, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                                 the following]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to Subpart
               Citation                      Requirement                 NNNNN                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1...........................  Initial applicability    Yes....................
                                        determination;
                                        applicability after
                                        standard established;
                                        permit requirements;
                                        extensions;
                                        notifications.
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  additional definitions
                                                                                          are found in Sec.
                                                                                          63.9075.
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited activities;   Yes....................
                                        compliance date;
                                        circumvention,
                                        severability.
Sec.  63.5...........................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        reconstruction
                                        applicability;
                                        applications;
                                        approvals.
Sec.  63.6(a)........................  Compliance with          Yes....................
                                        standards and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements--applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(4).................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8995 specifies
                                        new or reconstructed                              compliance dates.
                                        sources.
Sec.  63.6(b)(5).....................  Notification if          Yes....................
                                        commenced construction
                                        or reconstruction
                                        after proposal.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).....................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8995 specifies
                                        new or reconstructed                              compliance dates.
                                        area sources that
                                        become major.
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2).................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8995 specifies
                                        existing sources.                                 compliance dates.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4).................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8995 specifies
                                        existing area sources                             compliance dates.
                                        that become major.
Sec.  63.6(d)........................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2).................  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................
                                        malfunction plans.
Sec.  63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance except        Yes....................
                                        during SSM.
Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3).................  Methods for determining  Yes....................
                                        compliance.

[[Page 48194]]

 
Sec.  63.6(g)........................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        nonopacity emission
                                        standard.
Sec.  63.6(h)........................  Compliance with opacity/ No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        visible emission                                  specify opacity or
                                        standards.                                        visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)........................  Extension of compliance  Yes....................
                                        with emission
                                        standards.
Sec.  63.6(j)........................  Presidential compliance  Yes....................
                                        exemption.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).................  Performance test dates.  Yes....................  except for existing
                                                                                          affected sources as
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.9010(b).
Sec.  63.7(a)(3).....................  Administrator's CAA      Yes....................
                                        section 114 authority
                                        to require a
                                        performance test.
Sec.  63.7(b)........................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test and
                                        rescheduling.
Sec.  63.7(c)........................  Quality assurance        Yes....................
                                        program and site-
                                        specific test plans.
Sec.  63.7(d)........................  Performance testing      Yes....................
                                        facilities.
Sec.  63.7(e)(1).....................  Conditions for           Yes....................
                                        conducting performance
                                        tests.
Sec.  63.7(f)........................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        test method.
Sec.  63.7(g)........................  Performance test data    Yes....................
                                        analysis,
                                        recordkeeping, and
                                        reporting.
Sec.  63.7(h)........................  Waiver of performance    Yes....................
                                        tests.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(3).................  Applicability of         Yes....................  additional monitoring
                                        monitoring                                        requirements are found
                                        requirements.                                     in Sec.  63.9005(e)
                                                                                          and (f) and 63.9035.
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring with flares.  No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                                                                          refer directly or
                                                                                          indirectly to Sec.
                                                                                          63.11.
Sec.  63.8(b)........................  Conduct of monitoring    Yes....................
                                        and procedures when
                                        there are multiple
                                        effluents and multiple
                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3).................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                        system (CPMS)                                     Sec.  63.9005(e) and
                                        operation and                                     (f).
                                        maintenance.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).....................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                        system requirements                               Sec.  63.9005(f).
                                        during breakdown, out-
                                        of-control, repair,
                                        maintenance, and high-
                                        level calibration
                                        drifts.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).....................  Continuous opacity       No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        monitoring system                                 have opacity or
                                        (COMS) minimum                                    visible emission
                                        procedures.                                       standards.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6).....................  Zero and high level      Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                        calibration checks.                               Sec.  63.9005(e).
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8).................  Out-of-control periods,  Yes....................
                                        including reporting.
Sec.  63.8(d)-(e)....................  Quality control program  No.....................  applies as modified by
                                        and CPMS performance                              Sec.  63.9005(e) and
                                        evaluation.                                       (f).
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5).................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        monitoring method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).....................  Alternative to relative  No.....................  only applies to sources
                                        accuracy test.                                    that use continuous
                                                                                          emissions monitoring
                                                                                          systems (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(g)........................  Data reduction.........  Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                                                                          Sec.  63.9005(f).
Sec.  63.9(a)........................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        requirements--applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.  63.9(b)........................  Initial notifications..  Yes....................  except Sec.  63.9045(c)
                                                                                          requires new or
                                                                                          reconstructed affected
                                                                                          sources to submit the
                                                                                          application for
                                                                                          construction or
                                                                                          reconstruction
                                                                                          required by Sec.
                                                                                          63.9(b)(1)(iii) in
                                                                                          lieu of the initial
                                                                                          notification.
Sec.  63.9(c)........................  Request for compliance   Yes....................
                                        extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)........................  Notification that a new  Yes....................
                                        source is subject to
                                        special compliance
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.9(e)........................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test.
Sec.  63.9(f)........................  Notification of visible  No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        emissions/opacity test.                           have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).....................  Additional CPMS          Yes....................
                                        notifications--date of
                                        CPMS performance
                                        evaluation.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2).....................  Use of COMS data.......  No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          COMS.
Sec.  63.9(g)(3).....................  Alternative to relative  No.....................  applies only to sources
                                        accuracy testing.                                 with CEMS.
Sec.  63.9(h)........................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.9(i)........................  Adjustment of submittal  Yes....................
                                        deadlines.
Sec.  63.9(j)........................  Change in previous       Yes....................
                                        information.
Sec.  63.10(a).......................  Recordkeeping/reporting  Yes....................
                                        applicability.

[[Page 48195]]

 
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)....................  General recordkeeping    Yes....................  Secs.  63.9055 and
                                        requirements.                                     63.9060 specify
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          recordkeeping
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2) (i)-(xi)...........  Records related to       Yes....................
                                        startup, shutdown, and
                                        malfunction periods
                                        and CPMS.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii)...............  Records when under       Yes....................
                                        waiver.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..............  Records when using       No.....................  applies only to sources
                                        alternative to                                    with CEMS.
                                        relative accuracy test.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...............  All documentation        Yes....................
                                        supporting initial
                                        notification and
                                        notification of
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.10(b)(3)....................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................
                                        requirements for
                                        applicability
                                        determinations.
Sec.  63.10(c).......................  Additional               Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                        recordkeeping                                     Sec.  63.9005(f).
                                        requirements for
                                        sources with CPMS.
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)....................  General reporting        Yes....................  Sec.  63.9050 specifies
                                        requirements.                                     additional reporting
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)....................  Performance test         Yes....................
                                        results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)....................  Opacity or visible       No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        emissions observations.                           specify opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)....................  Progress reports for     Yes....................
                                        sources with
                                        compliance extensions.
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................
                                        malfunction reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)....................  Additional CPMS          Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                        reports--general.                                 Sec.  63.9005(f).
Sec.  63.10(e)(2)(i).................  Results of CPMS          Yes....................  applies as modified by
                                        performance                                       Sec.  63.9005(f).
                                        evaluations.
Sec.  63.10(e)(2)(ii)................  Results of COMS          No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        performance                                       require the use of
                                        evaluations.                                      COMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)....................  Excess emissions/CPMS    Yes....................
                                        performance reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)....................  Continuous opacity       No.....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        monitoring system data                            require the use of
                                        reports.                                          COMS.
Sec.  63.10(f).......................  Recordkeeping/reporting  Yes....................
                                        waiver.
Sec.  63.11..........................  Control device           No.....................  facilities subject to
                                        requirements--applicab                            subpart NNNNN do not
                                        ility.                                            use flares as control
                                                                                          devices.
Sec.  63.12..........................  State authority and      Yes....................  Sec.  63.9070 lists
                                        delegations.                                      those sections of
                                                                                          subparts NNNNN and A
                                                                                          that are not
                                                                                          delegated.
Sec.  63.13..........................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.14..........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  subpart NNNNN does not
                                        reference.                                        incorporate any
                                                                                          material by reference.
Sec.  63.15..........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        information/
                                        confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-23083 Filed 9-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P