National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production, 17738-17750 [06-3309]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2006)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 17738-17750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3309]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0057; FRL-8055-6]
RIN 2060-AM25


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Hydrochloric Acid Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid 
(HCl) production facilities, including HCl production at fume silica 
facilities. The amendments to the final rule clarify certain 
applicability provisions, emission standards, and testing, maintenance, 
and reporting requirements. The amendments also correct several 
omissions and typographical errors in the final rule. We are finalizing 
the amendments to facilitate compliance and improve understanding of 
the final rule requirements.

DATES: The final rule is effective April 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action 
including Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0057, legacy EDOCKET ID No. 
OAR-2002-0057, and legacy Docket ID No. A-99-41. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following address: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket), EPA/DC, EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This 
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 
566-1744. The Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

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 amendments, contact Mr. Randy McDonald, Coatings 
and Chemicals Group, Sectors Policies and Programs Division (C439-01), 
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 
number (919) 541-5402; fax number (919) 541-3470; electronic mail 
address: mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.

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 section 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.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's action is available on the WWW through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
the final amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a 
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit on or before June 6, 2006. Only those objections to 
the final rule which were raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. 
Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), 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.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an 
objection

[[Page 17739]]

to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may 
be raised during judicial review.'' This section also provides a 
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``if the 
person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and 
the Director of the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004.
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
    B. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Amendments 
to the Final Rule?
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
    A. Applicability
    B. Definitions
    C. Emission Standards
    D. Storage Tank Maintenance
    E. Notification and Reporting Requirements
    F. Omissions and Typographical Corrections
III. Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Retesting Requirements
    C. Monitoring of pH
    D. Engineering Evaluations
    E. Compliance Date
    F. Planned Maintenance
    G. Work Practice Standards
IV. Impacts of the Final Rule
V. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
    A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. EO 13132: Federalism
    F. EO 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    G. EO 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks
    H. EO 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 EPA to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (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). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to 
emit greater than 9.07 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year 
(tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.68 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. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Amendments to the 
Final Rule?

    The final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 
2003 (68 FR 19076). The final rule contains emission limitations and 
standards applicable to HCl and chlorine (Cl2). These limits 
apply to each new or existing HCl process vent, HCl storage tank, HCl 
transfer operation, and leaks from equipment in HCl service located at 
a major source of HAP. Following promulgation of the final rule, EPA 
became aware of certain aspects of the applicability provisions, 
emission standards, and testing, maintenance, and reporting 
requirements that required clarification along with several omissions 
and typographical errors in the final rule that required correction. On 
August 24, 2005, we published proposed amendments (70 FR 49530) to 
address these issues and sought public comment on the proposed 
amendments. Today's action finalizes those clarifications and 
corrections. The preamble to the proposed amendments discussed the 
availability of technical support documents, which described in detail 
the information gathered during the standards development process.
    We received four public comment letters on the proposed amendments. 
The commenters represent HCl producers and industrial trade 
associations. All of the comments have been carefully considered, and, 
where appropriate, changes have been made for the amendments to the 
final rule.

II. Summary of the Final Amendments

    We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN, to 
change the applicability provisions, to clarify testing, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements, and to correct inadvertent omissions and 
typographical errors. A summary of each of the amendments to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart NNNNN, and the rationale for each is presented below.

A. Applicability

    In order to avoid regulatory overlap, the HCl Production NESHAP 
exempt certain HCl production facilities that are part of other source 
categories and subject to other Federal standards. We intended the HCl 
Production NESHAP to cover only those HCl production facilities that 
were not subject to any other NESHAP and not to cover those HCl 
production facilities that were subject to other NESHAP. Today's final 
amendments adjust the applicability provisions to rectify three 
situations that came to our attention after promulgation of the HCl 
Production NESHAP in which this intent was not satisfied.
    First, the final amendments will address the HCl Production 
NESHAP's exemptions for HCl production facilities that are subject to 
certain other regulations, including 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE (the 
Hazardous Waste Combustors NESHAP), and 40 CFR 266.107, subpart H 
(regulations issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
governing the Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial 
Furnaces). As worded in the final rule, the exemptions were overly 
broad, because neither of the above final rules covers emissions of HCl 
from HCl storage tanks, HCl transfer operations, or leaks from 
equipment in HCl service at these facilities. This leaves these 
emission points not subject to any Federal standards, which was not our 
intent. Therefore, we are amending subpart NNNNN of 40 CFR part 63 to 
exempt facilities that are subject to subpart EEE of 40 CFR part 63 or 
subpart H of 40 CFR part 266 and that meet the applicability 
requirements of subpart NNNNN from only the HCl process vent provisions 
of subpart NNNNN, rather than from all of the requirements of subpart 
NNNNN. Because the purpose of 40 CFR 63.8985(b) and (c) is to provide 
exemptions from all of the requirements

[[Page 17740]]

of subpart NNNNN for entire HCl production facilities subject to 
certain other rules, we are removing 40 CFR 63.8985(b)(4) and (c)(3) to 
eliminate the overly broad exemptions and instead are adding new 
paragraphs to 40 CFR 63.9000(c) to accomplish the exemptions. The 
purpose of 40 CFR 63.9000(c) is to exempt certain emission streams from 
subpart NNNNN. Under 40 CFR 63.9000(c), plants that are subject to 
subpart EEE of 40 CFR part 63 or subpart H of 40 CFR part 266 and that 
meet the other applicability provisions of subpart NNNNN would be 
affected sources under subpart NNNNN but would be exempt from the 
process vents provisions of subpart NNNNN.
    Second, the amendments revise the HCl Production NESHAP's 
exemptions for specific emission streams to eliminate duplicative 
regulation. Some emission points that are not themselves subject to 
subpart EEE of 40 CFR part 63 have their emissions controlled under 
subpart EEE because their emissions are routed directly through 
equipment that is subject to subpart EEE (e.g., an HCl process vent 
emission stream routed to a hazardous waste combustor (HWC) for use as 
supplemental combustion air). Currently, these emissions (e.g., from 
the combustor) are regulated by both subpart EEE and subpart NNNNN of 
40 CFR part 63. To rectify this situation, we are adding a new 
paragraph to 40 CFR 63.9000(c) to include an emission stream-specific 
exemption for HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl transfer 
operations that are routed directly to HWC units subject to subpart 
EEE. This means that HCl production facility emission streams that are 
routed to subpart EEE HWC units are exempt from the requirements of 
subpart NNNNN.
    Finally, the amendments remove the HCl Production NESHAP's 
exemption for HCl production facilities subject to 40 CFR 264.343(b), 
subpart O (Incinerators), which will no longer be necessary. A 
combustor that burns hazardous waste and meets the subpart NNNNN of 40 
CFR part 63 definition of an HCl production facility would be defined 
as a halogen acid furnace (currently subject to 40 CFR 266.107, subpart 
H, and that will be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, on the 
compliance date (October 14, 2008) of EPA's final rule promulgated on 
October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402)), not an incinerator (subject to 40 CFR 
264.343(b), subpart O). As discussed above, we are amending the 
applicability provisions of the HCl Production NESHAP to properly 
address HCl production facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 266, 
subpart H. Therefore, the exemption for 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, is 
no longer necessary, and we are removing 40 CFR 63.8985(c)(2), which 
provided this exemption. Consequently, we are incorporating the 
exemption provided in 40 CFR 63.8985(c)(1) into 40 CFR 63.8985(c), and, 
thus, removing 40 CFR 63.8985(c)(1).

B. Definitions

    We are clarifying the meaning of ``equipment in HCl service,'' 
which is defined in the HCl Production NESHAP as ``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'' (40 CFR 
63.9075). This definition could be interpreted to include equipment 
that is located at the same plant site as an ``HCl production 
facility'' (40 CFR 63.8985(a)(1)) but is not part of the HCl production 
facility. We intended to include only equipment that meets the above 
definition and is located within an HCl production facility. Therefore, 
we are amending the definition of ``equipment in HCl service'' in 40 
CFR 63.9075 to clarify that the definition applies only to equipment 
within an HCl production facility.

C. Emission Standards

    The HCl Production NESHAP specify the emission limits for existing 
and new HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl transfer 
operations in two forms--a percent reduction and an outlet 
concentration--and allows HCl production facilities to comply with 
either one. However, the wording of the emission limits could be 
construed to require the use of an add-on control device even when an 
emission point meets the outlet concentration emission limit without an 
add-on control device. It was not our intent to require add-on control 
devices when they are unnecessary for compliance. Although a percent 
reduction emission limit would need to be achieved through the use of 
an add-on control device, we recognize that an outlet concentration 
emission limit could be achieved through other means (e.g., process 
changes, pollution prevention). Therefore, we are amending table 1 to 
subpart NNNNN of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify that it is not necessary to 
use an add-on control device in order to meet the outlet concentration 
form of the emission limits. In addition, we are amending tables 3 and 
5 to subpart NNNNN to specify the sampling port location and continuous 
compliance requirements, respectively, for sources that are not 
equipped with an add-on control device. Also, we are amending 40 CFR 
63.9015(a) to require that emission points meeting the outlet 
concentration limits without the use of a control device conduct 
subsequent performance tests when process changes are made that could 
reasonably be expected to change the outlet concentration. Finally, we 
are amending 40 CFR 63.9050 by adding paragraph (c)(9), which specifies 
that compliance reports must include verification that no process 
changes that could reasonably be expected to change the outlet 
concentration have been made since the last performance test.

D. Storage Tank Maintenance

    The HCl Production NESHAP are silent on the issue of how 
maintenance is to be conducted on HCl storage tank control devices. 
This could lead to uncertainty over whether an HCl storage tank would 
need to be emptied before the associated control device could be 
disconnected for maintenance purposes. It was not our intent that an 
HCl storage tank would need to be emptied prior to maintenance because 
the standing losses associated with a full or partially-full HCl 
storage tank are low, when compared to the emissions that occur from 
filling and emptying the tank. To clarify our intent, we are amending 
40 CFR 63.9000, by adding paragraph (d), to allow HCl production 
facilities to perform planned routine maintenance on each HCl storage 
tank control device for up to 240 hours per year without emptying the 
contents of the tank. During this time, the storage tank emission 
limitations would not apply. Also, we are amending 40 CFR 63.9050, by 
adding paragraph (c)(10), and 40 CFR 63.9055, by adding paragraph 
(b)(6), to specify the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
planned routine maintenance events. These provisions are consistent 
with other NESHAP to which plant sites containing HCl production 
facilities may be subject.

E. Notification and Reporting Requirements

1. Notification of Compliance Status
    The HCl Production NESHAP require the submission of a Notification 
of Compliance Status (NOCS) to the Administrator when a performance 
test is conducted (40 CFR 63.9045(a), table 7 to subpart NNNNN of 40 
CFR part 63, and 40 CFR 63.9(h)). It could be interpreted that 40 CFR 
63.9045(e) and (f) require the submission of a separate NOCS for each 
performance test that is conducted (e.g., on each emission

[[Page 17741]]

point). It is more efficient and no less effective for HCl production 
facilities to submit one NOCS for the entire affected source, rather 
than one NOCS for each emission point tested, and it was not our intent 
to require unnecessary paperwork. Therefore, we are amending 40 CFR 
63.9045 to change the submission procedures for NOCS. We will allow 
NOCS to be submitted within 240 calendar days of the compliance dates 
for subpart NNNNN of 40 CFR part 63. The final amendments allow for the 
submission of only one NOCS per affected source because the 
notification is due 60 days after all performance tests are required to 
be conducted. We are also amending table 7 to subpart NNNNN to reflect 
this change to the NOCS submission procedures.
2. Monitoring and Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Plans
    The HCl Production NESHAP require submission of the initial site-
specific monitoring (40 CFR 63.9005(d)) and LDAR (LDAR; table 1 to 
subpart NNNNN of 40 CFR part 63) plans to the Administrator with a 
source's NOCS. The final rule does not, however, specify when or how 
revisions to these plans should be submitted, only that they should be 
submitted (40 CFR 63.9055(b)(5)). Submission of revisions to these 
plans is most efficiently done in conjunction with the semi-annual 
compliance report required by 40 CFR 63.9050. Therefore, we are 
amending 40 CFR 63.9050(c) by adding paragraph (c)(8) to require 
submission of revisions to site-specific monitoring plans and LDAR 
plans with semi-annual compliance reports, if revisions have been made 
during the reporting period.

F. Omissions and Typographical Corrections

    We are adding an exemption which was inadvertently omitted from the 
HCl Production NESHAP. In the preamble to the final rule (68 FR 19082), 
we indicated that we would include an exemption for HCl production 
facilities subject to 40 CFR 63.994, subpart SS. Because this exemption 
was not included in the final rule text, we are amending the rule to 
include it. Because we are removing 40 CFR 63.8985(b)(4), we are 
replacing it with the exemption for 40 CFR 63.994, subpart SS.
    We are removing the phrase ``/Cl2'' from 40 CFR 
63.8990(b)(4) to reflect a change made between the proposed rule and 
the final rule which was retained incorrectly in the final rule. The 
proposed rule used the term ``in HCl/Cl2 service,'' but we 
wrote this term as ``equipment in HCl service'' in the final rule. We 
are making the same change in the first column of table 1, item 4, to 
subpart NNNNN of 40 CFR part 63.
    We are correcting an inaccurate reference in 40 CFR 63.9025(a) 
regarding operating parameters. The reference should be to 40 CFR 
63.9020(e), which requires operating parameters to be established, 
rather than to 40 CFR 63.9020(d). This was a typographical error in the 
final rule.
    We are correcting an inaccurate reference in the definition of 
``HCl production facility'' in 40 CFR 63.9075. The reference to 40 CFR 
63.8985(a)(i) should be to 40 CFR 63.8985(a)(1) because 40 CFR 
63.8985(a)(i) does not exist. This was a typographical error in the 
final rule.

III. Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal

    This section includes discussion of the significant comments 
received on the proposed amendments, particularly where we made changes 
to address those comments in the amendments to the final rule. For a 
complete summary of all the comments received on the proposed rule and 
our responses to them, refer to the ``RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC 
COMMENTS Received in response to Proposed amendments to National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid 
Production'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0057. The docket also 
contains the actual comment letters and supporting documentation 
developed for the final amendments.

A. Applicability

    Comment: One commenter recommends that EPA need not include 
proposed 40 CFR 63.9000(c)(4) as proposed 40 CFR 63.9000(c)(5) is more 
inclusive and includes the conditions addressed in 40 CFR 
63.9000(c)(4).
    Response: EPA agrees with the concept put forward by the commenter 
and has reworded paragraph (c)(4) to encompass the language proposed in 
paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6).

B. Retesting Requirements

    Comment: Two commenters request that EPA clarify the change 
provisions in proposed 40 CFR 63.9015(a) to explain that the provisions 
to retest process vent emissions should be tied to a change that could 
cause an increase in emissions rather than, as currently worded, 
``whenever process changes are made that could reasonably be expected 
to change the outlet concentration.'' A similar change was requested to 
the language in 40 CFR 63.9050(c)(9).
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and has made the suggested 
changes. This language is consistent with other rulemaking actions.
    Comment: One commenter requests that EPA define ``temporary process 
changes,'' in proposed 40 CFR 63.9015(a) to be changes of less than 1 
year in duration where the owner/operator believes that the source will 
continue to demonstrate compliance without changing the compliance 
demonstration method.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. As mentioned in the 
previous response, without emissions test data, no one can determine 
the effect of a change--temporary or not--on an existing facility. 
Moreover, the commenter errs by excluding the term ``unintentional'' in 
discussing ``temporary process changes.'' As written, the final rule 
identifies ``unintentional, temporary process changes'' (emphasis 
added) as not being process changes. Surely a process change lasting up 
to 1 year could not be considered unintentional. Absent any information 
as to the length of time ``unintentional temporary'' process changes 
should or could last, we have not revised the final rule.

C. Monitoring of pH

    Comment: One commenter believes that the requirement to measure the 
pH of the scrubber water as provided in 40 CFR 63.9020(e)(1) and Table 
5 to subpart NNNNN is an inappropriate operational parameter and should 
be removed from the final rule. The commenter believes that monitoring 
the water flow of the scrubber is a sufficient measurement of scrubber 
performance, as seen during performance testing. The Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1366(b)(ii)) allows for either 
minimum liquid flow rate or pressure drop to be chosen as operating 
parameters during the period in which the scrubber is controlling HAP 
from an emission stream and only requires the measurement of pH if a 
caustic scrubber is being used. The commenter believes that a rule 
change is more efficient than going through the alternative monitoring 
request process.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to replace 
monitoring of the scrubber water effluent pH with monitoring of the 
minimum liquid flow rate or pressure drop only. Apart from directly 
measuring HCl emissions, monitoring of the outlet pH of the scrubber 
water, as well as the water flow rate into the scrubber, provides the 
most complete depiction of parametric monitoring and best measure for 
process control. Parametric monitoring that provides a less certain 
depiction, and

[[Page 17742]]

corresponding level of process control, would include scrubber water 
outlet pH monitoring and flow monitoring. The least-certain depiction, 
and corresponding level of process control, would arise from monitoring 
only the scrubber water flow. Although such least-certain monitoring 
may be appropriate under certain circumstances, sources subject to the 
HCl production NESHAP may rely on techniques other than once-through 
scrubber water use. In order not to prescribe any control technique, 
source owners or operators are able to choose an approach that works 
best for them. The Pesticide NESHAP cited by the commenter differs from 
the HCl NESHAP and what is applicable for sources subject to the 
Pesticide NESHAP may not be relevant for sources subject to the HCl 
Production NESHAP. Further, the commenter fails to note that other 
standards that regulate HCl emissions require the monitoring of 
effluent pH. A more comparable example is that of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Hazardous Waste Combustors. In this NESHAP, where the HCl 
production process is very similar to that of the HCl Production 
NESHAP, monitoring of effluent pH is required whenever a wet scrubber, 
water or caustic, is used (40 CFR 63.1209(o)(3)(iv)).
    EPA is unaware of any difficulty faced by source owners or 
operators subject to the HCl Production NESHAP in getting approval for 
alternative monitoring as suggested by the commenter. In fact, at least 
two HCl Production NESHAP source owners/operators have demonstrated a 
need for an alternative monitoring technique, requested approval for 
such technique, and received approval for that technique by the 
Regional offices.

D. Engineering Evaluations

    Comment: Two commenters request that the provision allowing the use 
of engineering evaluations in lieu of emission testing, as proposed in 
40 CFR 9020(e)(3), be amended to include process vents as well as the 
currently proposed allowance for storage tanks and transfer operations. 
The commenters note that EPA has historically allowed such assessments 
for process vents in other NESHAP (e.g., 40 CFR 63.1258(b)(3)(i); 40 
CFR 63.1365(c)(3)(i)(A); 40 CFR 63.1426(f)) and continues to support 
the use of design evaluations (40 CFR 63.2450(h)).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion. The 
standards cited by the commenters all deal primarily with organic HAP, 
with HCl occurring in more limited quantities, as opposed to the 
primacy of HCl emissions encountered in the HCl Production NESHAP. The 
commenters provide no data to support their contention about use of 
engineering evaluations in lieu of emissions testing for HCl and 
Cl2 for the process vents. Design values as supplied by such 
engineering evaluations may be appropriate for small emitters (i.e., 
those below the NESHAP applicability level) as was done for at least 
some of the cited NESHAP, but substantial, uncontrolled emissions `` 
such as those that could come from process vents--should be measured.
    Again, EPA feels that a more comparable example is the Hazardous 
Waste Combustor NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE). In this standard 
(40 CFR 63.1207(m)), conservative engineering evaluations are allowed 
in lieu of emissions testing for sources that can comply with the 
emission standards assuming all chlorine in the feed is emitted as 
total chlorine (HCl + Cl2)--if the maximum theoretical 
emission concentration does not (cannot) exceed the emission standards, 
emissions testing is waived. However, HCl production furnaces could not 
comply with this waiver of the emission test because they rely on wet 
scrubbers/absorbers to produce HCl product and control emissions of 
HCl/Cl2. We believe this situation is analogous to that 
encountered in the HCl Production NESHAP where we have allowed 
engineering evaluations to be utilized for those emission sources that 
could possibly emit below the emission standard (i.e., the storage 
tanks and transfer operations) but have required emission testing for 
the emission sources that are not likely to emit below the standard 
without the use of a control device (i.e., the process vents).

E. Compliance Date

    Comment: Two commenters request that EPA clarify the deadline for 
compliance with the final rule and the dates when the initial reports 
are due in 40 CFR 63.9050(b)(1) and (2), believing that there could be 
confusion among the various entities affected by the rule concerning 
the submittal date for the first compliance report. They suggest that 
the rule language specifically state that January 31, 2007, is the date 
on which the first compliance report is due.
    Response: EPA agrees that the wording could be confusing and has 
added clarification to the language of the regulation to indicate that, 
for sources in existence on April 17, 2006, the initial compliance 
period ends June 30, 2006, and the initial compliance report is due on 
July 31, 2006.

F. Planned Maintenance

    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the planned 
maintenance advance notification requirements in proposed 40 CFR 
63.9050(c)(10)(ii) in that planned maintenance schedules are subject to 
change with little or no notice. One of the commenters believes that a 
facility could, in good faith, report advance plans of maintenance to 
the permit authority and EPA but then, due to an unforeseen change of 
plans, not conduct the planned maintenance on the proposed schedule or 
identify additional, required work that was not in the maintenance 
plan. The commenter believes that EPA should not establish a regulation 
where a decision is required to respond to plant-specific conditions 
that have no impact on emissions becomes a regulatory enforcement 
matter. The commenter believes that EPA already has sufficient 
authority through the existing startup, malfunction, and shutdown (SSM) 
provisions to review such maintenance activities without requiring the 
additional reporting required by 40 CFR 63.9050(c)(10)(ii). The other 
commenter requests that tracking of compliance with any needed 
notification requirements only be included in the required periodic 
reports (as proposed in 40 CFR 63.9050(c)(10)(i)) or that such 
reporting not be required unless a deviation of a monitoring condition 
or an exceedances of an emission limit occurs during the periodic 
reporting period. One commenter believes that the proposed requirement 
is overly burdensome and unnecessary. Further, the commenter states 
that it is not aware of any other NESHAP that requires advance 
reporting of anticipated planned routine maintenance activities on 
emission control devices.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters. In adding this 
requirement, EPA was responding to concerns that the rule language was 
unclear on whether an HCl storage tank would need to be emptied before 
the associated control device could be disconnected for maintenance 
purposes. In the proposed amendments to the final rule, EPA provided 
language that allowed owners/operators to perform maintenance on each 
HCl storage tank for up to 240 hours per year without emptying the 
storage tank. During this period, the storage tank emissions would not 
apply. The notification requirement was included to ensure that the 
recipient of the periodic reports is

[[Page 17743]]

aware of planned maintenance activities related to the HCl storage 
tanks, including the type of maintenance to be performed and the 
duration of the maintenance (which would be the length of time during 
which the emission standards would not apply). Further, EPA does not 
believe that an out-of-compliance period should suddenly become a 
``maintenance period.'' EPA does not see the dilemma the commenters 
believe themselves subject to. If a planned maintenance period does not 
occur, EPA sees no harm or liability for having reported it. EPA 
recognizes that planned maintenance activities may, on occasion, not 
occur as scheduled. In cases where an owner/operator had included 
planned maintenance in a periodic report but the maintenance did not 
occur, EPA would expect that the owner/operator would merely explain 
the situation in the next periodic report. EPA understands that 
occasionally additional unplanned maintenance needs are discovered in 
the course of a planned maintenance and believes that the regulations 
are sufficiently flexible to accommodate such circumstances. EPA 
believes that 240 hours is sufficient time to effect maintenance on HCl 
storage tank control devices. However, should planned maintenance on 
such devices require 240 or greater hours per year, the owner/operator 
would be required to drain the HCl storage tank or comply with the 
emission limits without the control device in-place.

G. Work Practice Standards

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about changes made to item 
4 in table 1 to subpart NNNNN where the term ``and new'' sources was 
added to the existing language. The commenter believes that this change 
was not discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments and that 
this addition significantly broadens the impact of the rule and should 
be justified.
    Response: Item 4 in table 1 to subpart NNNNN only addressed leaking 
equipment at existing sources. EPA acknowledges that it was an 
oversight in the regulatory language in the final rule to omit leaking 
equipment at new sources and, so as a technical correction, added ``and 
new'' to the language of item 4 in the proposed amendments. The text of 
the final rule preamble related to the emission limitations and work 
practice standards (68 FR 19079) provides discussion for process vents, 
storage tanks, and transfer operations at both new and existing 
sources. However, for leaking equipment, the text only states ``[f]or 
leaking equipment, the final rule includes a work practice standard.'' 
EPA believes that the lack of distinction between leaking equipment at 
new and existing sources is indication that the final rule applies to 
both situations. EPA sees no reason to omit new sources from having to 
address leaking equipment and does not agree with the commenter's 
concern about this adjustment ``significantly'' broadening the impact 
of the final rule.

IV. Impacts of the Final Rule

    The changes incorporated as a result of the final rule amendments 
do not change any of the impacts presented in the preamble to the final 
rule which was published at 68 FR 19076 (April 17, 2003).

V. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), EPA must determine 
whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
requirements of the EO. The EO defines a ``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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations 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 EO.
    It has been determined that today's action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of EO 12866 and is, therefore, not 
subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    OMB has approved the information collection requirements in the 
2003 NESHAP for HCl production under the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0529. At proposal, EPA prepared a revision to the currently 
approved information collection request (ICR), and made it available 
for public comment. Most of the final rule amendments are not expected 
to have an impact on the ICR burden. However, the ICR was revised 
because two of the final rule amendments are expected to change the 
burden slightly. The exemption for individual emission streams that are 
routed to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, hazardous waste combustors is 
expected to decrease the reporting and recordkeeping burden for some 
sources. The routine maintenance allowance is expected to increase the 
reporting and recordkeeping burden for all sources. Overall, the total 
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is expected to be 733 hours 
(1 percent) lower than for the final rule. No comments were received on 
the revised ICR or burden estimates.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with today's action.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's amendments on 
small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 
121.202; (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; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. The small

[[Page 17744]]

business size standard for the affected industries (NAICS 325181, 
Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing; and NAICS 325188, All Other Basic 
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing) is a maximum of 1,000 employees for 
an entity.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule 
amendments on small entities, EPA has concluded that today's action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The final rule amendments will not impose any 
requirements on small entities.

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 UMRA section 202, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of UMRA section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
UMRA section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the 
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if 
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
UMRA section 203 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide 
for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's final amendments contain no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
Tribal governments. EPA has determined that the final amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's final 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 and 
205.

E. EO 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'' is defined in the EO 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 amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
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 EO 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, EO 13132 does not 
apply to the final amendments.

F. EO 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.'' The final rule amendments do not have 
Tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. They 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. No Tribal governments own facilities 
subject to the HCl Production NESHAP. Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to 
the final amendments.

G. EO 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and 
Safety Risks

    EO 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 
(1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
EO 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, EPA must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency. EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential 
to influence the regulation. The final rule amendments are not subject 
to EO 13045 because they are based on technology performance and not on 
health or safety risks.

H. EO 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As stated in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113; 15 U.S.C 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(such as material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, or 
business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary 
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. The final rule amendments do 
not involve changes to the technical standards in the final rule. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards in the final amendments.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule my take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must

[[Page 17745]]

submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House 
of the Congress and to the comptroller General of the United States. 
EPA will submit a report containing the final rule amendments 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 amendments in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. The final rule amendments are not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule amendments will be 
effective April 7, 2006.

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: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of 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.

Subpart NNNNN--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.8985 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.8985  Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) 40 CFR part 63, section 63.994, subpart SS, National Emission 
Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices 
and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process.
* * * * *
    (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 section 63.113(c), subpart G, 
National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process 
Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.8990 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Each emission stream resulting from leaks from equipment in HCl 
service.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.9000 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c);
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(4); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (d).


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

    (a) With the exceptions noted in paragraphs (c) and (d) 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.
* * * * *
    (c) The emission streams listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of 
this section are exempt from the emission limitations, work practice 
standards, and all other requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) Emission streams from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and 
HCl transfer operations that are also subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Hazardous Waste Combustors, or 40 CFR 266.107, subpart H, Burning 
of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.
    (d) The emission limits for HCl storage tanks in table 1 to this 
subpart do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance of 
HCl storage tank control devices. Periods of planned routine 
maintenance of each HCl storage tank control device, during which the 
control device does not meet the emission limits specified in table 1 
to this subpart, shall not exceed 240 hours per year.

0
5. Section 63.9015 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


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. For emission points meeting the outlet concentration limits in 
table 1 to this subpart without the use of a control device, all 
applicable performance tests must also be conducted whenever process 
changes are made that could reasonably be expected to increase the 
outlet concentration. Examples of process changes include, but are not 
limited to, changes in production capacity, production rate, feedstock 
type, or catalyst type, or whenever there is replacement, removal, or 
addition of recovery equipment. For purposes of this paragraph, process 
changes do not include: process upsets and unintentional, temporary 
process changes.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.9025 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


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(e) to monitor, you must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.9045 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (e); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (f).


Sec.  63.9045  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, within 240 calendar days after 
the applicable compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.8995.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.9050 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(10).


Sec.  63.9050  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (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

[[Page 17746]]

following the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date 
that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.8995 (i.e., June 30, 
2006, for sources existing on April 17, 2006).
    (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 (i.e., July 31, 2006, for sources 
existing on April 17, 2006).
* * * * *
    (c) The compliance report must contain the following information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring 
plan and/or LDAR plan during the reporting period, a statement that you 
did not make any revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan and/or 
LDAR plan during the reporting period. If you made revisions to your 
site-specific monitoring plan and/or LDAR plan during the reporting 
period, a copy of the revised plan.
    (9) If you meet the outlet concentration limit in table 1 to this 
subpart without the use of a control device for any emission point, 
verification that you have not made any process changes that could 
reasonably be expected to increase the outlet concentration since your 
most recent performance test for that emission point.
    (10) The information specified in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) and (ii) of 
this section for those planned routine maintenance operations that 
caused or may cause an HCl storage tank control device not to meet the 
emission limits in table 1 to this subpart, as applicable.
    (i) A description of the planned routine maintenance that was 
performed for each HCl storage tank control device during the reporting 
period. This description shall include the type of maintenance 
performed and the total number of hours during the reporting period 
that the HCl storage tank control device did not meet the emission 
limits in table 1 to this subpart, as applicable, due to planned 
routine maintenance.
    (ii) A description of the planned routine maintenance that is 
anticipated to be performed for each HCl storage tank control device 
during the next reporting period. This description shall include the 
type of maintenance necessary, planned frequency of maintenance, and 
lengths of maintenance periods.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.9055 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.9055  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Records of the planned routine maintenance performed on each 
HCl storage tank control device including the duration of each time the 
control device does not meet the emission limits in table 1 to this 
subpart, as applicable, due to planned routine maintenance. Such a 
record shall include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) 
and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The first time of day and date the emission limits in table 1 
to this subpart, as applicable, were not met at the beginning of the 
planned routine maintenance, and
    (ii) The first time of day and date the emission limits in table 1 
to this subpart, as applicable, were met at the conclusion of the 
planned routine maintenance.

0
10. Section 63.9075 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Equipment in HCl service'' and ``HCl production facility'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.9075  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    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 in an HCl production 
facility that contains 30 weight percent or greater of liquid HCl or 5 
weight percent or greater of gaseous HCl at any time.
* * * * *
    HCl production facility is defined in Sec.  63.8985(a)(1).
* * * * *

0
11. Table 1 in subpart NNNNN is revised to read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                                Standards
   [As stated in Sec.  63.9000(a), you must comply with the following
  emission limits and work practice standards for each emission stream
                   that is part of an affected source]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         You must meet the following
           For each . . .              emission limit and work practice
                                                   standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emission stream from an HCl       a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99
 process vent at an existing source.  percent or greater or achieve an
                                      outlet concentration of 20 ppm by
                                      volume or less; and
                                     b. Reduce Cl2 emissions by 99
                                      percent or greater or achieve an
                                      outlet concentration of 100 ppm by
                                      volume or less.
2. Emission stream from an HCl       Reduce HCl emissions by 99 percent
 storge tank at an existing source.   or greater or achieve an outlet
                                      concentration of 120 ppm by volume
                                      or less.
3. Emission stream from an HCl       Reduce HCl emissions by 99 percent
 transfer operation at an existing    or greater or achieve an outlet
 source.                              concentration of 120 ppm by volume
                                      or less.
4. Emission stream from leaking      a. Prepare and operate at all times
 equipment in HCl service at          according to an equipment LDAR
 existing and new sources.            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       a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99.4
 process vent at a new source.        percent or greater or achieve an
                                      outlet concentration of 12 ppm by
                                      volume or less; and
                                     b. Reduce Cl2 emissions by 99.8
                                      percent or greater or achieve an
                                      outlet concentration of 20 ppm by
                                      volume or less.
6. Emission stream from an HCl       Reduce HCl emissions by 99.9
 storage tank at a new source.        percent or greater or achieve an
                                      outlet concentration of 12 ppm by
                                      volume or less.

[[Page 17747]]

 
7. Emission stream from an HCl       Reduce HCl emissions by 99 percent
 transfer operation at a new source.  or greater or achieve an outlet
                                      concentration of 120 ppm by volume
                                      or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
12. Table 3 in subpart NNNNN is revised to read as follows:

 Table 3 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
                     HCl Production Affected Sources
     [As stated in Sec.  63.9020, you must comply with the following
 requirements for performance tests for HCl production for each affected
                                 source]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 For each HCl process vent and
 each HCl storage tank and HCl
 transfer operation for which                            Additional
     you are conducting a          Using . . .       Information . . .
performance test, you must . .
               .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port         a. Method 1 or 1A  i. If complying with
 location(s) and the number of   in appendix A to   a percent reduction
 traverse points.                40 CFR part 6