49530 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

approves a state request to waive certain 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove this submission for failure 

to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a waiver request 

to require VCS in a submission that 

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

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

Dated: August 15, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

[FR Doc. 05–16814 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0057; FRL–7959–3] 

RIN 2060–AM25 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Hydrochloric 

Acid Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On April 17, 2003, we 

published the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid (HCl) 

production facilities, including HCl 

production at fume silica facilities (HCl 

Production NESHAP) (68 FR 19076). We 

are proposing to amend the existing rule 

by clarifying certain applicability 

provisions, emission standards, and 

testing, maintenance, and reporting 

requirements. The proposed 

amendments would also correct several 

omissions and typographical errors in 

the final rule. We are proposing the 

amendments to facilitate compliance 

and improve understanding of the final 

rule requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 24, 2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by September 13, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held on September 23, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

OAR–2002–0057 (formerly Docket ID 

No. A–99–41), by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air Docket, EPA Docket 

Center, U.S. EPA West, Mailcode 6102T, 

Room B–108, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Room B–108, U.S. EPA West, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0057. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov websites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document.

Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

including both Docket ID No. OAR–

2002–0057 and legacy Docket ID No. A–

99–41. The official public docket 

consists of the information related to 

this action. Not all items are listed 

under both docket numbers, so 

interested parties should inspect both 

docket numbers to ensure that they have 

received all materials relevant to the 

proposed amendments. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49531

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center (Air 

Docket), EPA West, Room B–102, 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 telephone number for the 

reading room is (202) 566–1744, and the 

telephone number for the Air Docket is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested, it will be held at the EPA 

facility complex in Research Triangle 

Park, N.C. at 10 a.m. Persons interested 

in attending the hearing or wishing to 

present oral testimony should notify 

Eloise Shepherd, Combustion Group 

(MD–C439–01), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–5578 at least 2 days in 

advance of the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William Maxwell, Combustion Group, 

Emission Standards Division (C439–01), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 

27711; telephone number (919) 541–

5430; fax number (919) 541–5450; 

electronic mail address: 

maxwell.bill@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

entities. Entities that will potentially be 

affected by the proposed amendments 

are those that produce HCl and are 

major sources of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) as defined in section 

112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

regulated categories and entities 

include:

Category SIC a NAICSb Regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................................................................... 2819 

2821 

2869

325188 

325211 

325199

Hydrochloric Acid Production. 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that we are now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business, 

organization, etc., is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in section 

63.8985 of the HCl Production NESHAP. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer, Mailcode C404–02, U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0057. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments.

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

World Wide Web (WWW). The text of 

today’s document will also be available 

on the WWW through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following 

signature, a copy of this action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Applicability 

B. Definitions 

C. Emission Standards 

D. Storage Tank Maintenance 

E. Notification and Reporting 

Requirements 

F. Omissions and Typographical 

Corrections 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 

Advancement Act

I. Background 

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 (57 

FR 31576, July 16, 1992). We later 

combined these two source categories 

for regulatory purposes and renamed the 

combined source category ‘‘HCl 

Production’’ (66 FR 48174, September 

49532 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1Proposed amendments to subpart EEE, 40 CFR 

part 63 (69 FR 21198, March 31, 2004), include 

standards for HCl production furnaces that burn 

hazardous waste and propose to subject hazardous 

waste combustors that are HCl production facilities 

under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, to NESHAP 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Promulgation 

of the standards is forthcoming.

18, 2001). 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 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one 

HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of 

HAP. The CAA requires the national 

emission standards for HAP to reflect 

the maximum degree of reduction in 

HAP emissions that is achievable. This 

level of control is commonly known as 

the maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT). 

On April 17, 2003, EPA published 

final standards (68 FR 19076) for the 

control of HAP from HCl production (40 

CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN). 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.

After promulgation, some 

applicability- and compliance-related 

issues, in addition to several inadvertent 

omissions and typographical errors, 

were identified. We are proposing 

today’s amendments to address these 

issues. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

We are proposing to amend 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 proposed 

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 exempts 

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 MACT standards and not to cover 

those HCl production facilities that were 

subject to other MACT standards. 

Today’s proposed amendments would 

change 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 proposed amendments 

would 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).1 As currently worded, the 

exemptions are overly broad, because 

neither of the 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 proposing to amend 

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 

of subpart NNNNN for entire HCl 

production facilities subject to certain 

other rules, we are proposing to remove 

40 CFR 63.8985(b)(4) and (c)(3) to 

eliminate the overly broad exemptions 

and instead to add new paragraphs to 40 

CFR 63.9000(c) to accomplish the 

proposed amendments. The purpose of 

40 CFR 63.9000(c) is to exempt certain 

emission streams from subpart NNNNN. 

Under proposed 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 proposed amendments 

would 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 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 proposing to add 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 hazardous waste 

combustors subject to subpart EEE. This 

means that under the proposal, HCl 

production facility emission streams 

that are routed to subpart EEE 

hazardous waste combustors would be 

exempt from the requirements of 

subpart NNNNN. 

Finally, the proposed amendments 

would 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 

would be subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE, under EPA’s proposal at 69 

FR 21198), not an incinerator (subject to 

40 CFR 264.343(b), subpart O). As 

discussed above, we are proposing to 

amend the applicability provisions of 

the HCl Production NESHAP to 

properly address HCl production 

facilities that are subject to subpart H. 

Therefore, the exemption for subpart O 

will no longer be necessary, and we are 

proposing to remove 40 CFR 

63.8985(c)(2), which provided this 

exemption. Consequently, we are 

proposing to incorporate the exemption 

provided in 40 CFR 63.8985(c)(1) into 

40 CFR 63.8985(c), thus removing 40 

CFR 63.8985(c)(1).

B. Definitions 

We are proposing to clarify 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’’ (see 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’’ (see 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49533

proposing to amend 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 

specifies 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. While 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 

proposing to amend 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 

proposing to amend 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 

proposing to amend 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 

proposing to amend 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 is 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 partiallyfull HCl storage tank are low, when 

compared to the emissions that occur 

from filling and emptying the tank. To 

clarify our intent, we are proposing to 

amend 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 proposing to amend 

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 requires 

the submission of a Notification of 

Compliance Status (NOCS) to the 

Administrator when a performance test 

is conducted (see 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 

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 proposing 

to amend 40 CFR 63.9045 to change the 

submission procedures for NOCS. We 

are proposing to allow NOCS to be 

submitted within 240 calendar days of 

the compliance dates for subpart 

NNNNN of 40 CFR part 63. The 

amendment would 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 proposing to amend 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 requires 

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 proposing to 

amend 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 proposing to add an 

exemption which was inadvertently 

omitted from the HC1 Production 

NESHAP. In the preamble to the final 

rule (68 FR 19082), we indicated that we 

would include an exemption for HC1 

production facilities subject to 40 CFR 

63.994, subpart SS. Because this 

exemption was not included in the final 

rule text, we are proposing to amend the 

rule to include it. Because we are 

proposing to remove 40 CFR 

63.8985(b)(4), we are proposing to 

replace it with the exemption for 40 

CFR 63.994, subpart SS. 

We are proposing to remove 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 proposing to make 

the same change in the first column of 

table 1, item 4 of subpart NNNNN of 40 

CFR part 63. 

We are proposing to correct 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 proposing to correct 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

49534 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

63.8985(a)(i) does not exist. This was a 

typographical error in the final rule. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (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. 

Pursuant to the terms of EO 12866, 

OMB has notified EPA that it considers 

this a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

within the meaning of the EO. EPA has 

submitted this action to OMB for 

review. Changes made in response to 

OMB suggestions or recommendations 

will be documented in the public 

record. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The 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. EPA has 

prepared a revision to the currently 

approved information collection request 

(ICR), and you may obtain a copy of the 

currently approved ICR and the revised 

ICR from Susan Auby by mail at the 

U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental 

Information, Collection Strategies 

Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by 

calling (202) 566–1672. Copies may also 

be downloaded off the internet at http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr. Most of the proposed 

amendments are not expected to have 

an impact on the ICR burden. However, 

the ICR has been revised because two of 

today’s proposed rule amendments are 

expected to change the burden slightly. 

The proposed 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 planned 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. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996, 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 rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as a small business 

according to Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards by 

the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) category 

of the owning parent entity. The small 

business size standard for the affected 

industries (NAICS 325181, Alkalies and 

Chlorine Manufacturing, and NAICS 

325188, All Other Basic Inorganic 

Chemical Manufacturing) is a maximum 

of 1,000 employees for an entity. 

After considering the economic 

impact of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

accordance with the RFA, as amended 

by the SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., we 

conducted an assessment of the final 

rule on small businesses within the 

industries affected by the final rule. 

This analysis allowed us to certify that 

there would not be a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

from the implementation of the final 

rule. There is nothing contained in the 

proposed amendments that will impact 

small businesses in any way not 

considered in the analysis of the final 

rule; this means that the proposed 

amendments have no incremental 

impact on small businesses beyond 

what was already examined in the final 

rule. We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

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, 

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, 

section 205 of the UMRA 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 section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, 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 section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. Today’s 

proposed 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 proposed 

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 proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49535

requirements of sections 202 and 205 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’’ 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 proposed 

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 proposed amendments. 

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.’’ The proposed 

amendments will 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 HC1 Production NESHAP. Thus, EO 

13175 does not apply to these proposed 

amendments. 

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 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 proposed 

amendments are not subject to EO 

13045 because they are based on 

technology performance and not on 

health or safety risks. Nor are the 

proposed amendments ‘‘economically 

significant’’ under EO 12866, as 

discussed in section III(A) of this 

preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Today’s action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 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 proposed 

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 proposed amendments.

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: August 17, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NNNNN—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.8985 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) to read 

as follows:

§ 63.8985 Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(4) 40 CFR part 63, § 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 § 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.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.8990 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows:

§ 63.8990 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover?

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(4) Each emission stream resulting 

from leaks from equipment in HCl 

service.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.9000 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a); 

b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (c); 

c. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) through 

(c)(6); and 

d. Adding paragraph (d).

§ 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

49536 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

table 1 to this subpart for each emission 

stream listed under § 63.8990(b)(1) 

through (4) that is part of your affected 

source.

* * * * *

(c) The emission streams listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) 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 that are also subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Hazardous Waste 

Combustors. 

(5) Emission streams from HCl 

process vents, HCl storage tanks, and 

HCl transfer operations that are routed 

directly to hazardous waste incinerators 

that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE, National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Hazardous Waste Combustors. 

(6) Emission streams from HCl 

process vents that are located following 

the incineration of chlorinated waste gas 

streams, waste liquids, or solid wastes 

and that are also subject to § 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.

5. Section 63.9015 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 63.9015 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) You must conduct all applicable 

performance tests according to the 

procedures in § 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 change 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.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.9025 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 63.9025 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) For each operating parameter that 

you are required by § 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.

* * * * *

7. Section 63.9045 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e); and 

b. Revising paragraph (f).

§ 63.9045 What notifications must I submit 

and when?

* * * * *

(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 § 63.8995.

* * * * *

8. Section 63.9050 is amended by: 

a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (c); and 

b. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through 

(c)(10).

§ 63.9050 What reports must I submit and 

when?

* * * * *

(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 plant 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 change 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.

* * * * *

9. Section 63.9055 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 

follows:

§ 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. 

10. Section 63.9075 is amended by 

revising the definitions of ‘‘Equipment 

in HCl service’’ and ‘‘HCl production 

facility’’ to read as follows:

§ 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49537

liquid HCl or 5 weight percent or greater 

of gaseous HCl at any time.

* * * * *

HCl production facility is defined in 

§ 63.8985(a)(1).

* * * * *

11. Table 1 in subpart NNNNN is 

revised to read as follows:

As stated in § 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

For each . . . You must meet the following emission limit and work practice standard . . . 

1. Emission stream from an HCl process vent at 

an existing source.

a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99 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 storage tank at 

an existing source.

Reduce HCl emissions by 99 percent or greater or achieve an outlet concentration of 120 ppm 

by volume or less. 

3. Emission stream from an HCl transfer operation at an existing source.Reduce HCl emissions by 99 percent or greater or achieve an outlet concentration of 120 ppm 

by volume or less. 

4. Emission stream from leaking equipment in 

HCl service at existing and new sources.

a. Prepare and operate at all times according to an equipment LDAR plan that describes in 

detail the measures that will be put in place to detect leaks and repair them in a timely fashion; and 

b. 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 vent at 

a new source.

a. Reduce HCl emissions by 99.4 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 storage tank at 

a new source.

Reduce HCl emissions by 99.9 percent or greater or achieve an outlet concentration of 12 

ppm by volume or less. 

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

by volume or less. 

12. Table 3 in subpart NNNNN is 

revised to read as follows: 

As stated in § 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 for which you are 

conducting a performance test, you 

must . . . 

Using . . . Additional Information . . . 

1. Select sampling port location(s) 

and the number of traverse 

points.

a. Method 1 or 1A appendix A to 

40 CFR part 60 of this chapter.

i. If complying with a percent reduction emission 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 or, if no control 

device is used, prior to any releases to the atmosphere. 

2. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate.Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G 

in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 

of this chapter. 

3. Determine gas molecular weight a. Not applicable ............................ i. Assume a molecular weight of 29 (after moisture correction) for calculation purposes. 

4. Measure moisture content of the 

stack gas.

Method 4 in appendix A to 40 

CFR part 60 of this chapter. 

5. Measure HCl concentration and 

Cl2 concentration from HCl process vents.

a. Method 26A in Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 60 of this chapter.

i. An owner or operator may be exempted from 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 § 63.9020(a)(2). 

This demonstration may be based on process knowledge, engineering judgment, or previous test results. 

49538 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART NNNNN OF PART 63.—PERFORMANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR HCL PRODUCTION AFFECTED

SOURCES—Continued

For each HCl process vent and 

each HCl storage tank and HCl 

transfer operation for which you are 

conducting a performance test, you 

must . . . 

Using . . . Additional Information . . . 

6. Establish operating limits with 

which you will demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 1 to this 

subpart, in accordance with 

§ 63.9020(e)(1) or (2). 

13. Table 5 in subpart NNNNN is 

revised to read as follows: 

As stated in § 63.9040, you must 

comply with the following requirements 

to demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the applicable emission limitations 

for each affected source and each work 

practice standard:

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART NNNNN OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK

PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . 

For the following emission

limitation and work practice

standard . . . 

You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Affected source using a caustic 

scrubber or water scrubber/absorber.

a. In Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart.i. Collecting the scrubber inlet liquid or recirculating liquid flow rate, 

as appropriate, and effluent pH monitoring data according to 

§ 63.9025, consistent with your monitoring plan; and 

ii. Reducing the data to 1-hour and daily block averages according to 

the requirements in § 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 other 

control device.

a. In Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart.i. Conducting monitoring according to your monitoring plan established under § 63.8(f) in accordance with § 63.9025(c); and 

ii. Collecting the parameter data according to your monitoring plan 

established under § 63.8(f); and 

iii. Reducing the data to 1-hour and daily block averages according to 

the requirements in § 63.9025; and 

iv. Maintaining the daily average parameter values within the operating limits established according to your monitoring plan established under § 63.8(f). 

3. Affected source using no control 

device.

a. In Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart.i. Verifying that you have not made any process changes that could 

reasonably be expected to change the outlet concentration since 

your most recent performance test for an emission point. 

4. Leaking equipment affected 

source.

a. In Table 1 to this subpart .......... i. Verifying that you continue to use a LDAR plan; and 

ii. Reporting any instances where you deviated from the plan and the 

corrective actions taken. 

14. Table 7 in subpart NNNNN is 

revised to read as follows: 

As stated in § 63.9065, you must 

comply with the applicable General 

Provisions requirements according to 

the following:

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART NNNNN OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART NNNNN 

Citation Requirement Applies to Subpart 

NNNNN Explanation 

§ 63.1 ......................... Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard 

established; permit requirements; extensions; notifications.

Yes.

§ 63.2 ......................... Definitions .................................................................................. Yes ............................ Additional definitions are found 

in § 63.9075. 

§ 63.3 ......................... Units and abbreviations ............................................................. Yes.

§ 63.4 ......................... Prohibited activities; compliance date; circumvention, severability.Yes.

§ 63.5 ......................... Construction/reconstruction applicability; applications; approvals.Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ..................... Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements—

applicability.

Yes.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49539

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART NNNNN OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART NNNNN—

Continued

Citation Requirement Applies to Subpart 

NNNNN Explanation 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) .......... Compliance dates for new or reconstructed sources ................ Yes ............................ § 63.8995 specifies compliance 

dates. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) ................ Notification if commenced construction or reconstruction after 

proposal.

Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(6) ................ [Reserved] .................................................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(7) ................ Compliance dates for new or reconstructed area sources that 

become major.

Yes ............................ § 63.8995 specifies compliance 

dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) .......... Compliance dates for existing sources ...................................... Yes ............................ § 63.8995 specifies compliance 

dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .......... [Reserved] .................................................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(5) ................ Compliance dates for existing area sources that become 

major.

Yes ............................ § 63.8995 specifies compliance 

dates. 

§ 63.6(d) ..................... [Reserved] .................................................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(1)–(2) .......... Operation and maintenance requirements ................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3) ................ SSM plans .................................................................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ................. Compliance except during SSM ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ........... Methods for determining compliance ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(g) ..................... Use of an alternative non-opacity emission standard ............... Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ..................... Compliance with opacity/visible emission standards ................. No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not 

specify opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 63.6(i) ...................... Extension of compliance with emission standards .................... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) ...................... Presidential compliance exemption ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) .......... Performance test dates .............................................................. Yes ............................ Except for existing affected 

sources as specified in 

§ 63.9010(b). 

§ 63.7(a)(3) ................ Administrator’s Clean Air Act section 114 authority to require a 

performance test.

Yes.

§ 63.7(b) ..................... Notification of performance test and rescheduling .................... Yes.

§ 63.7(c) ..................... Quality assurance program and site-specific test plans ............ Yes.

§ 63.7(d) ..................... Performance testing facilities ..................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(e)(1) ................ Conditions for conducting performance tests ............................ Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ...................... Use of an alternative test method ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(g) ..................... Performance test data analysis, recordkeeping and reporting .. Yes.

§ 63.7(h) ..................... Waiver of performance tests ...................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3) .......... Applicability of monitoring requirements .................................... Yes ............................ Additional monitoring requirements are found in 

§ 63.9005(d) and 63.9035. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) ................ Monitoring with flares ................................................................. No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not refer 

directly or indirectly to 

§ 63.11. 

§ 63.8(b) ..................... Conduct of monitoring and procedures when there are multiple effluents and multiple monitoring systems.Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)–(3) .......... Continuous monitoring system O&M ......................................... Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ................ Continuous monitoring system requirements during breakdown, out-of-control, repair, maintenance, and high-level 

calibration drifts.

Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ................ Continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) minimum procedures.No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not 

have opacity or visible emission standards. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) ................ Zero and high level calibration checks ...................................... Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) .......... Out-of-control periods, including reporting ................................ Yes.

§ 63.8(d)–(e) .............. Quality control program and CMS performance evaluation ...... No ............................. Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ........... Use of an alternative monitoring method .................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ................. Alternative to relative accuracy test ........................................... No ............................. Only applies to sources that 

use continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS). 

§ 63.8(g) ..................... Data reduction ............................................................................ Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.9(a) ..................... Notification requirements—applicability ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(b) ..................... Initial notifications ....................................................................... Yes ............................ Except § 63.9045(c) requires 

new or reconstructed affected sources to submit the 

application for construction 

or reconstruction required by 

§ 63.9(b)(1) (iii) in lieu of the 

initial notification. 

49540 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART NNNNN OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART NNNNN—

Continued

Citation Requirement Applies to Subpart 

NNNNN Explanation 

§ 63.9(c) ..................... Request for compliance extension ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.9(d) ..................... Notification that a new source is subject to special compliance 

requirements.

Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ..................... Notification of performance test ................................................. Yes.

§ 63.9(f) ...................... Notification of visible emissions/opacity test ............................. No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not 

have opacity or visible emission standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(1) ................ Additional CMS notifications—date of CMS performance evaluation.Yes.

§ 63.9(g)(2) ................ Use of COMS data .................................................................... No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not require the use of COMS. 

§ 63.9(g)(3) ................ Alternative to relative accuracy testing ...................................... No ............................. Applies only to sources with 

CEMS. 

§ 63.9(h) ..................... Notification of compliance status ............................................... Yes ............................ Except the submission date 

specified in § 63.9(h)(2)(ii) is 

superseded by the date 

specified in § 63.9045(f). 

§ 63.9(i) ...................... Adjustment of submittal deadlines ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.9(j) ...................... Change in previous information ................................................. Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ................... Recordkeeping/reporting applicability ........................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) .............. General recordkeeping requirements ........................................ Yes ............................ §§ 63.9055 and 63.9060 specify additional recordkeeping 

requirements. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(xi) .... Records related to SSM periods and CMS ............................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ........ Records when under waiver ...................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ........ Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test ......... No ............................. Applies only to sources with 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ....... All documentation supporting initial notification and notification 

of compliance status.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) .............. Recordkeeping requirements for applicability determinations ... Yes.

§ 63.10(c) ................... Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with CMS Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.10(d)(1) .............. General reporting requirements ................................................. Yes ............................ § 63.9050 specifies additional 

reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) .............. Performance test results ............................................................ Yes ............................ § 63.9045(f) specifies submission date. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) .............. Opacity or visible emissions observations ................................. No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not 

specify opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) .............. Progress reports for sources with compliance extensions ........ Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) .............. SSM reports ............................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(1) .............. Additional CMS reports—general .............................................. Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.10(e)(2)(i) ........... Results of CMS performance evaluations ................................. Yes ............................ Applies as modified by 

§ 63.9005(d). 

§ 63.10(e)(2)(ii) .......... Results of COMS performance evaluations .............................. No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not require the use of COMS. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) .............. Excess emissions/CMS performance reports ............................ Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(4) .............. Continuous opacity monitoring system data reports ................. No ............................. Subpart NNNNN does not require the use of COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) .................... Recordkeeping/reporting waiver ................................................ Yes.

§ 63.11 ....................... Control device requirements—applicability ................................ No ............................. Facilities subject to subpart 

NNNNN do not use flares as 

control devices. 

§ 63.12 ....................... State authority and delegations ................................................. Yes ............................ § 63.9070 lists those sections 

of subparts NNNNN and A 

that are not delegated. 

§ 63.13 ....................... Addresses .................................................................................. Yes.

§ 63.14 ....................... Incorporation by reference ......................................................... Yes ............................ Subpart NNNNN does not incorporate any material by 

reference. 

§ 63.15 ....................... Availability of information/confidentiality .................................... Yes.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49541

[FR Doc. 05–16813 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

RIN 1018–AU04; 1018–AU 09; 1018–AU13; 

1018–AU28 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of 

Tungsten-Iron-Copper-Nickel, IronTungsten-Nickel Alloy, and TungstenBronze (Additional Formulation), and 

Tungsten-Tin-Iron Shot Types as 

Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and 

Coots; Availability of Environmental 

Assessments

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (we, us, or USFWS) proposes to 

approve four shot types or alloys for 

hunting waterfowl and coots and to 

change the listing of approved nontoxic 

shot types in 50 CFR 20.21(j) to reflect 

the cumulative approvals of nontoxic 

shot types and alloys. 

These four shot types or alloys were 

submitted to us separately, and we 

published advance notices of proposed 

rulemakings for these shot types under 

RINs 1018–AU04, 1018–AU09, 1018–

AU13, and 1018–AU28, respectively. 

We now combine all these actions under 

RIN 1018–AU04. 

In addition, we propose to approve 

alloys of several metals because we have 

approved the metals individually at or 

near 100% in nontoxic shot.

DATES: Send comments on this proposal 

by September 23, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1018–AU04, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http://

migratorybirds.fws.gov. Follow the links 

to submit a comment. 

• E-mail address for comments: 

George_T_Allen@fws.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 

1018–AU04’’ in the subject line of the 

message. Please submit electronic 

comments as text files; do not use file 

compression or any special formatting. 

• Fax: 703–358–2217. 

• Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Mail Stop MBSP–4107, 

Arlington, Virginia 22203–1610. 

• Hand Delivery: Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 

22203–1610. 

For specific instructions on 

submitting or inspecting public 

comments, inspecting the complete file 

for this rule, or requesting a copy of the 

draft environmental assessment, see 

Public Comments in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George T. Allen, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, 703–358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

(Act) (16 U.S.C. 703–711) and the Fish 

and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

(16 U.S.C. 712) implement migratory 

bird treaties between the United States 

and Great Britain for Canada (1916, 

amended), Mexico (1936, amended), 

Japan (1972, amended), and Russia 

(then the Soviet Union, 1978). These 

treaties protect certain migratory birds 

from take, except as permitted under the 

Acts. The Acts authorize the Secretary 

of the Interior to regulate take of 

migratory birds in the United States. 

Under this authority, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service controls the hunting of 

migratory game birds through 

regulations in 50 CFR part 20. 

Deposition of toxic shot and release of 

toxic shot components in waterfowl 

hunting locations are potentially 

harmful to many organisms. Research 

has shown that ingested spent lead shot 

causes significant mortality in migratory 

birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have 

sought to identify shot types that do not 

pose significant toxicity hazards to 

migratory birds or other wildlife. We 

addressed the issue of lead poisoning in 

waterfowl in an Environmental Impact 

Statement in 1976, and again in a 1986 

supplemental EIS. The 1986 document 

provided the scientific justification for a 

ban on the use of lead shot and the 

subsequent approval of steel shot for 

hunting waterfowl and coots that began 

that year, with a complete ban of lead 

for waterfowl and coot hunting in 1991. 

We have continued to consider other 

potential candidates for approval as 

nontoxic shot. We are obligated to 

review applications for approval of 

alternative shot types as nontoxic for 

hunting waterfowl and coots. 

We have received applications for 

approval of four shot types as nontoxic 

for hunting waterfowl and coots. Those 

shot types are: 

1. Tungsten-Iron-Copper-Nickel 

(TICN) shot, of 40–76 percent tungsten, 

10–37 percent iron, 9–16 percent 

copper, and 5–7 percent nickel (70 FR 

3180, January 21, 2005); 

2. Iron-Tungsten-Nickel (ITN) alloys 

composed of 20–70 percent tungsten, 

10–40 percent nickel, and 10–70 percent 

iron (70 FR 22625, May 2, 2005); 

3. Tungsten-Bronze (TB) shot made of 

60 percent tungsten, 35.1 percent 

copper, 3.9 percent tin, and 1 percent 

iron (70 FR 22624, May 2, 2005, Note: 

This formulation differs from the 

Tungsten-Bronze nontoxic shot 

formulation approved in 2004.); and 

4. Tungsten-Tin-Iron (TTI) shot 

composed of 58 percent tungsten, 38 

percent tin, and 4 percent iron. 

The metals in these shot types have 

already been approved in other nontoxic 

shot types. In considering approval of 

these shot types, we were particularly 

concerned about the solubility and 

bioavailability of the nickel and copper 

in them. In addition, because tungsten, 

tin, and iron have already been 

approved at very high proportions of 

other nontoxic shot types with no 

known negative effects of the metals, we 

will propose approval of all alloys of 

these four metals. 

The data provided to us indicate that 

the shot types are nontoxic when 

ingested by waterfowl and should not 

pose a significant danger to migratory 

birds, other wildlife, or their habitats. 

We conclude that they raise no 

particular concerns about deposition in 

the environment or about ingestion by 

waterfowl or predators.

The process for submission and 

evaluation of new shot types for 

approval as nontoxic is given at 50 CFR 

20.134. The list of shot types approved 

as nontoxic for use in hunting migratory 

birds is provided in the table at 50 CFR 

20.21(j). With this proposed rule, we 

also propose to revise the listing of 

approved nontoxic shot types in 

§ 20.21(j) to include the cumulative 

approvals of the shot types considered 

in this proposed rule with the other 

nontoxic shot types already in the table. 

Many hunters believe that some 

nontoxic shot types do not compare 

favorably to lead and that they may 

damage some shotgun barrels, and a 

small percentage of hunters have not 

complied with nontoxic shot 

regulations. Allowing use of additional 

nontoxic shot types may encourage 

greater hunter compliance and 

participation with nontoxic shot 

requirements and discourage the use of 

lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for 

waterfowl hunting has increased in 

recent years (Anderson et al. 2000), but 

we believe that compliance will 

continue to increase with the 

availability and approval of other