[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19076-19103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5517]



[[Page 19075]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric 
Acid Production; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19076]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0057; FRL-7460-1]
RIN 2060-AH75


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Hydrochloric Acid Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes 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 hydrochloric acid production 
facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. 
These standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) by requiring all such major sources to meet HAP emission 
standards and implement work practice standards that reflect the 
application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The 
primary HAP that will be controlled with this action is hydrochloric 
acid. This HAP is associated with a variety of adverse health effects 
including 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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective April 17, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket. All information considered by the EPA in developing 
the final rule, including public comments on the proposed rule and 
other information developed by the EPA in addressing those comments 
since proposal, is located in Public Docket No. OAR-2002-0057 at the 
following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
docket is located at the above address in Room B102, and may be 
inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local 
regulatory agency representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office 
representative. For information concerning analyses performed in 
developing the final rule, contact Mr. William Maxwell, Combustion 
Group, Emission Standards Division (C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5430; 
fax number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
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 list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers 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 Sec.  63.8985 of the 
final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult your State or local agency (or 
EPA Regional Office) described in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA 
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for 
the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Electronic Access. You may access the Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic copy of the 
final rule will also be available on the worldwide web (WWW) through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
the final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for 
newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in 
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b), judicial review of the 
final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before 
June 16, 2003. Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised 
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be 
raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2)of the CAA, the 
requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce 
these requirements.
    Outline. The information 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. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Final Rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule

[[Page 19077]]

    A. Who Is Subject to the Final Rule?
    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. Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal
    A. What Sources Are Subject to MACT?
    B. How Did the EPA Determine MACT?
    C. What Are the Performance Testing and Other Compliance 
Provisions?
IV. Summary of the 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. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

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\ On September 18, 2001, we 
combined these two source categories for regulatory purposes under the 
production of inorganic chemicals group and renamed the source category 
as HCl production (66 FR 48174). 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 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (10 tons per year (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 control 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 can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory for which the 
Administrator has emissions information (or the best-performing five 
sources for which the Administrator has 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 consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

C. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Final Rule?

    Prior to proposal, we met with industry representatives once to 
discuss the data and information used to develop the proposed 
standards. In addition, these and other potential stakeholders, 
including equipment vendors, environmental groups, and the general 
public, had opportunity to comment on the proposed standards.
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on 
September 18, 2001 (66 FR 48174). The preamble to the proposed rule 
discussed the availability of technical support documents, which 
described in detail the information gathered during the standards 
development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal.
    We received 22 public comment letters on the proposed rule. The 
commenters represent the following affiliations: HCl producers, 
industrial trade associations, and one group of citizens. In the post-
proposal period, we met with industry representatives to discuss their 
concerns. Meeting records are found in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057. All 
of the comments have been carefully considered, and, where appropriate, 
changes have been made for the final rule.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. Who Is Subject to the Final Rule?

    The final rule covers HCl production located at plant sites that 
are major sources of HAP emissions. The HCl production facility is the 
basic unit defined in the final rule. Specifically, the final rule 
defines an HCl production facility as the collection of unit operations 
and equipment associated with the production of liquid HCl product. 
Therefore, a plant site could have several separate and distinct HCl 
production facilities. However, as discussed more in subsection C of 
this section, the affected source includes all HCl production 
facilities at the same site.
    There are several characteristics that define an HCl production 
facility and make the facility subject to the final rule that require 
explanation. First, the facility must produce a liquid HCl product with 
a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater during its normal 
operations. Facilities that produce only low concentration acid, and 
facilities that produce low concentration acid and only occasionally 
produce 30 weight percent acid, are not subject. Second, the liquid HCl 
must be produced by absorbing gaseous HCl into either water or an 
aqueous HCl solution. Production of an anhydrous HCl product is not 
covered by the final rule. Also, production of a liquid HCl product by 
a chemical reaction that occurs in the liquid phase, or any other 
process that does not involve the absorption of gaseous HCl into water 
or aqueous HCl, is not covered.
    There are numerous types of processes that produce a gaseous stream 
containing HCl that is the starting point for an HCl facility 
(including fume silica production). However, the final rule is blind to 
the type of process that generates the HCl, as an HCl production 
facility begins at the point where the

[[Page 19078]]

stream containing HCl enters the absorber. Accordingly, it does not 
matter if the gaseous stream containing HCl is a by-product or even a 
waste-product. If the gaseous stream is used to produce 30 weight 
percent or greater liquid HCl product, it is a facility that is subject 
to the final rule.
    The final rule clearly defines the boundaries of an HCl production 
facility. As noted above, an HCl production facility begins at the 
point where a gaseous stream containing HCl enters the absorber. The 
HCl production facility includes all HCl storage tanks that contain a 
liquid HCl product that is produced in the HCl production unit. The HCl 
production facility also includes all HCl transfer operations that load 
the HCl product produced in the HCl production unit into a tank truck, 
rail car, ship, or barge, and for which loading liquid HCl is the 
predominant use. The predominant use of a transfer rack is the material 
that is loaded by the transfer rack in the greatest amount. The HCl 
production facility also includes the piping and other equipment in HCl 
service used to transfer the liquid HCl product from the HCl production 
unit to the HCl storage tanks and/or HCl transfer operations. The HCl 
production facility ends at the point where the liquid HCl product 
produced in the HCl production unit is loaded into a tank truck, rail 
car, ship, or barge, at the point the HCl product enters another 
process on the plant site, or at the point the HCl product leaves the 
plant site via pipeline.
    Please note that what happens to the liquid HCl product after it is 
produced is not relevant in determining the applicability of the final 
rule. While there are emission limitations for storage tanks and 
transfer operations, these operations do not have to be present for an 
HCl production facility to be subject to the final rule. Whether the 
HCl produced is used onsite, piped offsite, or loaded into railcars, 
tank trucks, ships, or barges has no bearing on whether the HCl 
production facility is subject.
    The final rule does exclude HCl production facilities under certain 
circumstances. First, an HCl production facility is not subject to the 
final rule if all of the gaseous streams containing HCl and chlorine 
(Cl2) from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl 
transfer operations are recycled or routed to another process prior to 
being discharged to the atmosphere. Also, an HCl production facility is 
not subject to the final rule if it produces HCl through the direct 
synthesis of Cl2 and hydrogen and is part of a chlor-alkali 
plant; or if it is a research and development facility.
    In addition, the final rule excludes certain HCl production 
facilities that are part of other source categories where the emissions 
are subject to one of the following federal standards: Pulp and Paper 
Industry NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart S), Steel Pickling--HCl 
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants NESHAP (40 
CFR part 63, subpart CCC), Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM), Hazardous Waste Combustors NESHAP 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE), Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and 
Disposal Facilities (40 CFR part 264, subpart O--Incinerators, section 
264.343(b)), and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (40 CFR part 
266, subpart H--Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, section 266.107).
    Regulatory overlap between the final rule and the Hazardous Organic 
NESHAP (HON) is slightly more complicated. In general, the HON only 
covers emissions of organic HAP, which obviously excludes HCl and 
Cl2. The exception to this is if a halogenated stream (which 
is defined as a stream with a mass emission rate of halogen atoms 
contained in organic compounds of 0.45 kilograms per hour or greater) 
is routed to an incinerator or other combustion device to control the 
organic HAP, the halogens leaving the incinerator are required to be 
reduced by 99 percent. Therefore, if in a HON unit, a chlorinated 
organic compound is sent to an incinerator and the outlet stream (which 
would contain HCl) is then routed through an absorber to produce liquid 
HCl, the resulting HCl emissions from the absorber would be subject to 
40 CFR 63.113(c) of the HON, which requires a 99 percent reduction in 
HCl emissions. These HCl production units are exempted from the HCl 
Production NESHAP, since the emissions are subject to the HON.
    However, HCl gas is often produced as a by-product of an organic 
chemical in a unit that is subject to the HON. In this situation, the 
HCl emissions are not covered by the HON because they are not formed in 
an incinerator burning a halogenated stream. If this vent stream 
containing HCl is routed to an absorber and liquid HCl is produced, 
then it is an HCl production facility and is subject to the final rule 
if it meets the other applicability requirements. Therefore, in this 
situation the result could be that the same equipment, and even the 
same emission stream, is subject to two MACT standards (the organic HAP 
subject to the HON and the HCl and Cl2 subject to the HCl 
NESHAP). In other words, where a liquid HCl product is produced as a 
by-product in a HON unit, the HCl Production NESHAP reaches into the 
HON unit to require control of the HCl and Cl2 emissions.

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. 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 Cl2 are burned. No 
matter the origin of the stream containing HCl, the process from that 
point forward is basically the same. The gaseous stream containing HCl 
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 Cl2 
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 if it is routed through other 
recovery/control devices before being discharged to the atmosphere, it 
is considered an HCl process vent from an HCl production facility.
    If the liquid HCl leaving the absorption tower is routed to an HCl 
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, rail 
car, ship, or barge. Plants often reduce HCl emissions from HCl storage 
tanks and HCl transfer operations by using a scrubber.
    Another potential source of HCl emissions is fugitive losses from 
equipment leaks. Owners and operators of HCl production processes 
presumably have an incentive to identify and repair

[[Page 19079]]

equipment leaks of HCl and Cl2 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 Cl2 
emissions from HCl process vents, HCl storage vessels, and HCl transfer 
operations are typically routed to wastewater treatment systems. In 
most cases, the HCl or Cl2 has been chemically converted in 
the scrubber to sodium hypochlorite (bleach). Any residual 
Cl2 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. Hydrochloric acid process 
vents emit a total of 2,240 Mg/yr (2,470 tpy) of combined HCl (1,600 
Mg/yr; 1,770 tpy) and Cl2 (640 Mg/yr; 700 tpy) emissions. 
Hydrochloric acid storage tanks emit 230 Mg/yr (260 tpy) of HCl, HCl 
transfer operations emit 27 Mg/yr (30 tpy) of HCl, leaking equipment 
emits 410 Mg/yr (450 tpy) of HCl, and wastewater emits 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy) 
HCl. Total baseline HAP emissions from the industry are 2,910 Mg/yr 
(3,220 tpy).

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    The final rule defines the affected source as the group of one or 
more HCl production facilities at a plant site that are subject to the 
final rule, and all associated wastewater operations. The affected 
source contains emission streams from the following: HCl process vents, 
HCl storage tanks, HCl transfer operations, leaks from equipment in 
HCl/Cl2 service, and HCl wastewater operations. However, 
there are no emission limitations or other requirements for HCl 
wastewater operations in the final rule.

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

    Existing affected sources must reduce HCl and Cl2 
emissions from each HCl process vent by 99 percent or to outlet 
concentrations of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) HCl and 100 
ppmv Cl2, determined using EPA Test Method 26A of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. New sources must reduce HCl and Cl2 
emissions from each HCl process vent by 99.4 and 99.8 percent, 
respectively, or to outlet concentrations of 12 ppmv HCl and 20 ppmv 
Cl2. The final rule also requires that owners or operators 
establish site-specific operating limits for each 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 an existing 
affected source, HCl emissions must be reduced by 99 percent or to an 
outlet concentration of 120 ppmv; the operating limits are the same as 
for process vents. There are no Cl2 emissions from these 
sources. For each storage tank at a new affected source, HCl emissions 
must be reduced by 99.9 percent or to an outlet concentration of 12 
ppmv. For each transfer operation at a new affected source, HCl 
emissions must be reduced by 99 percent or to an outlet concentration 
of 120 ppmv. Emission streams from the following types of storage tanks 
and transfer operations are exempt from these emission limitations: (1) 
Storage tanks that never store liquid HCl product with a concentration 
of 30 weight percent or greater, and (2) transfer operations that never 
load liquid HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or 
greater.
    For leaking equipment, the final rule includes a work practice 
standard. We 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 are required to submit the 
LDAR plan to the Administrator. You are also required to certify in 
your Notification of Compliance Status that you have developed and 
implemented the LDAR plan and submitted the plan to the Administrator.
    There are no emission limitations or work practice standards for 
HCl wastewater operations.

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

    For HCl process vents at new and existing affected sources, you are 
required to demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance 
test that demonstrates that the emission limitations are being met. You 
are required to conduct subsequent performance tests on the earlier of 
your title V operating permit renewal or within 5 years of issuance of 
your title V permit.
    You must also establish site-specific operating limits based on 
control device parameters. These operating limits will be established 
for each parameter based on monitoring conducted during the performance 
test. Specifically for water or caustic scrubbers, which we believe 
will be the most commonly used control device, the final rule requires 
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 are required to establish the operating limits based on a 
site-specific monitoring plan that identifies appropriate parameters. 
Continuous compliance will be demonstrated by these monitored 
parameters staying within the operating limits.
    For HCl storage tanks and HCl transfer operations at new and 
existing affected sources, you are required to demonstrate initial 
compliance by conducting a performance test that demonstrates that the 
emission limitations are being met. Alternatively, in lieu of 
conducting initial or subsequent performance tests for HCl storage 
tanks and HCl transfer operations that are not routed to a control 
device that also controls HCl process vent emissions or any other 
continuous vent stream, you may conduct a design evaluation which 
demonstrates that the control technology being used achieves the 
required control efficiency when a liquid HCl product with a 
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is being loaded into the 
storage tank, or a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge. The schedule 
for subsequent performance tests and the operating limits for new and 
existing HCl storage tanks and HCl transfer operations are the same as 
those for HCl process vents.

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

    The final rule requires owners or operators of affected sources to 
submit the following notifications and reports:

    [sbull] Initial Notification.
    [sbull] Notification of Intent to Conduct a Performance Test.
    [sbull] Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS).
    [sbull] Compliance Reports.
    [sbull] Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Reports.

The final rule requires that each owner or operator maintain records of 
reported

[[Page 19080]]

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, the final rule requires 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. For new or reconstructed sources, 
this notification (or an application for construction or 
reconstruction) 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 August 15, 2003.
    For the Notification of Intent report, the final rule requires 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 HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, and 
HCl transfer operation at an affected source, the final rule requires a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl concentration 
limit. This test must be conducted within 180 days of the compliance 
date for new and existing sources. The final rule requires 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 values and 
ranges), must be submitted as part of the NOCS.
    For the Compliance Report, the final rule requires that facilities 
subject to control requirements under the final rule report on 
continued compliance with the emission limits and operating limits 
semi-annually. Specifically, the compliance report must contain the 
following information:
    [sbull] Company name and address.
    [sbull] Statement certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    [sbull] Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    [sbull] Information on actions taken for any startups, shutdowns, 
or malfunctions that were consistent with your SSM plan.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] If there were no periods during which the continuous 
monitoring system (CMS) was out-of-control, as specified in the 
monitoring plan, a statement that there were no periods during which 
the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    You will demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice 
standards for leaking equipment by certifying that you have developed 
and implemented a LDAR plan and submitted the plan to the 
Administrator. 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 SSM report if you have taken 
an action that is not consistent with the facility's SSM plan. This 
report must describe actions taken for the event and contain the 
information in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

III. Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal

    This section includes discussion of significant comments on the 
proposed rule, particularly where we have made changes to address those 
comments in the final rule. These changes may be separated into three 
basic categories: applicability, the MACT determination, and 
performance testing and compliance. This section is organized according 
to these three topic areas. For a complete summary of all the comments 
received on the proposed rule and our responses to them, refer to the 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 
the Hydrochloric Acid Production Industry: Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses'' in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057. The docket also 
contains the actual comment letters and supporting documentation 
developed for the final rule.

A. What Sources are Subject to MACT?

    The proposed rule indicated that HCl production facilities at major 
sources were subject to the final rule. An HCl production facility was 
defined as 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.''
    There were numerous comments provided on these applicability 
provisions. First, several commenters were confused by the apparent 
contradiction between the definition of an HCl production facility in 
the proposed rule and the description in the preamble. The proposed 
rule language stated that a facility must produce, store, AND transfer 
HCl in order to be considered an HCl production facility, while the 
preamble indicated that production of HCl is the only required element 
for a collection of equipment be considered an HCl production facility. 
A few commenters argued that all three elements should be necessary for 
a process to be an HCl production facility, but most only requested 
clarification. Our intent was that described in the proposed preamble--
that is, a facility only needs to produce liquid HCl product to be 
considered an HCl production facility. The language in the final rule 
is clear that processes that produce liquid HCl product are HCl 
production facilities and subject to the final rule (provided that 
criteria related to the concentration of HCl in the liquid product and 
the level of production are met), whether or not they store and 
transfer the liquid HCl.
    As discussed at length in the proposed preamble, it was our intent 
to separate commercial-level HCl production, which we believe should be 
subject to the final rule, from incidental production, which we do not 
believe should be subject. Several comments were received that helped 
us make this distinction. First, numerous commenters requested that the 
EPA raise the minimum HCl concentration for an HCl production facility 
from 10 weight percent to a level that better represents commercial 
production of HCl. The commenters stated that liquid HCl is commonly 
produced for commerce at 20[deg] to 22[deg] Baume (B[eacute]) acid 
strength (31.45 to 35.2 weight percent). However, one commenter's HCl 
production facility occasionally produces liquid HCl product less that 
20 weight percent. Additionally, the commenters made the argument that 
emissions resulting from a 10 percent HCl product were less, even 
without controls, than the proposed emission limitations. Specifically, 
they pointed out that the equilibrium HCl vapor concentration for a 10 
weight percent HCl liquid (10.7 ppmv at 25[deg]C) is lower than the 
proposed emission limitation for process vents, storage tanks, and 
transfer operations (12 ppmv).
    Upon consideration of these comments and the supporting 
information, we changed the minimum HCl concentration to 30 weight 
percent. The final rule states that an HCl production facility that 
produces a liquid HCl product at a concentration of 30 weight percent 
or greater is subject to the final rule. That means that this unit is 
subject at all times, even those times when a liquid HCl product of a

[[Page 19081]]

lower concentration is being produced. Therefore, the final rule will 
cover facilities like the one pointed out by the commenter that 
occasionally produce liquid HCl product at concentrations less than 30 
percent, even when those lower concentration products are being 
produced.
    However, we wanted to ensure that facilities that primarily produce 
lower concentration liquid HCl products not be subject to the final 
rule. Therefore, we added a statement in 40 CFR 63.8985(a) that the 
final rule does not cover HCl production facilities that only 
occasionally produce liquid HCl products at a concentration of 30 
weight percent or greater. We did not, however, include a specific 
definition of what constitutes occasional production. If a facility 
produces liquid HCl with a concentration of 30 weight percent or 
greater during its normal operations, this would not be considered 
occasional production.
    Commenters also suggested facility-wide exemptions based on de 
minimis annual emissions. Commenters provided several exemption levels 
based on emissions, from 1.8 kilograms per hour to 10 Mg per year. 
Other commenters believed that an exemption based on production was the 
appropriate method to eliminate burdensome compliance requirements for 
facilities with very low HAP emissions. The recommended exemption 
production levels ranged from 1 Mg per year to 1 gigagram per year.
    We believe that, with the 30 weight percent criteria, the final 
rule should not cover incidental production of HCl. Consequently, we 
have not added either an emissions-based exemption or a production-
based exemption to the final rule.
    Commenters also requested that the we clearly delineate where the 
HCl production facility ends and HCl consumption begins so as not to 
include equipment unrelated to the production of HCl. While the 
proposed rule was not specific as to the beginning of an HCl production 
facility, the proposed preamble did indicate that an HCl production 
facility begins at the point where the gaseous stream containing HCl 
enters the absorber. The commenters agreed with this concept and asked 
that we directly incorporate it into the final rule, which we did.
    Most of the problems cited by commenters related to the end of the 
HCl production facility were remote storage tanks that are dedicated to 
another process or to wastewater treatment. There was also concern 
expressed about whether off-site HCl storage tanks storing HCl produced 
in a subject unit would be subject to the final rule. One suggestion 
was that the HCl production facility include only those tanks and 
transfer operations on the site that are directly connected to the 
production unit. Another suggestion was to only include the first 
storage tank after the absorber production unit and the first transfer 
rack. Other commenters pointed out that the proposed rule would also 
cover HCl storage tanks and transfer operations that handled purchased 
HCl that was not even produced in the on-site HCl production facility.
    In general, we agree with the commenters on this topic. We believe 
it is practical that only the primary storage tanks and transfer 
operations that are storing and loading HCl produced at the site should 
be subject to the final rule. However, we did not totally agree with 
either of the suggestions provided by the commenters. In the final 
rule, we specify that the HCl production facility includes the 
production unit and all storage tanks that contain liquid HCl product 
that is produced in the HCl production unit, along with all transfer 
operations that load HCl product produced in the HCl production unit. 
Further, it also specifies that the piping and other equipment used to 
transfer liquid HCl product from the HCl production unit to the storage 
tanks and/or transfer operations is included in the HCl production 
facility. The final rule clarifies that the HCl production facility 
ends at the point that the liquid HCl product produced in the HCl 
production unit either leaves the plant site via a tank truck, rail 
car, ship, barge, or pipeline, or enters another process on the plant 
site. However, we recognized that this still was not totally clear 
regarding remote storage tanks, so we specifically added exemptions for 
HCl storage tanks that are dedicated feedstock tanks for other 
processes and storage tanks which store HCl dedicated for use in 
wastewater treatment.
    Commenters also pointed out that the proposed preamble was clear 
that the type of process covered by the final rule was one that routes 
a gaseous stream that contains HCl to an absorber. They asked that this 
language, which was not included in the proposed rule, be added to the 
final rule. The commenters acknowledged that there are other methods of 
producing liquid HCl product, but believe that they should not be 
covered by the final rule because they were not considered in the final 
rule development. We agreed and made changes in accordance. These 
changes include the addition of a definition of HCl production unit 
that only includes an absorber or other vessel in which a liquid HCl 
product is manufactured by absorbing gaseous HCl into either water or 
an aqueous HCl solution and the change cited above related to the 
beginning of an HCl production facility.
    Commenters requested that facilities that produce liquid HCl only 
for on-site usage be exempted. We certainly support the recycling and 
re-use of potential waste materials, including HCl. Further, we are 
aware that much of the HCl produced is used by other processes on the 
plant site. However, we do not see a distinction between these 
processes and other processes where the HCl product is truly sold. We 
believe an exemption for on-site use would unfairly favor large 
integrated facilities. Consider two similar HCl processes with similar 
equipment, similar production capacities, and similar emissions 
potential. We do not believe that distinguishing between these 
processes based on where the HCl is consumed is warranted.
    Even with the extensive discussions in the proposed preamble 
related to how the applicability is blind to the type of process that 
generates the anhydrous HCl stream that forms the feed stream for the 
HCl production facility, some commenters still called for exemptions 
for processes where HCl is not the primary product. The primary product 
concept is not relevant to the final rule, as the only processes that 
are subject to the final rule are those that intentionally manufacture 
liquid HCl product. There are a variety of types of processes that 
generate HCl-containing gas streams that provide the feed to the HCl 
production unit, and we recognized that this gaseous HCl is often a by-
product. However, at the point an owner or operator takes this stream 
and manufactures a commercial level (i.e., 30 weight percent or 
greater) liquid HCl product, we maintain that HCl is the intended 
product for that unit. Therefore, the process that creates the 
anhydrous HCl stream feeding the HCl production facility is not 
relevant in most situations.
    The only time that the up-stream process is relevant is when it is 
subject to a Federal regulation that also regulates the HCl and 
Cl2 emissions from the downstream HCl production facility. 
At proposal, we identified several of these situations and specifically 
exempted the HCl production facilities subject to these other 
standards. While all commenters applauded this concept, they did not 
feel that we had gone far enough with these exemptions. Some commenters 
cited other specific regulations that should be listed, while others 
requested

[[Page 19082]]

that we broaden the exemption to include facilities subject to any 
other NESHAP, whether it is already promulgated or yet to be 
promulgated, along with any facility that is subject to any federally 
enforceable permit that requires 95 percent reduction or greater.
    Just like the commenters, we are interested in avoiding overlapping 
situations where a process that produces HCl might be subject to more 
than one Federal regulation. Based on the comments received, we have 
added exemptions for processes subject to the Pharmaceutical MACT (40 
CFR 63, subpart GGG) and 40 CFR 63.994 of subpart SS. We have also 
expanded the exemption to include any process required by another rule 
to comply with 40 CFR 63.113(c) of the HON. In addition, according to 
our proposed decision not to regulate Cl2 and HCl emissions 
from chlorine production (67 FR 44713; July 3, 2002), we consider 
direct synthesis HCl production units directly associated with chlor-
alkali facilities to be part of the chlor-alkali facilities. Therefore, 
an exemption has been added in the final rule to exempt direct 
synthesis HCl production processes that are part of chlor-alkali 
facilities; this exemption does not extend to HCl production facilities 
that are co-located with chlor-alkali facilities but are not direct 
synthesis units directly associated with chlor-alkali facilities. So, 
we exempted all the specific situations raised by commenters. However, 
we cannot include a generic exemption for any other NESHAP or any 
federally enforceable permit. The statutory requirements in CAA section 
112(d) are prescriptive regarding the level of control required by MACT 
standards, and we could not be assured that these other requirements 
would meet the minimum requirements for this source category. We will 
consider such situations on a case by case (i.e., on a source-specific) 
basis under a request for an alternative non-opacity emission standard 
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(g).
    As part of our consideration of overlapping requirements, we 
reviewed the situation with the HON. The proposed rule exempted HCl 
production units located after an incinerator of a HON unit where the 
HCl and Cl2 emissions are subject to 40 CFR 63.113(c). 
However, we did not exempt situations where gaseous HCl is produced as 
a by-product in a HON unit and then routed to an absorber to produce 
liquid HCl. In these by-product situations, the HCl and Cl2 
emissions are not covered by the HON. While we agree that the situation 
where the same equipment and the same emission stream could be subject 
to both the HON and the HCl Production NESHAP is not ideal, we believe 
that these inorganic emissions should be addressed under the final rule 
in the same manner that comparable non-HON units are addressed. 
Therefore, the final rule continues to reach into the HON to cover 
those inorganic emissions from liquid HCl production.
    Several commenters requested that the EPA exempt storage tanks that 
are smaller than a certain capacity. The commenters pointed out that 
the potential emissions from small storage tanks are low while the 
control costs are very high. Commenters suggestions for a minimum 
capacity ranged from 15,000 to 20,000 gallons. One commenter further 
requested an exemption for all portable storage containers (e.g., 
drums, tank trucks, railcars). Another commenter suggested that tank 
capacity and HCl vapor pressure be used together to determine which 
storage tanks should be exempt.
    We understand the commenters' concern about the cost of controlling 
emissions from small storage tanks. However, we believe that small 
storage tanks are not likely to be covered by the final rule given the 
other changes that we have made which were based on comments received. 
We have exempted storage tanks that never store liquid HCl product with 
a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater. We have also defined 
the HCl production facility such that storage tanks that store HCl for 
use in wastewater treatment or as feedstock for another process are not 
part of the HCl production facility. Therefore, we have not added an 
exemption for small storage tanks.

B. How Did the EPA Determine MACT?

1. Data Used To Determine MACT
    Many commenters stated that the EPA did not use data that was truly 
representative of the sources in the source category when determining 
the MACT emission limitations. The commenters believed that the 
database used to prepare the proposed rule contained facilities that 
potentially would not be subject to the final rule and did not contain 
many facilities that potentially would be subject to the final rule. 
This criticism included the estimate of the number of facilities 
potentially subject to the final rule, but was more focused on the data 
used to establish MACT.
    Commenters stated the number of sources subject to the final rule 
would likely be much greater than the 64 plant sites that we identified 
as potentially subject at proposal. One commenter estimated that the 
number of plant sites could be as high as 300.
    The commenters were especially concerned with the 
representativeness of the data set used to establish the MACT emission 
limits. They maintained that the lack of representativeness of the 
source category resulted in proposed emission limitations that were not 
adequately justified for the HCl production source category, and that 
the use of more representative data could change the MACT 
determination. A few of the commenters specifically requested that we 
gather data from a more representative group of potentially affected 
facilities and re-calculate the MACT floor. One commenter even went so 
far as to state that we should withdraw the proposed rule and re-
propose it after properly surveying the industry and re-calculating the 
MACT floor based on accurate data.
    First, we will briefly review the process used to obtain the 
information for the HCl production source category, followed by 
responses to the specific issues raised by the commenters.
    In creating our list of sources in the HCl production source 
category, we consulted reliable and well-respected sources of 
information on the chemical industry. We removed plant sites from the 
original list that we believed would be subject to other MACT standards 
or Federal regulations. There were also a few plants that we were aware 
of through contacts with State agencies that were not on the original 
list, so they were added. That resulted in the 64 plants identified at 
proposal. We recognized the special difficulty in identifying all HCl 
production facilities, since HCl is often produced from by-product 
streams only for internal uses, and considered that our list may not 
have been comprehensive. Therefore, during a meeting held on February 
28, 2001 with the primary trade organization for the HCl production 
industry, we specifically requested assistance in improving our initial 
list of potentially subject plant sites. However, no additional 
information resulted from this request for assistance.
    While commenters claim that there could be potentially two or three 
times more plant sites subject to the HCl Production NESHAP than we 
originally estimated, there was little actual information provided to 
support this claim. Where commenters provided specific plant names and 
locations, we adjusted the list of plant sites. We also identified a 
few inconsistencies and overlaps from our original list. The result was 
that the revised list of

[[Page 19083]]

potentially subject facilities contains 65 plant sites.
    As was documented in several items in the docket, our information 
gathering approach for this source category was to obtain available 
information from State/local agencies in States where HCl production 
facilities are located. That resulted in data for 24 HCl production 
facilities at 19 plant sites in 5 States. In addition, we had 
information from site visits to 6 additional HCl production facilities 
at 5 more plant sites, meaning that the MACT database relied upon for 
the proposed rule contained information representing 30 HCl production 
facilities at 24 plant sites in 9 States. We believe that this was a 
reasonable approach to obtain information for this industry.
    Some commenters requested that we distribute a questionnaire under 
our CAA section 114 authority to accurately reflect the source 
category. However, the commenters did not provide a list of plants to 
whom this questionnaire should be sent to ensure that the data were 
more representative than the data set we obtained from State agency 
files. Some commenters, however, did offer to provide additional 
information for their HCl production facilities, which could have 
resulted in data for a few additional processes. However, we concluded 
that the original data set was adequate to determine MACT and did not 
feel it was necessary to burden the industry with a data collection 
request.
    Commenters also complained that many of the plants considered in 
the MACT floor analysis were actually plants that are not in the source 
category. These commenters are correct, in part, in that we did utilize 
data from two plants that we had removed from the original list because 
we presumed that these HCl production processes were, or would be, 
subject to another MACT standard. To eliminate this inconsistency, we 
have removed these two facilities from the MACT analysis. We also 
adjusted the data set based on all specific comments received. 
Therefore, the revised MACT floor analysis is based on facilities that, 
to the best of our knowledge, are in the source category. For example, 
we have removed from the MACT floor analysis all HCl production 
facilities that produce HCl via direct synthesis at chlor-alkali 
facilities, and we have kept in the MACT floor those HCl production 
facilities that are co-located with chlor-alkali facilities but are not 
part of a chlor-alkali facility and produce HCl through some other 
process.
    We would point out that while we did not agree with the commenters 
regarding the representativeness and adequacy of our MACT database, and 
we did not undertake an additional data gathering effort after 
proposal, we did revise our MACT analysis to address many of the other 
issues raised by commenters regarding the determination of the emission 
limitations. These are discussed in the next sections.
2. MACT Floor Determination
    There were a few issues raised related to the MACT floor analysis. 
First, commenters believed that the floor should have been based on the 
top 12 percent of the facilities instead of the top 5 facilities, since 
there are more than 30 facilities in the category. Commenters also 
believed that the floor should have been calculated based on the mean 
and not the median. In addition, commenters objected to how we handled 
control efficiencies reported as 99 percent (in the floor 
analysis, units that reported 99 percent efficiency were 
excluded from the floor calculation and the remaining facilities in the 
top 5 of the reporting facilities were used to determine the floor) and 
they pointed out that we were inconsistent in this approach (we did 
consider these 99 reported efficiencies for the floor for 
transfer operations).
    As noted above, we currently estimate that there are 65 facilities 
in the source category. Therefore, if data were available for all 
facilities, the MACT floor would be based on the best-performing 12 
percent, or 8 facilities. In our re-analysis of the MACT floor, we 
considered the control achieved by the best-performing eight facilities 
in our database. We disagree with the opinion regarding use of the 
average rather than the median. As was stated in the preamble for the 
proposed rule, 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 central tendency of a data set. We 
continue to believe that this determination, which we originally 
published over 8 years ago (59 FR 29196; June 6, 1994), is sound. For 
the MACT determination for this source category, which was in the 
format of a percent emission reduction, we determined that selection of 
the median value was most appropriate. This ensured that a control 
efficiency actually being achieved was selected, rather than the mean 
of values, which would not likely have represented the actual 
performance of an actual control device.
    The commenters were correct in that we were inconsistent in how we 
considered facilities that reported control efficiencies as 
99 percent. For process vents and storage tanks, we did not 
include data points reported as 99 percent when calculating 
the MACT floor for the proposed rule, whereas for transfer operations 
we did include data points reported as 99 percent when 
calculating the MACT floor because we had only three data points, two 
of which reported 99 percent. In evaluating this issue, we 
determined that it was inappropriate to have not considered some of the 
most effective controls in the source category for process vents and 
storage tanks simply because their efficiencies were reported as 
greater than a particular number. Therefore, in our re-analysis of the 
MACT floor, we assigned a numerical value of 99 percent emission 
reduction to each control device that reported an efficiency of 
99 percent or =99 percent. The data points 
reported as 99 percent or =99 percent were 
obtained from permit applications, and we had no data that indicated 
more specific control efficiencies in these cases. We believe that 
rounding these data points down to 99 percent represents the closest 
actual control efficiency that we are sure these sources could meet 
consistently.
    Due to the comments raised regarding the MACT floor approach and 
the data used, it was necessary to re-evaluate the MACT floor. As a 
reminder, the MACT floor addressed HCl emissions from process vents, 
storage tanks, and transfer operations, and Cl2 emissions 
from process vents. Further, the proposed format of the MACT floor for 
all emission sources was a percent reduction. We determined the MACT 
floor for existing sources as the median value of the top eight 
facilities in the data set for each type of emission source.
    The revised MACT floors for existing sources are 99 percent 
emission reduction for HCl emissions from process vents and transfer 
operations, 99 percent for Cl2 emissions from process vents, 
and 98.5 percent for HCl emissions from storage tanks. For consistency, 
we believe it is appropriate to round the storage tank value to 99 
percent. The revised MACT floors for new sources are 99.4 percent 
emission reduction for HCl emissions from process vents, 99.8 percent 
emission reduction for Cl2 emissions from process vents, 
99.9 percent emission reduction for HCl emissions from storage tanks, 
and 99 percent emission reduction for HCl emissions from transfer 
operations. These new source MACT floors are based on the level of 
control achieved by the best-controlled source in the category.

[[Page 19084]]

3. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
    The proposed emission limitations were in the format of an outlet 
concentration. As outlined in the proposed preamble, we selected this 
format primarily due to concerns in distinguishing an HCl control 
device from an HCl production process. There were numerous comments 
received regarding this format and the data used to establish the 
emission limit. These proposed limits were developed by applying the 
MACT floor percent reduction efficiencies to the highest uncontrolled 
concentrations in the data set. Specifically, these highest 
uncontrolled concentrations were 2,044 ppmv for HCl and 9,650 ppmv for 
Cl2. Commenters stated that we established the concentration 
equivalents to the MACT floor based on data that do not accurately 
reflect the variability of sources in the source category. The 
commenters noted that facilities in the source category often have 
emission points (with only one exception, all examples raised by the 
commenters were for storage tanks and transfer operations) that emit 
much higher concentrations of HCl and Cl2 or emit at much 
higher air flow rates than the facilities included in the our database. 
The commenters stated that emission points with high concentrations 
would need removal efficiencies greater than the MACT floor levels in 
order to meet the proposed concentration limits, which we proposed as 
being equivalent to the MACT floor percent removal efficiencies. 
Therefore, the commenters maintained that the proposed emission limits 
were far beyond the MACT floor and not justified.
    Alternatively, one commenter stated that the proposed emission 
limits were not as stringent as they should be. The commenter stated 
that the MACT floor control efficiencies are appropriate, but that they 
were inappropriately converted to equivalent concentration limits. The 
commenter stated that we chose as equivalent to the MACT floor control 
efficiency the highest concentration from the range of concentrations 
that are already being achieved and noted that recent court decisions 
reiterate that we must set the MACT floor at the average already being 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the sources, not at a 
level at which all sources can easily meet. The commenter urged us to 
establish emission limits that are appropriately stringent based on the 
MACT floor control efficiencies.Commenters offered three basic 
suggestions on how to deal with this perceived problem. Several 
commenters requested that we collect and examine inlet concentration 
data from a variety of additional process vents, storage tanks, and 
transfer operations, and develop emission limits that are more 
appropriate to the actual inlet concentrations observed in the source 
category.
    In the absence of more data, commenters encouraged us to establish 
a tiered control efficiency based on flow rate. That would avoid the 
situation in which already well-controlled scrubbers with high air flow 
rates incur a high additional cost to achieve the proposed 
concentration limit. The final suggestion by several commenters was 
that we allow compliance with either a control efficiency or an 
emission limit, whichever is less stringent. The commenters stated that 
such an alternative would relieve the situation where control devices 
have high removal efficiencies but cannot meet the proposed 
concentration limits because they have high inlet concentrations.
    First, we reject the commenter's opinion that additional data are 
needed to establish these concentration equivalents. As discussed 
above, we believe that our data gathering approach was sound and are 
not convinced that additional data gathering would necessarily result 
in data that better characterizes the industry.
    However, we recognize that none of the data used to establish the 
concentration equivalents were from storage tanks or transfer 
operations. We agree that uncontrolled concentrations from storage 
tanks and transfer operations are likely to be much higher than those 
for the process vents in our data set because HCl remains in storage 
tanks and transfer operations long enough for the concentration in the 
vapor to reach equilibrium with the concentration in the liquid, 
whereas HCl passes through HCl production units quickly. We would 
expect that, in many cases, the vapor space in storage tanks and 
transfer operations will be saturated. As discussed above, we have 
revised the HCl production facility definition to include production of 
liquid HCl at a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater. At 
saturation, the HCl vapor concentration above a 30 weight percent HCl 
liquid would be around 12,000 ppmv. Applying the existing source MACT 
floor reduction efficiencies (99 percent for storage tanks and for 
transfer operations) to this concentration results in an outlet 
concentration of 120 ppmv. Applying the new source MACT floor reduction 
efficiencies (99.9 percent for storage vessels and 99 percent for 
transfer operations) to this concentration results in an outlet 
concentration of 12 ppmv for storage tanks and 120 ppmv for transfer 
operations. These are the emission limitations for storage tanks and 
transfer operations in the final rule.
    With one exception, the comments did not indicate that the 
uncontrolled concentrations used to determine the emission limitations 
for process vents (2,044 ppmv for HCl and 9,650 ppmv for 
Cl2) were inappropriate. Therefore, we applied the revised 
existing source MACT floor control efficiencies (99 percent for both 
HCl and Cl2 emissions from process vents) to these 
concentrations to obtain 20 ppmv HCl and approximately 100 ppmv 
Cl2. Applying the new source MACT floor reduction 
efficiencies (99.4 percent for HCl emissions from process vents and 
99.8 percent for Cl2 emissions from process vents) to this 
concentration results in outlet concentrations of 12 ppmv HCl and 20 
ppmv Cl2 (rounded up from 19 ppmv). These are the emission 
limitations for process vents in the final rule. We believe instances 
cited by one commenter regarding inlet Cl2 concentrations in 
process vents would be addressed by the alternative format in the final 
rule, which is discussed below.
    We disagree with the commenter who believed that the emission 
limitations were not as stringent as they should be. The percent 
reduction limits represent the average control level of the best-
controlled sources, in accordance with CAA section 112(d)(3). The 
alternative concentration limits were determined using the appropriate 
percent reduction limits (which were based on the average of the best-
controlled sources) and the available data on control device inlet 
concentrations. In determining the concentration limits, we made 
assumptions about these inlet concentrations for each type of emission 
source (for example, we chose the highest concentration) to consider 
the variability that will be encountered by the best-performing 
sources. We strongly disagree that all sources can easily meet these 
limits, and we believe that significant control measures will be 
required for facilities to meet the limits.
    We do not believe that a tiered control efficiency based on flow 
rate is appropriate based on the available information, and we did not 
incorporate such a concept into the final rule. We do recognize, 
nevertheless, that situations could exist where sources could achieve 
the MACT floor reduction efficiency but fail to meet the applicable 
outlet concentration emission limitations. Further, the commenters 
alleviated our concerns at proposal regarding a percent reduction 
emission

[[Page 19085]]

limit. We were concerned that it would be difficult to determine how 
and where to measure a control efficiency but commenters alleviated 
this concern by stating that the HCl production unit is distinguishable 
from the control device, which makes it clear where to measure the 
control device inlet and outlet in order to calculate a control 
efficiency over the control device. Therefore, we have incorporated the 
third suggestion of the commenters (compliance with either a control 
efficiency or a concentration limit) into the final rule. Owners or 
operators will have the option of complying with a percent reduction 
efficiency instead of the outlet concentration limitation. For storage 
tanks and transfer operations, the percent reduction and concentration 
limit are equivalent assuming that a 30 weight percent liquid HCl 
product is stored in the tanks or used in the transfer operations. For 
process vents, the percent reduction and concentration limits are 
equivalent assuming process vent outlet concentrations of approximately 
2,000 ppmv HCl and 10,000 ppmv Cl2. These outlet 
concentrations were assumed in order to take into account the 
variability of outlet concentrations from HCl process vents. The 
percent reduction will be measured across the control device, or series 
of control devices, that follow the absorber production unit, storage 
tank, or transfer rack. We have added definitions of HCl production 
unit and control device to ensure that there is no confusion regarding 
where the percent reduction must be measured.
    Comments were received on whether transfer operations and 
wastewater operations should have emission limitations. We were asked 
to reconsider the need to set emission limitations for transfer 
operations because emissions from transfer operations contribute less 
than one percent of the total emissions from HCl production facilities 
and because most transfer operations at HCl production facilities are 
already controlled. There was complete agreement, however, that our 
decision not to establish emission limits or work practice standards 
for wastewater treatment operations was appropriate.
    We are obligated to set emission limitations at least as stringent 
as the MACT floor, which we are required to establish based on the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing existing 
sources, regardless of the percentage of total emissions attributable 
to the specific equipment or process. This principle was applied for 
both transfer operations and wastewater. For transfer operations, the 
available information is consistent with the commenter's statement that 
``most transfer operations are already controlled.'' Therefore, we are 
required to establish limits requiring control based on the best 
performing sources. We did not identify any controls for emissions from 
wastewater, or any process modifications or other pollution prevention 
type measures that reduce HCl emissions from wastewater. For the 
reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we determined 
that the new and existing source MACT floors for wastewater were no 
emissions reductions (66 FR 48181-48182; September 18, 2001). 
Therefore, the final rule does not require any controls or other 
measures even though wastewater operations are part of the affected 
source.
    Similarly, in developing the proposed rule, we determined that the 
MACT floor for leaking equipment is a general plan to detect and repair 
leaks of HCl because most HCl production facilities are already 
performing LDAR activities. The response received on these proposed 
requirements varied.
    Several commenters agreed with our basic proposed approach to 
require the development and implementation of a site-specific plan, 
rather than to include more formal requirements in the final rule. 
However, there was great concern regarding the proposed requirement to 
submit the plan to a permitting authority for review and approval. The 
commenters stated that they are not aware of any NESHAP that requires 
LDAR plans to be submitted for approval, and that requiring these plans 
to be submitted for approval effectively makes them part of a 
facility's title V operating permit and, consequently, implementation 
of the initial plan and any changes to the plan would require a formal 
permit amendment. They claimed that this would be very time consuming 
and an unnecessary burden. The commenters noted that the proposed rule 
did not address how the plan is to be approved, and requested that, if 
the requirement to submit the plan is not eliminated, the EPA provide 
criteria for permitting authorities to use in reviewing LDAR plans. The 
commenters asserted that eliminating the requirement to submit LDAR 
plans alleviates the burdens associated with title V permits and also 
allows informal or routine maintenance programs to constitute the LDAR 
plan.
    One commenter proposed that we include very simplified requirements 
in the final rule (e.g., if you detect a leak, repair it within 15 
days). Others argued that the EPA should eliminate any and all 
references to an LDAR plan from the final rule.
    First, in light of the fact that most, if not all, HCl production 
facilities already have programs to reduce emissions from equipment 
leaks at HCl production facilities, we cannot eliminate the requirement 
to establish a floor and control emissions from equipment leaks. We 
also believe it is important that LDAR plans be submitted to the 
Administrator to facilitate enforcement of the final rule and public 
access to non-confidential plan requirements, and the final rule 
retains the proposed requirement for submittal. However, in response to 
the commenters' concerns, we have eliminated the proposed requirement 
that LDAR plans be affirmatively approved. Instead, we have clarified 
that any deficiencies in LDAR plans must be promptly corrected upon 
request by the Administrator, in order to allow the Administrator to 
review and approve LDAR plans if the Administrator so chooses.
    Moreover, we do not intend that the contents of a LDAR plan itself 
must be included in a facility's title V permit. Rather, like other 
requirements of the final rule, the requirements to develop, implement, 
and submit a LDAR plan to control emissions from equipment leaks--but 
not the contents of the plan--are applicable requirements under title V 
and must be reflected in a facility's title V operating permit. We have 
clarified that you may incorporate by reference into your LDAR plan 
existing manuals that describe LDAR activities required under other 
federally enforceable rules, provided that copies of all manuals that 
are incorporated by reference are submitted to the Administrator. We 
are also requiring that a current copy of the plan be maintained on 
site, and that previous versions be maintained on site for a period of 
5 years after any revision of the plan.

C. What Are the Performance Testing and Other Compliance Provisions?

    Several changes were made in the final rule related to the 
performance testing and other compliance provisions. First, commenters 
objected to the proposed annual performance testing requirement. They 
stated that the initial performance test is sufficient to demonstrate 
initial compliance and establish operating parameter ranges and that 
monitoring of those parameters is sufficient to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. The commenters further stated that performance tests are 
expensive and provide no additional environmental benefit, and that the 
cost of annual performance tests was not

[[Page 19086]]

accounted for in the cost impact analysis. We agree with the commenters 
that it is reasonable to perform subsequent performance tests less 
frequently than annually and have decided to change the requirement for 
subsequent performance testing from annually to every 5 years or each 
time a facility's title V permit is renewed, whichever is more 
frequent.
    There was also objection to the proposed requirement that 
performance testing be conducted and the NOCS submitted before the 
compliance date, especially since the General Provisions set deadlines 
for these activities after the compliance date. We have changed the 
final rule to conform with the General Provisions. The final rule 
requires the performance test to be completed within 180 days after the 
compliance date. The final rule does not change the requirement to 
submit the NOCS within 60 days after completion of the performance 
test, because this requirement was already consistent with the General 
Provisions.
    Commenters also said that the performance test requirements in the 
proposed rule are not appropriate for storage tanks and transfer 
operations, primarily because storage tanks and transfer operations are 
batch operations that do not operate for long enough time periods to 
conduct three one-hour sampling runs, which were required by the 
proposed rule. Further, they cited the relatively high expense of such 
testing, when compared with the small emissions from those sources. 
Upon review of these comments and the additional information provided, 
we decided to allow design evaluations as an alternate means of 
demonstrating both initial and subsequent compliance for storage tanks 
and transfer operations that are independently controlled (e.g., not 
routed to a control device that also controls HCl process vent 
emissions or any other continuous vent stream). The final rule requires 
that the design evaluation include documentation demonstrating that the 
control technique being used achieves the required control efficiency 
when a liquid HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or 
greater is being loaded into the storage tank, or a tank truck, rail 
car, ship, or barge.
    For process vents, there were proposed limits for both HCl and 
Cl2 emissions. Therefore, there were testing requirements 
for both pollutants. Several commenters disagreed with the proposed 
requirement that all affected HCl production facilities must conduct 
performance tests for Cl2 from process vents. They 
maintained that we did not have adequate support to require testing for 
Cl2 and that only facilities that burn Cl2 to 
produce HCl would have Cl2 emissions.
    First, the docket for the final rule does include numerous 
supporting references for our assertion that Cl can be 
emitted from HCl production process vents. Of the 21 facilities for 
which we had emissions data for HCl production process vents, 16 
reported emissions of Cl2. In fact, 15 of these 16 
facilities do not produce HCl in a direct synthesis process. However, 
we acknowledge that there are a variety of processes that produce HCl, 
not all of which have the potential to emit Cl2. Therefore, 
we have added a provision to the final rule allowing facilities to use 
process knowledge and previous performance test results to demonstrate 
that Cl2 is not likely to be present in a process vent 
emission stream. That provision allows facilities to be exempted from 
the requirement to test process vents for Cl2 provided that 
the appropriate documentation is submitted with the site-specific test 
plan.
    In response to a request that facilities be allowed to use existing 
performance test data to demonstrate initial compliance in lieu of 
conducting an initial performance test, we included an allowance in the 
final rule allowing facilities to use existing performance test data to 
demonstrate initial compliance for the emission point on which the test 
was conducted provided that a three conditions are met. These are: (1) 
The performance test was conducted within the previous 5-year period; 
(2) the performance test was conducted using the same test methods 
required by the final rule; and (3) no modifications have been made to 
the process or emission point since the previous performance test was 
conducted or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the results of 
the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite process changes.
    Several commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement to 
submit the site-specific monitoring plan for approval, primarily 
because, the commenters alleged, requiring submission of the plan would 
result in the details of the plan being included in a facility's title 
V permit and, the commenters further alleged, would cause a delay in 
implementation and modification of the plan because of the lengthy time 
period typical for approval of elements of a title V permit. It was 
never our intent that the substantive provisions of a site-specific 
monitoring plan would become part of a facility's title V operating 
permit. We have changed the final rule to require the site-specific 
monitoring plan to be developed, implemented, and submitted to the 
Administrator, but not subject to the Administrator's approval. We also 
have clarified that any deficiencies in site-specific monitoring plans 
must be promptly corrected upon request of the Administrator, in order 
to allow the Administrator to review and approve site-specific 
monitoring plans if the Administrator chooses to do so. A facility's 
title V permit must contain the final rule's requirement to develop and 
implement the plan, which is an applicable requirement under title V, 
but need not incorporate the substantive provisions of the plan itself, 
even if the Administrator requests the plan to be submitted. We have 
also added a requirement that a current copy of the plan be maintained 
on site, and that previous versions be maintained on site for a period 
of 5 years after the revision of the plan.
    Several commenters stated that the detailed operation, inspection, 
and maintenance requirements for monitoring devices are unnecessary 
because the final rule requires facilities to develop their own site-
specific monitoring plans and requested that we delete the detailed 
requirements. We had intended for facilities that monitor pH and liquid 
flow rate to simply incorporate into their site-specific monitoring 
plans the specific procedures that we included in the proposed rule 
rather than develop their own procedures. We included specific 
procedures in the proposed rule because no performance specification 
had yet been promulgated for pH or liquid flow monitoring devices. 
However, we are currently developing performance specifications for 
continuous monitoring systems that must be followed by owners and 
operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63. 
Therefore, we have decided to remove the detailed requirements from 40 
CFR 63.9025(b) and (c) of the final rule and wait for the rule that 
would propose performance specifications for all of 40 CFR part 63. We 
decided it would be premature to promulgate performance specifications 
for the final rule when the specifications that would ultimately be 
promulgated for all of 40 CFR part 63 may be different as a result of 
possible public comments received on that rulemaking. We did add 
language in the final rule to require that ``all monitoring equipment 
shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated according to 
manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures that provide 
adequate assurance that the equipment

[[Page 19087]]

would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately.'' Therefore, owners 
and operators will be required by the final rule to follow written 
performance specifications, but not necessarily the ones that we 
proposed. In addition, the requirement to develop a site-specific 
monitoring plan, which must include performance specifications, is 
retained in the final rule as the mechanism for formalizing the 
performance specifications.

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

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    Nationwide baseline emissions are approximately 2,270 Mg/yr (2,520 
tpy) of HCl and 640 Mg/yr (700 tpy) of Cl2. The total annual 
emissions reductions resulting from the final rule are estimated to be 
approximately 1,050 Mg/yr (1,155 tpy) of HCl and 390 Mg/yr (430 tpy) of 
Cl2.

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 final 
standards for HCl production plants. The final rule will result in the 
generation of additional wastewater from scrubbers. We have calculated 
this amount to be approximately 103,000 gallons per year per process 
vent scrubber and 500 gallons per year per storage tank/transfer 
operation scrubber. We estimate that there are 16 facilities that will 
install new process vent scrubbers and 32 facilities that will install 
new storage tank or transfer operation scrubbers.

C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

    The total estimated capital cost of the final rule for HCl 
production is approximately $23.2 million in the fifth year for new and 
existing sources. The total estimated annual cost of the final rule is 
around $8.1 million in the fifth year for new and existing sources, 
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 final 
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 final rule 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 final rule.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
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 President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that the final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, 
therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request 
(ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2032.2), and a copy 
may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Collection 
Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-
1672. 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 final information requirements are based on notifications, 
records, and reports required by the 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 under CAA section 114 (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 will be safeguarded according to Agency 
policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business 
Information.
    According to the ICR, the total 3-year monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection is 150,156 labor hours, and 
the annual average burden is 50,052 labor hours. The labor cost over 
the 3-year period is $6,950,959, or $2,316,986 per year. The annualized 
capital cost for monitoring equipment is $25,869. Annual operation and 
maintenance costs are $664,622 over 3 years, averaging $221,541 per 
year. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating 
compliance, annual compliance certification 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 purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose 
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing 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. The OMB 
control number(s) for the information collection requirements in the 
final rule will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 or 48 CFR 
chapter 15 in a subsequent Federal Register document after OMB approves 
the ICR.

[[Page 19088]]

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare 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 final 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 final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose 
parent company has a maximum of 1,000 employees according to Small 
Business Administration (SBA) size standards (NAICS 325181, Alkalies 
and Chlorine Manufacturing, and NAICS 325188, All Other Basic Inorganic 
Chemical Manufacturing); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 
a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that the final rule 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 final rule on small businesses 
within the industries affected by the final 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. For more information, consult the docket for this project.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
generally must prepare a written statement, including 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 an EPA 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 final 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 with other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if we publish 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, we 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 the final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the final rule 
for any year has been estimated to be approximately $6.2 million. Thus, 
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the final 
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon 
them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (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'' are 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.''
    The final 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. The standards apply only to HCl 
producers and do not pre-exempt States from adopting more stringent 
standards or otherwise regulate State or local governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (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.''
    The final 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 the final rule.

[[Page 19089]]

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives that we considered.
    The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 
is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 
13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on 
health and safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 
5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The 
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in our 
regulatory 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 us to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when we do 
not use available and applicable VCS.
    The final rule involves technical standards. We are citing the 
following methods in the final rule: 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 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 Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0057 for the final rule.
    This search for emission measurement procedures identified eight 
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the final rule. 
The EPA determined that six of these eight standards were impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule. 
Therefore, the final rule does not 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 the final 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 (2001), ``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 the final 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 
Cl2 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 Cl2 gas so that they can 
be selectively absorbed, analyzed, and reported separately. In 
addition, in EN 1911 the absorption efficiency for Cl2 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 the final rule 
because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed 
to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3154-00, 
``Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' 
for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, and 4; ASTM 3796-90 (1998), ``Standard 
Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,'' for EPA Method 2; and 
ASTM E337-84 (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 the final 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).
    Section 63.9020 to subpart NNNNN lists the EPA testing methods 
included in the final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.8 of subpart A, a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place 
of any of the EPA testing methods.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec.  801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the final rule must submit a rule report, which includes a 
copy of the final rule, to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report 
containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S. 
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General 
of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. The final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on April 17, 2003.

[[Page 19090]]

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: February 28, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, 
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
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?
63.8985 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

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

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Performance Test Requirements 
for HCl Production Affected Sources
Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart NNNNN

What This Subpart Covers


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 hazardous air 
pollutants (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 produces a liquid HCl product at a 
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater during its normal 
operations and is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP. 
This does not include HCl production facilities that only produce 
occasionally liquid HCl product at a concentration of 30 weight percent 
or greater.
    (1) An HCl production facility is the collection of unit operations 
and equipment associated with the production of liquid HCl product. The 
HCl production facility begins at the point where a gaseous stream 
containing HCl enters the HCl production unit. The HCl production 
facility includes all HCl storage tanks that contain liquid HCl product 
that is produced in the HCl production unit, with the exceptions noted 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The HCl production facility also 
includes all HCl transfer operations that load HCl product produced in 
the HCl production unit into a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge, 
along with the piping and other equipment in HCl service used to 
transfer liquid HCl product from the HCl production unit to the HCl 
storage tanks and/or HCl transfer operations. The HCl production 
facility ends at the point that the liquid HCl product produced in the 
HCl production unit is loaded into a tank truck, rail car, ship, or 
barge, at the point the HCl product enters another process on the plant 
site, or at the point the HCl product leaves the plant site via 
pipeline.
    (2) Storage tanks that are dedicated feedstock tanks for another 
process and storage tanks that store HCl dedicated for use in 
wastewater treatment are not considered part of an HCl production 
facility.
    (3) 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) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it 
is also subject to NESHAP under one of the subparts listed in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) 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.
    (5) 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, National Emission Standards for 
Pharmaceuticals Production.
    (c) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it 
is located following the incineration of chlorinated waste gas streams, 
waste liquids, or solid wastes, and the emissions from the HCl 
production facility are subject to one of the requirements listed in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Section 63.113(c), subpart G, National Emission Standards for 
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical

[[Page 19091]]

Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer 
Operations, and Wastewater.
    (2) Section 264.343(b), Standards for Owners and Operators of 
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (subpart O, 
Incinerators).
    (3) Section 266.107, subpart H, Burning of Hazardous Waste in 
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
    (d) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it 
produces HCl through the direct synthesis of hydrogen and chlorine and 
is part of a chlor-alkali facility.
    (e) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if it 
is a research and development facility.
    (f) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if 
all of the gaseous streams containing HCl and chlorine (Cl2) 
from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl transfer operations 
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 group of one or more HCl production 
facilities at a plant site that are subject to this subpart, and all 
associated wastewater operations, which contain 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) Each emission stream resulting from leaks from equipment in 
HCl/Cl2 service.
    (5) Each emission stream from HCl wastewater operations. There are 
no emission limitations or other requirements in this subpart that 
apply to HCl wastewater operations.
    (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 April 17, 2003, you 
must comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards 
in this subpart no later than April 17, 2003.
    (2) If you start up your affected source after April 17, 2003, 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 April 17, 2003.
    (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.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards


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

    (a) With the exceptions noted in paragraph (c) of this section, you 
must meet the applicable emission limit and work practice standard in 
Table 1 to this subpart for each emission stream listed under Sec.  
63.8990(b)(1) through (4) that is part of your affected source.
    (b) With the exceptions noted in paragraph (c) of this section, you 
must meet the applicable operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart for 
each emission stream listed under Sec.  63.8990(b)(1) through (3) that 
is part of your affected source.
    (c) The emission streams listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section are exempt from the emission limitations, work practice 
standards, and all other requirements of this subpart.
    (1) Emission streams from HCl storage tanks that never store liquid 
HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater.
    (2) Emission streams from HCl transfer operations that never load 
liquid HCl product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or 
greater.
    (3) Emission streams from HCl wastewater operations.

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) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
    (d) All monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated, 
maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's specifications or 
other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the 
equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately. For each 
monitoring system required in this section, you must develop, 
implement, and submit to the Administrator a site-specific monitoring 
plan that addresses the installation requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (3) of this section, the ongoing procedures in paragraphs 
(d)(4) through (6) of this section, and the requirements in Sec.  
63.9025, as applicable. You must submit the plan with your Notification 
of Compliance Status. Upon request of the Administrator, you must 
promptly correct any deficiencies in a site-specific monitoring plan 
and submit the revised plan.
    (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).
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures in 
accordance with the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), 
(4)(ii), (7), and (8), and 63.9025.

[[Page 19092]]

    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d).
    (6) 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 within 180 calendar days after 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 April 17, 2003, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with either the proposed emission limitation or the 
promulgated emission limitation no later than 180 calendar days after 
April 17, 2003 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 the earlier of your title V 
operating permit renewal or within 5 years of issuance of your title V 
permit.
    (b) You must report the results of subsequent 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 limits 
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 as directed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(4) of this section, except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section.
    (1) You must develop a site-specific test plan according to Sec.  
63.7(c)(2) and conduct each performance test according to the site-
specific test plan.
    (2) 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.
    (3) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (4) 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.
    (b) If you are complying with a percent reduction emission 
limitation, you must determine the percent reduction in accordance with 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP03.000

    (1) Calculate the mass rate of either HCl or chlorine using 
Equations 1 and 2 of this section:

where:
Ci, Co = Concentration of HCl or Cl2 
in the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device(s), 
respectively, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Ei, Eo = Mass rate of HCl or Cl2 at 
the inlet and outlet of the control device(s), respectively, dry basis, 
kilogram per hour.
Mi, Mo = Molecular weight of HCl or 
Cl2 at the inlet and outlet of the control device(s), 
respectively, gram/gram-mole.
Qi, Qo = Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and 
outlet of the control device(s), respectively, dry standard cubic meter 
per minute.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per million)\-
1\ (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/hour), 
where standard temperature (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 
20[deg]C.
    (2) Calculate the percent reduction of HCl or Cl2 using 
Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP03.001

where:
R = Control efficiency of control device(s).
Ei = Mass rate of HCl or Cl2 to the inlet to the 
control device(s), kilograms per hour.
Eo = Mass rate of HCl or Cl2 at the outlet of the 
control device(s), kilograms per hour.
    (c) You may prepare a design evaluation in lieu of conducting a 
performance test for HCl storage tanks and HCl transfer operations that 
are not routed to a control device that also controls HCl process vent 
emissions or any other continuous vent stream. The design evaluation 
shall include documentation demonstrating that the control technique 
being used achieves the required control efficiency when a liquid HCl 
product with a concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is being 
loaded into the storage tank, or a tank truck, rail car, ship, or 
barge.
    (1) If you use a caustic scrubber control device or a water 
scrubber control device, the design evaluation shall address the vent 
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, 
scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the 
reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The 
design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent concentration 
level and shall include the additional information in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section for trays and a packed column 
scrubber.
    (i) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays.
    (ii) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column and 
for individual packed sections, if the column contains more than one 
packed section.
    (2) If you use any other control device, the design evaluation 
shall address the composition and HAP concentration of the vent stream 
immediately preceding the control device, as well as other parameters 
necessary to demonstrate that the control technique being used achieves 
the required control efficiency when a liquid HCl product with a 
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is being loaded into the 
storage tank, or a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge.
    (d) You are not required to conduct a performance test for an 
emission point for which a performance test was conducted within the 
previous 5-year period, using the same test methods specified in this 
section and for which either no deliberate process changes have been 
made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the 
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably 
demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The operating limits 
reported under the previous performance test shall be sufficient to 
meet the monitoring requirements in this subpart.
    (e) You must establish all operating limits with which you will 
demonstrate

[[Page 19093]]

continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits in Table 1 to 
this subpart as described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) If you use a caustic scrubber control device or water scrubber 
control device and you conduct a performance test, you must establish 
operating limits according to paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. If a series of control devices are used, you must establish 
separate operating limits for each device.
    (i) You must establish the minimum value as the operating limit for 
scrubber inlet liquid or recirculating liquid flow rate, as 
appropriate. The minimum value shall be based on the scrubber inlet 
liquid or recirculating liquid flow rate, as appropriate, values 
measured during the performance test.
    (ii) You must establish the minimum and maximum values as the 
operating limits for scrubber effluent pH. The minimum and maximum 
values shall be based on the scrubber effluent pH values measured 
during the performance test.
    (2) If you use any other control device and you conduct a 
performance test, you must establish operating limits according to your 
site-specific test plan submitted in accordance with Sec.  
63.7(c)(2)(i). The operating limits shall be based on the operating 
parameter values measured during the performance test. If a series of 
control devices are used, you must establish separate operating limits 
for each device.
    (3) If you do not conduct a performance test for a HCl storage tank 
or HCl transfer operation, you must use engineering assessments and/or 
manufacturer's recommendations to establish the operating limits 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii), or (e)(2), of this section.
    (4) As needed in applicability determinations, you must use ASTM 
E224 to determine the HCl concentration in liquid products.


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(d) to monitor, you must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) You must operate your CMS and collect data 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 operating 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 or, where data are collected from an automated 
CMS, using at least one measured value per minute if measured more 
frequently than once per minute.
    (5) You must calculate the daily average using all of the hourly 
averages calculated according to paragraph (a)(4) 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 scrubber control devices, you may request approval, in 
accordance with Sec.  63.8(f), to monitor parameters other than those 
specified in Sec.  63.9020(e). In accordance with Sec.  63.8(f), you 
must submit a monitoring plan to the Administrator and the plan must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section. You must 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.
    (c) For any other control device, you must ensure that the CMS 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 (c)(1) through (3) of this section. 
You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to 
the Administrator, as amended, 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 or recirculating 
liquid flow rate, as appropriate.
    (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(c) 
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 reasonably preventable 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

[[Page 19094]]

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 to this subpart, respectively, 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 start up your affected 
source before April 17, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification 
not later than 120 calendar days after April 17, 2003.
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(4), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after April 17, 2003, you must 
submit the application for construction or reconstruction required by 
Sec.  63.9(b)(1)(iii) in lieu of the initial notification.
    (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 (2) 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.


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) of this section.
    (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 CMS was out-of-
control in accordance with the monitoring plan, a statement that there 
were no periods during which the CMS 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 were not taken.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CMS 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 CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.

[[Page 19095]]

    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS 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 CMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS 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 CMS, 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 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) through (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) Copies of the current versions of the site-specific monitoring 
plan and the equipment LDAR plan. You also must submit copies of these 
plans and any revisions or updates to the Administrator for comment 
only (not for approval).


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, or readily accessible from 
on site through a computer or other means, 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. Records may be 
maintained in hard copy or computer-readable format including, but not 
limited to, on paper, microfilm, hard disk drive, floppy disk, compact 
disk, magnetic tape, or microfiche.
    (d) You must keep each previous (i.e., superseded) version of the 
site-specific monitoring plan and the LDAR plan for a period of 5 years 
after revision of the plan. If, at any time after adoption of a site-
specific monitoring plan or an LDAR plan, your affected source ceases 
operation or is otherwise no longer subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, you must retain a copy of the most recent plan for 5 years 
from the date your source ceases operation or is no longer subject to 
this subpart.

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 Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


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) of this 
section that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies 
are as follows.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.8980, 
63.8985, 63.8990, 63.8995, and 63.9000.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes 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 and in this section as follows:
    Caustic scrubber control device means any add-on device that mixes 
an aqueous stream or slurry containing a caustic substance with the 
exhaust gases from an HCl process vent, HCl storage

[[Page 19096]]

tank, or HCl transfer operation to control emissions of HCl and/or 
Cl2.
    Chlor-alkali facility means a facility where chlorine and sodium or 
potassium hydroxide are produced as co-products and hydrogen is 
produced as a by-product in an electrolytic process using either 
mercury cells, diaphragm cells, or membrane cells.
    Continuous monitoring system, for purposes of the final rule, means 
liquid flow monitoring devices that meet the performance specifications 
given in Sec.  63.9025(a); or pH monitoring devices that meet the 
performance specifications given in Sec.  63.9025(a); or other control 
devices as mentioned in 63.9025(a) and (b) or Sec.  63.9025(a) and (c).
    Control device means an add-on device used to reduce HCl and/or 
Cl2 emissions from an HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, or 
HCl transfer operation at an HCl production facility. An HCl production 
unit is not a control device.
    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 or work 
practice standard;
    (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 or work practice standard 
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.
    Emission stream means a gaseous stream from an HCl process vent, an 
HCl storage tank, an HCl transfer operation, leaking equipment in HCl 
service, or HCl wastewater operations that is discharged to the 
atmosphere. Gaseous streams from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, 
and HCl transfer operations that are routed to another process or 
recycled for reaction or other use (i.e., for pH control) of the HCl 
and/or Cl2 are not emission streams. Gaseous streams from 
HCl transfer operations that are vapor balanced to an HCl storage tank 
subject to this subpart are not emission streams.
    Equipment in HCl service means each pump, compressor, agitator, 
pressure relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or 
line, valve, connector, and instrumentation system that contains 30 
weight percent or greater of liquid HCl or 5 weight percent or greater 
of gaseous HCl at any time.
    HCl process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere, or 
point of entry into a control device, of a gaseous stream that 
originates from an HCl production unit. The following points of 
discharge are not HCl process vents:
    (1) A leak from equipment in HCl service subject to this subpart.
    (2) An exit from a control device used to comply with this subpart.
    (3) An HCl storage tank vent or HCl transfer operation vent subject 
to this subpart.
    (4) A HCl wastewater operation vent subject to this subpart.
    (5) A point of discharge from a relief valve.
    (6) A point of discharge from an analyzer.
    HCl production facility is defined in Sec.  63.8985(a)(i).
    HCl production unit means an absorber or other vessel in which a 
liquid HCl product is manufactured by absorbing gaseous HCl into either 
water or an aqueous HCl solution.
    HCl storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store 
liquid HCl product. Tanks or vessels permanently attached to motor 
vehicles (such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships) are not HCl 
storage tanks.
    HCl transfer operation means the loading, into a tank truck, 
railcar, ship, or barge, of liquid HCl from a transfer (or loading) 
rack (as defined in this section) for which the predominant use is 
liquid HCl. The predominant use of a transfer (or loading) rack is the 
material that is loaded by the transfer (or loading) rack in the 
greatest amount.
    HCl wastewater operation means an operation that handles and 
processes water containing HCl that is discarded from an HCl production 
facility.
    Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road 
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that 
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, 
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
    Research and development facility means laboratory and pilot plant 
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development 
into new processes and products, where the operations are under close 
supervision of technically trained personnel, and the operations are 
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale, except 
in a de minimis manner.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2 of this chapter.
    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, railcars, ships, and/or barges. Transfer rack includes the 
associated pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other 
piping and valves.
    Vapor balanced means connected to a piping system that is designed 
to collect vapors displaced from tank trucks, rail cars, ships, or 
barges during loading, and to route the collected vapors to the storage 
vessel from which the liquid being loaded originated, or to another 
storage vessel connected by a common header.
    Vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere or to a control 
device from either an HCl process vent, an HCl storage tank, or an HCl 
transfer operation.
    Water scrubber control device means any add-on device that mixes an 
aqueous stream not containing a caustic substance with the exhaust 
gases from an HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, or HCl transfer 
operation to control emissions of HCl and/or Cl2.

Tables to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63

    As stated in Sec.  63.9000(a), you must comply with the following 
emission limits and work practice standards for each emission stream 
that is part of an affected source:

 Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--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 process   a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99
 vent at an existing source.              percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 20 ppm
                                          by volume or less; and

[[Page 19097]]

 
                                         b. Reduce Cl2 emissions by 99
                                          percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 100
                                          ppm by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
2. Emission stream from an HCl storage   Reduce HCl emissions by 99
 tank at an existing source.              percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 120
                                          ppm by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
3. Emission stream from an HCl transfer  Reduce HCl emissions by 99
 operation at an existing source.         percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 120
                                          ppm by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
4. Emission stream from leaking          a. Prepare and operate at all
 equipment in HCl/Cl2 service at          times according to an
 existing sources.                        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. Submit the plan to the
                                          Administrator for comment only
                                          with your notification of
                                          Compliance Status; and
                                         c. You may incorporate by
                                          reference in such plan
                                          existing manuals that describe
                                          the measures in place to
                                          control leaking equipment
                                          emissions required as part of
                                          other federally enforceable
                                          requirements, provided that
                                          all manuals that are
                                          incorporated by reference are
                                          submitted to the
                                          Administrator.
----------------------------------------
5. Emission stream from an HCl process   a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99.4
 vent at a new source.                    percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 12 ppm
                                          by volume or less; and
                                         b. Reduce Cl2 emissions by 99.8
                                          percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 20 ppm
                                          by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
6. Emission stream from an HCl storage   Reduce HCl emissions by 99.9
 tank at a new source.                    percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 12 ppm
                                          by volume or less.
----------------------------------------
7. Emission stream from an HCl transfer  Reduce HCl emissions by 99
 operation at a new source.               percent or greater or to an
                                          outlet concentration of 120
                                          ppm by volume or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.9000(b), you must comply with the following 
operating limits for each emission stream that is part of an affected 
source that is vented to a control device:

         Table 2 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Caustic scrubber or water scrubber/   a. Maintain the daily average
 absorber.                                scrubber inlet liquid or
                                          recirculating liquid flow
                                          rate, as appropriate, above
                                          the operating limit; and
                                         b. Maintain the daily average
                                          scrubber effluent pH within
                                          the operating limits; or
                                         c. Instead of a. and b.,
                                          maintain your operating
                                          parameter(s) within the
                                          operating limits established
                                          according to your monitoring
                                          plan established under Sec.
                                          63.8(f).
----------------------------------------
2. Other type of control device to       Maintain your operating
 which HCl emissions are ducted.          parameter(s) within the limits
                                          established during the
                                          performance test and according
                                          to your monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.9020, you must comply with the following 
requirements for performance tests for HCl production for each affected 
source:

 Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
                     HCl Production Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each HCl process vent
  and each HCl storage tank
 and HCl transfer operation                              Additional
for which you are conducting       Using . . .        Information . . .
a performance test, you must
            . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port       a. Method 1 or 1A in  i. If complying with
 location(s) and the number    appendix A to 40      a percent reduction
 of traverse points.           CFR part 60 of this   emission
                               chapter.              limitation,
                                                     sampling sites must
                                                     be located at the
                                                     inlet and outlet of
                                                     the control device
                                                     prior to any
                                                     releases to the
                                                     atmosphere (or, if
                                                     a series of control
                                                     devices are used,
                                                     at the inlet of the
                                                     first control
                                                     device and at the
                                                     outlet of the final
                                                     control device
                                                     prior to any
                                                     releases to the
                                                     atmosphere); or
                                                    ii. If complying
                                                     with an outlet
                                                     concentration
                                                     emission
                                                     limitation, the
                                                     sampling site must
                                                     be located at the
                                                     outlet of the final
                                                     control device and
                                                     prior to any
                                                     releases to the
                                                     atmosphere.
-----------------------------

[[Page 19098]]

 
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    a. Not applicable...  i. Assume a
 weight.                                             molecular weight of
                                                     29 (after moisture
                                                     correction) for
                                                     calculation
                                                     purposes.
-----------------------------
4. Measure moisture content   Method 4 in appendix
 of the stack gas.             A to 40 CFR part 60
                               of this chapter.
-----------------------------
5. Measure HCl concentration  a. Method 26A in      i. An owner or
 and Cl2 concentration from    Appendix A to 40      operator may be
 HCl process vents.            CFR part 60 of this   exempted from
                               chapter.              measuring the Cl2
                                                     concentration from
                                                     an HCl process vent
                                                     provided that a
                                                     demonstration that
                                                     Cl2 is not likely
                                                     to be present in
                                                     the stream is
                                                     submitted as part
                                                     of the site-
                                                     specific test plan
                                                     required by Sec.
                                                     63.9020(a)(2). This
                                                     demonstration may
                                                     be based on process
                                                     knowledge,
                                                     engineering
                                                     judgement, or
                                                     previous test
                                                     results.
-----------------------------
6. Establish operating
 limits with which you will
 demonstrate continuous
 compliance with the
 emission limits in Table 1
 to this subpart, in
 accordance with Sec.
 63.9020(e)(1) or (2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

 Table 4 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                 Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following
                                emission limit or         You have
       For each . . .             work practice     demonstrated initial
                                 standard . . .      compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. HCl process vent and each  a. In Table 1 to      i. The average
 HCl storage tank and HCl      this subpart.         percent reduction
 transfer operation for                              of HCl and Cl2 (if
 which you are conducting a                          applicable),
 performance test.                                   measured over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     performance test
                                                     conducted according
                                                     to Table 3 of this
                                                     subpart and
                                                     determined in
                                                     accordance with
                                                     Sec.   63.9020(b),
                                                     is greater than or
                                                     equal to the
                                                     applicable percent
                                                     reduction emission
                                                     limitation
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     1 of this subpart;
                                                     or
                                                    ii. 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 or equal to
                                                     the applicable
                                                     concentration
                                                     emission limitation
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     1 of this subpart.
-----------------------------
2. HCl storage tank and HCl   a. In Table 1 to      i. The percent
 transfer operation for        this subpart.         reduction of HCl,
 which you are preparing a                           demonstrated by a
 design evaluation in lieu                           design evaluation
 of conducting a performance                         prepared in
 test.                                               accordance with
                                                     Sec.   63.9020(c),
                                                     is greater than or
                                                     equal to the
                                                     applicable percent
                                                     reduction emission
                                                     limitation
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     1 of this subpart;
                                                     or
                                                    ii. The HCl
                                                     concentration,
                                                     demonstrated by a
                                                     design evaluation
                                                     prepared in
                                                     accordance with
                                                     Sec.   63.9020(c),
                                                     is less than or
                                                     equal to the
                                                     applicable
                                                     concentration
                                                     emission limitation
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     1 of this subpart.
-----------------------------
3. Leaking equipment........  a. In Table 1 to      i. You certify in
                               this subpart.         your Notification
                                                     of Compliance
                                                     Status that you
                                                     have developed and
                                                     implemented your
                                                     LDAR plan and
                                                     submitted it to the
                                                     Administrator for
                                                     comment only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19099]]

    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:

    Table 5 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
            Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following   You must demonstrate
                               emission limitation       continuous
       For each . . .           and work practice    compliance by . . .
                                 standard . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Affected source using a    a. In Tables 1 and 2  i. Collecting the
 caustic scrubber or water     to this subpart.      scrubber inlet
 scrubber/absorber.                                  liquid or
                                                     recirculating
                                                     liquid flow rate,
                                                     as appropriate, and
                                                     effluent pH
                                                     monitoring data
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.9025, consistent
                                                     with your
                                                     monitoring plan;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Reducing the
                                                     data to 1-hour and
                                                     daily block
                                                     averages according
                                                     to the requirements
                                                     in Sec.   63.9025;
                                                     and
                                                    iii. Maintaining the
                                                     daily average
                                                     scrubber inlet
                                                     liquid or
                                                     recirculating
                                                     liquid flow rate,
                                                     as appropriate,
                                                     above the operating
                                                     limit; and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     daily average
                                                     scrubber effluent
                                                     pH within the
                                                     operating limits.
-----------------------------
2. Affected source using any  a. In Tables 1 and 2  i. Conducting
 other control device.         to this subpart.      monitoring
                                                     according to your
                                                     monitoring plan
                                                     established under
                                                     Sec.   63.8(f) in
                                                     accordance with
                                                     Sec.   63.9025(c);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     parameter data
                                                     according to your
                                                     monitoring plan
                                                     established under
                                                     Sec.   63.8(f); and
                                                    iii. Reducing the
                                                     data to 1-hour and
                                                     daily block
                                                     averages according
                                                     to the requirements
                                                     in Sec.   63.9025;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     daily average
                                                     parameter values
                                                     within the
                                                     operating limits
                                                     established
                                                     according to your
                                                     monitoring plan
                                                     established under
                                                     Sec.   63.8(f).
-----------------------------
3. Leaking equipment          a. In Table 1 to      i. Verifying that
 affected source.              this subpart.         you continue to use
                                                     a LDAR plan; and
                                                    ii. Reporting any
                                                     instances where you
                                                     deviated from the
                                                     plan and the
                                                     corrective actions
                                                     taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

     Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          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.  any emission limitations that
                                          apply to you during the
                                          reporting period.
----------------------------------------
2. There were no periods during which    There were no periods during
 the operating parameter monitoring       which the CMS 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 SSM during the reporting  Contains the information in
 period that is not consistent with       Sec.   63.9050(f).
 your SSM plan.
----------------------------------------
6. There were periods when the           Contains the information in
 procedures in the LDAR plan were not     Sec.   63.9050(c)(7).
 followed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.9065, you must comply with the applicable 
General Provisions requirements according to the following:

[[Page 19100]]



           Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                    Requirement           Applies to Subpart 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              Yes.                             ....................
                                     abbreviations.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited             Yes.                             ....................
                                     activities;
                                     compliance date;
                                     circumvention,
                                     severability.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.5.......................  Construction/          Yes.                             ....................
                                     reconstruction
                                     applicability;
                                     applications;
                                     approvals.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Compliance with        Yes.                             ....................
                                     standards and
                                     maintenance
                                     requirements--applic
                                     ability.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4).............  Compliance dates for   Yes............................  Sec.   63.8995
                                     new or reconstructed                                    specifies
                                     sources.                                                compliance dates.
-----------------------------------
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
                                     new or reconstructed                                    specifies
                                     area sources that                                       compliance dates.
                                     become major.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).............  Compliance dates for   Yes............................  Sec.   63.8995
                                     existing sources.                                       specifies
                                                                                             compliance dates.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4).............  [Reserved]...........  Yes.                             ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).................  Compliance dates for   Yes............................  Sec.   63.8995
                                     existing area                                           specifies
                                     sources that become                                     compliance dates.
                                     major.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  [Reserved]...........  Yes.                             ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2).............  Operation and          Yes.                             ....................
                                     maintenance
                                     requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  SSM plans............  Yes.                             ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  Compliance except      Yes.                             ....................
                                     during SSM.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).............  Methods for            Yes.                             ....................
                                     determining
                                     compliance.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(g)....................  Use of an alternative  Yes.                             ....................
                                     nonopacity emission
                                     standard.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  Compliance with        No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     opacity/visible                                         not specify opacity
                                     emission standards.                                     or visible emission
                                                                                             standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(i)....................  Extension of           Yes.                             ....................
                                     compliance with
                                     emission standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Presidential           Yes.                             ....................
                                     compliance exemption.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2).............  Performance test       Yes............................  Except for existing
                                     dates.                                                  affected sources as
                                                                                             specified in Sec.
                                                                                             63.9010(b).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).................  Administrator's Clean  Yes.                             ....................
                                     Air Act section 114
                                     authority to require
                                     a performance test.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(b)....................  Notification of        Yes.                             ....................
                                     performance test and
                                     rescheduling.
-----------------------------------

[[Page 19101]]

 
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 ofperformance   Yes.                             ....................
                                     tests.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(3).............  Applicability of       Yes............................  Additional
                                     monitoring                                              monitoring
                                     requirements.                                           requirements are
                                                                                             found in Sec.
                                                                                             63.9005(d) and
                                                                                             63.9035.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).................  Monitoring with        No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     flares.                                                 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
                                     system O&M.                                             by Sec.
                                                                                             63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous monitoring  Yes............................  Applies as modified
                                     system requirements                                     by Sec.
                                     during breakdown,                                       63.9005(d).
                                     out-of-control,
                                     repair, maintenance,
                                     and high-level
                                     calibration drifts.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).................  Continuous opacity     No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     monitoring system                                       not have opacity or
                                     (COMS) minimum                                          visible emmission
                                     procedures.                                             standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).................  Zero and high level    Yes............................  Applies as modified
                                     calibration checks.                                     by Sec.
                                                                                             63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)(8)..............  Out-of-control         Yes.                             ....................
                                     periods, including
                                     reporting.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)................  Quality control        No.............................  Applies as modified
                                     program and CMS                                         by Sec.
                                     performance                                             63.9005(d).
                                     evaluation.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5).............  Use of an alternative  Yes.                             ....................
                                     monitoring method.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).................  Alternative to         No.............................  Only applies to
                                     relative accuracy                                       sources that use
                                     test.                                                   continuous
                                                                                             emissions
                                                                                             monitoring systems
                                                                                             (CEMS).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(g)....................  Data reduction.......  Yes............................  Applies as modified
                                                                                             by Sec.
                                                                                             63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(a)....................  Notification           Yes.                             ....................
                                     requirements--applic
                                     ability.
-----------------------------------
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            Yes.                             ....................
                                     compliance extension.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(d)....................  Notification that a    Yes.                             ....................
                                     new source is
                                     subject to special
                                     compliance
                                     requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(e)....................  Notification of        Yes.                             ....................
                                     performance test.
-----------------------------------

[[Page 19102]]

 
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  Notification of        No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     visible emissions/                                      not have opacity or
                                     opacity test.                                           visible emission
                                                                                             standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(g)(1).................  Additional CMS         Yes.                             ....................
                                     notifications--date
                                     of CMS 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          No............................  Applies only to
                                     relative accuracy                                       sources with CEMS.
                                     testing.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(h)....................  Notification of        Yes.                             ....................
                                     compliance status.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(i)....................  Adjustment of          Yes.                             ....................
                                     submittal deadlines.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(j)....................  Change in previous     Yes.                             ....................
                                     information.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(a)...................  Recordkeeping/         Yes.                             ....................
                                     reporting
                                     applicability.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)................  General recordkeeping  Yes............................  Sec.  Sec.   63.9055
                                     requirements.                                           and 63.9060 specify
                                                                                             additional
                                                                                             recordkeeping
                                                                                             requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi)........  Records related to     Yes.                             ....................
                                     SSM periods and CMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)...........  Records when under     Yes.                             ....................
                                     waiver.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..........  Records when using     No.............................  Applies only to
                                     alternative to                                          sources 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
                                     recordkeeping                                           by Sec.
                                     requirements for                                        63.9005(d).
                                     sources with CMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)................  General reporting      Yes............................  Sec.   63.9050
                                     requirements.                                           specifies
                                                                                             additional
                                                                                             reporting
                                                                                             requirements.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)................  Performance test       Yes.                             ....................
                                     results.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)................  Opacity or visible     No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     emissions                                               not specify opacity
                                     observations.                                           or visible emission
                                                                                             standards.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)................  Progress reports for   Yes.                             ....................
                                     sources with
                                     compliance
                                     extensions.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)................  SSM reports..........  Yes.                             ....................
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)................  Additional CMS         Yes............................  Applies as modified
                                     reports--general.                                       by Sec.
                                                                                             63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(i).............  Results of CMS         Yes............................  Applies as modified
                                     performance                                             by Sec.
                                     evaluations.                                            63.9005(d).
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)............  Results of COMS        No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     performance                                             not require the use
                                     evaluations.                                            of COMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)................  Excess emissions/CMS   Yes.                             ....................
                                     performance reports.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)................  Continuous opacity     No.............................  Subpart NNNNN does
                                     monitoring system                                       not require the use
                                     data reports.                                           of COMS.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(f)...................  Recordkeeping/         Yes.                             ....................
                                     reporting waiver.
-----------------------------------

[[Page 19103]]

 
Sec.   63.11......................  Control device         No.............................  Facilities subject
                                     requirements--applic                                    to subpart NNNNN do
                                     ability.                                                not 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
                                     reference.                                              not incorporate any
                                                                                             material by
                                                                                             reference.
-----------------------------------
Sec.   63.15......................  Availability of        Yes.                             ....................
                                     information/
                                     confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-5517 Filed 4-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P