[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63878-63891]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26089]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750; FRL-9477-1]
RIN 2060-AQ10

New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to the new source performance
standards (NSPS) for nitric acid plants. Nitric acid plants include one
or more nitric acid production units. These proposed revisions include
a change to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit, which
applies to each nitric acid production unit commencing construction,
modification, or reconstruction after October 14, 2011. These proposed
revisions will also include additional testing and monitoring
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2011. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before November 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0750, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and
Radiation Docket Web site.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0750 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Fax your comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750.
     Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0750. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, deliver
comments to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation, (8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that the 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 the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and will be made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the 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 detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the ``General Information'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about these proposed
standards for nitric acid production units, contact Mr. Chuck French,
Sector

Policies and Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
(919) 541-3207, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed revisions?
    B. What are the current NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. What source category is being regulated?
    B. What pollutants are emitted from these sources?
    C. What are the proposed standards?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Standards
    A. How is EPA proposing to revise the emissions limit for
affected sources?
    B. How is EPA proposing to revise the testing and monitoring
requirements?
    C. How is EPA proposing to revise the notification, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
These Proposed Standards
    A. What are the impacts for new nitric acid production units?
    B. What are the secondary impacts for new nitric acid production
units?
    C. What are the economic impacts for new nitric acid production
units?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paper 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 Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by these proposed
revisions include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category              NAICS code \1\                   Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................            325311  Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing.
Federal government............  ................  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.  ................  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial 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. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.70a.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed
action to a particular entity, contact the person in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0750. 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 marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. Following signature, EPA
posted a copy of the proposed action on the TTN Web site's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by
October 24, 2011, a public hearing will be held on October 28, 2011.
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Chuck French,
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed revisions?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 111. Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect
the application of the best system of emission reductions which (taking
into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This
level of control has sometimes been referred to as ``best demonstrated
technology'' or BDT, and will be referred to in this preamble as best
system of emissions reduction (BSER). In assessing whether a standard
is achievable, EPA must account for routine operating variability
associated with performance of the system on whose performance the
standard is based. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F. 2d 416, 431-
33 (DC Cir. 1980).
    Common sources of information as to what constitutes a BSER, and
for assessing that technology's level of performance, include best
available control technology (BACT) determinations made as part of new
source review (NSR). Also, emissions limits that exist in state and
federal permits for recently permitted sources,

and emissions test data for demonstrated control technologies collected
for compliance demonstration or other purposes are evaluated during
these assessments. EPA compares permit limitations and BACT
determination data with actual performance test data to identify any
site-specific factors that could influence general applicability of
this information. Also, as part of this review we evaluate if
NOX emissions limits more stringent than those in Subpart G
have been established, or if emissions limits have been developed for
additional air pollutants.
    The use of State permit data and BACT determination developed as
part of NSR is appropriate because a BACT determination evaluates
information that is similar to BSER, such as available controls, their
performance, cost, and non-air environmental impacts. One important
difference between BACT determinations and a BSER determination for
purposes of NSPS is that BACT determinations are made on a site-
specific basis. Therefore, in evaluating BACT determinations, we have
to account for any site-specific factors that may not be applicable to
the source category as a whole.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review
and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect
improvements in methods for reducing emissions.
    Existing affected facilities that are modified or reconstructed
would also be subject to these proposed revisions for affected sources.
Under CAA section 111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change
in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which
increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously
emitted. Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an
increase in emissions are not considered modifications. Rebuilt
affected facilities would become subject to the proposed standards
under the reconstruction provisions, regardless of changes in emission
rate. Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards (40 CFR 60.15).
    The NSPS are directly enforceable federal regulations issued for
categories of sources which cause, or contribute significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain
ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission
control technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is
modernized, when it is most cost effective to build in controls. Since
1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving long-term emissions
reductions in numerous industries by assuring that cost-effective
controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified sources.

B. What are the current NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants NSPS?

    The current NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants (40 CFR part 60, Subpart G)
were promulgated in the Federal Register on December 23, 1971 (36 FR
24881). The first review of the Nitric Acid Plants NSPS was completed
on June 19, 1979 (44 FR 35265). An additional review was completed on
April 5, 1984 (49 FR 13654). No changes were made to the NSPS as a
result of those reviews. Minor testing and monitoring changes were made
during three reviews since the original promulgation in 1971 (October
6, 1975 (40 FR 46258), April 22, 1985 (50 FR 15894), and February 14,
1989 (54 FR 6666)). The current Nitric Acid Plants NSPS (Subpart G)
applies to each nitric acid production unit constructed or modified
after August 17, 1971. The present NSPS has an emissions limit of 3.0
lb of NOX per ton of 100% nitric acid produced and a 10%
opacity standard as an additional method of demonstrating compliance
with the NOX emission limit. Continuous NOX
monitors are required as well as recording daily production rates.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. What source category is being regulated?

    Today's proposed standards would apply to new nitric acid
production units. Nitric acid plants may include one or more nitric
acid production units. For purposes of these proposed regulations, a
nitric acid production unit is defined as any facility producing weak
nitric acid by either the pressure or atmospheric pressure process.
This definition has not changed from Subpart G.
    A new nitric acid production unit is defined as a nitric acid
production unit for which construction, modification, or reconstruction
commences on or after October 14, 2011. The affected facility under the
proposed NSPS is each nitric acid production unit.

B. What pollutants are emitted from these sources?

    The pollutant to be regulated under section 111(b), for new nitric
acid production units, is NOX which undergo reactions in the
atmosphere to form particulate matter and ozone. Nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and ozone are all subject to national ambient air
quality standards under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, based on
their adverse effects to human health and welfare. NOX is a
criteria pollutant.
    These nitric acid production units also emit another nitrogen
compound known as nitrous oxide (N2O), which is considered a
greenhouse gas (GHG). We are not proposing an N2O emission
standard in this action. Although we have limited data from facilities
in the U.S, we believe that owners/operators of nitric acid production
units should consider technologies and technology combinations that
would be appropriate for controlling both NOX and
N2O. Some technologies such as selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and hydrogen peroxide injection (HPI) are effective only in
controlling NOX. However, other technologies such as
nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) are effective in controlling
both NOX and N2O.
    The technology combinations that control both NOX and
N2O include SCR plus secondary catalysts (located in the
ammonia reactor), and SCR plus other non-NSCR types of tertiary
catalysts (located after the absorption tower). We expect any controls
applied to control NOX emissions would not preclude
installing cost effective N2O control technologies in the
future. We solicit relevant comments and additional information on
these technologies. Nitric acid production is also one of the
industrial sectors for which ``white papers'' were written to provide
basic information on GHG control options to assist state and local air
pollution control agencies, tribal authorities, and regulated entities
in implementing measures to reduce GHGs, particularly in the assessment
of BACT under the PSD permitting program. These papers provide basic
technical information that may be useful in a BACT analysis but they do
not define BACT for each sector. For more information regarding the
``white papers,'' see http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html.

C. What are the proposed standards?

    We are proposing to reduce the NOX emissions limit from
3.0 pounds of NOX per ton of nitric acid produced (lb
NOX/ton acid), expressed as NO2, with the
production being expressed as 100 percent nitric acid, to 0.50 lb
NOX/ton

acid as a 30-day emission rate calculated each operating day based on
the previous 30 consecutive operating days.
    The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that emissions in
excess of the level of the applicable emissions limit during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall not be considered a violation
of the applicable emission limit unless otherwise specified in the
applicable standard. See 40 CFR 60.8(c). The general provisions,
however, may be amended for individual subparts. See 40 CFR 60.8(h).
Here, the EPA is proposing standards in Subpart Ga that apply at all
times, including periods of startup or shutdown, and periods of
malfunction.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Standards

    Section 111(a)(1) requires that standards of performance for new
sources reflect the--

    * * * degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking
into account the cost of achieving such reduction, and any nonair
quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.

A. How is EPA proposing to revise the emissions limit for affected
sources?

    For affected sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
October 14, 2011, we are proposing to reduce the NOX
emissions limit from 3.0 lb NOX/ton acid to 0.50 lb
NOX/ton acid as a 30-day emission rate calculated each
operating day based on the previous 30 consecutive operating days.
    The NOX emissions limit for affected facilities
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after August 17, 1971, and
before October 14, 2011 remains unchanged at 3.0 lb NOX/ton
acid.
    The 1971 promulgated Nitric Acid Plants NSPS were based on emission
levels achieved using catalytic reduction (see 36 FR 2881, December 23,
1971). Additional reviews of the NSPS were conducted in 1979 and 1984,
where EPA again concluded that catalytic reduction was the BSER
considering economic, energy, and nonair environmental impacts. No
changes were made to the NSPS during these reviews.
    There are currently 40 nitric acid production facilities in the
U.S. with a total of 67 nitric acid production units. For this review,
information was collected from responses to a section 114 information
collection request (ICR), through site visits and from trade
associations. The information and comments from stakeholders are
contained in the docket.
    The review of permits and other available information in the record
revealed that SCR, NSCR, and HPI are all air pollution control
technologies that are used for NOX control in the nitric
acid production source category and EPA considered all of these as
candidates for BSER as we developed this proposed rule. We are not
aware of any other established or emerging technologies that should be
considered as candidates for BSER for this source category. SCR is used
in 25 nitric acid production units in the U.S. NSCR is used in 14
nitric acid process units in the U.S. HPI is used by one facility. All
of these air pollution control technologies are effective in
controlling NOX emissions. The average NOX
emission reductions for these controls are: SCR--98%; NSCR--99%, HPI--
95% (for more information see Table 3.3 in the Economic Impact
Analysis, which is available in the docket for this action).
    The approach used for determining BSER for nitric acid production
units involved reviewing the emission test data submitted in response
to the section 114 ICR, recently issued state permit data, and BACT
determinations developed as part of NSR. In response to clarifications
of the section 114 ICRs, industry provided additional data. In
determining BSER we generally look at the controls and control
performance of new sources. All recent nitric acid units have installed
SCR as NOX controls. Recent BACT determinations have also
identified SCR as BACT.
    A 2009 BACT determination has been incorporated into the facility
permit limit for a nitric acid plant in American Falls, Idaho
(Southeast Idaho Energy, LLC). For this analysis, SCR was determined as
BACT, and 0.60 lb NOX/ton acid was determined as the BACT
level of control. The Southeast Idaho Energy, LLC emission limit of
0.60 lb NOX/ton acid will apply at all times during steady-
state operations (no standard applies during periods of startup or
shutdown, and periods of malfunction). The compliance period was not
specified.
    There are other recent BACT analyses at two other nitric acid
production units. At Agrium in North Bend, Ohio, the BACT limit set in
2009 is 0.61 lb NOX/ton acid on a 365-day rolling basis. At
Agrium in Kennewick, Washington, the BACT limit set in 2008 is 0.60 lb
NOX/ton acid in any continuous 12-month period (including
startup, shutdown and malfunction).
    As part of our BSER analysis, we are proposing that the standard be
stated as a rolling 30-day limit based on 30 consecutive operating days
and that the limit be met at all times. We believe that the 0.50 lb
NOX/ton acid standard, supported by existing source data and
BACT determinations, is more stringent than any state BACT
determination because 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid is lower than
both 0.61 lb NOX/ton acid and 0.60 lb NOX/ton
acid.
    Emissions test data were obtained from a number of sources
including a section 114 ICR, trade associations, and the EPA Region 5.
We received nine relative accuracy test audit (RATA) reports for 5
nitric acid production units controlled with SCR, 6 RATA reports for 6
nitric acid production units controlled with NSCR, and 1 RATA report
for 1 nitric acid production unit controlled with HPI. These emissions
tests are short term and are presented in the memorandum Summary of
Test Data Received from Section 114 ICR, dated August 25, 2010 (updated
December 17, 2010).
    In response to the section 114 request, nitric acid plants
submitted NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS)
data. These included 3 facilities using SCR and 2 facilities using
NSCR.
    All emission test data (short term and CEMS data) indicate that
lower emissions than the current Subpart G emission limit of 3.0 lb
NOX/ton acid are being achieved, regardless of the type of
NOX control being used. We decided to further analyze the
long-term CEMS data because: (1) Long term data include periods of
startup and shutdown, where emissions are shown to be larger than
during steady state operating conditions, (2) long term data allow the
seasonal impacts of temperature and humidity on NOX controls
to be evenly distributed, as these factors often vary by the time of
year and location, and (3) long term data include seasonal supply and
demand cycles so that all factors that influence production are equally
considered.
    We have concluded that SCR is BSER based on data showing lower
emissions rates from SCR-controlled units. For more information, see
Table 1 of this preamble and the related discussion. The fact that SCR
is the only known NOX control technology being installed in
new nitric acid production units, and that SCR has been determined to
be BACT supports this conclusion. Further, SCR does not produce any
secondary environmental impacts.
    The next step in the NSPS process is to establish an achievable
standard using BSER. In assessing whether a standard is achievable, the
EPA must account for routine operating variability

associated with performance of the system on which the standard is
based. For each plant that submitted long-term CEMS data, these data
cover the entire operating period including startups, shutdowns and
malfunctions. To ensure that the new NOX standard is
achievable by all properly designed and operated SCR units and covers
all operating periods including startup and shutdowns, we analyzed the
statistical variation by calculating the 99th percentile. When
establishing an emissions limit (which is considered a never to exceed
level of emissions), we use a 99th percentile based on statistical
analyses. This approach accounts for short and long-term variability in
emissions associated with all normal operating conditions, including
startup and shutdown (see 72 FR 54878-79, September 27, 2007). This
analysis is contained in the memorandum Statistical Evaluation of CEMS
Data to Determine the NOX Emission Standard, dated July 18,
2011.
    Using the long term CEMS data received through the ICR, the EPA
determined that there were sufficient data to directly calculate the
99th percentile for the best performing sources. The EPA determined
that the CEMS represents long-term performance and accounts for long-
term and day-to-day variability.
    Long term CEMS data were obtained from 3 plants using SCR and 2
plants using NSCR. The plant with HPI did not submit long term CEMS
data. Following is a discussion of these data--the 3 plants with SCR
are discussed first followed by the 2 plants with NSCR.
    The 99th percentile was directly calculated for these 5 best
performing sources. A summary of the values is shown in Table 1.

                                                Table 1--CEMS Data--99th Percentile by Compliance Period
                                                            [lb of NOX/T of 100% nitric acid]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                3-hour     daily      7-day      30-day
               Compliance period                                Control                 15 minute    hourly    rolling     block     rolling    rolling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCS Geismar (Train 5).........................  SCR...................................       0.84       0.89       1.00       1.02       0.72       0.38
Agrium North Bend.............................  SCR...................................         NA       0.69       0.80       1.67       0.92       0.50
El Dorado Nitrogen............................  SCR...................................         NA       0.47       0.47       0.44       0.40       0.37
PCS Geismar (Train 4).........................  NSCR..................................       0.97       1.25       1.74       5.58       2.41       2.41
Agrium Sacramento.............................  NSCR..................................         NA       2.13         NA       1.60       1.31       1.29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agrium-North Bend plant submitted data spanning from January
2010 through December 2010. The continuous data over the 12-month
period show 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid as the 99th percentile for
each 30-day rolling time period. The 30-day periods with high
NOX emissions occurred during periods of startup and
shutdown.
    The PCS Geismar plant submitted 15-minute average data for Train 5
for 2007-2009. Train 5 is controlled with SCR. The period spanning
January 2009 through December 2009 was analyzed. The continuous data
from a 12-month period show 0.38 lb NOX/ton acid as the 99th
percentile for each 30-day rolling time period.
    The El Dorado plant submitted hourly averages data for the period
of July 2010-June 2011. The continuous data from a 12-month period show
0.37 lb NOX/ton acid as the 99th percentile for each 30-day
rolling time period.
    We also received 15-minute average data on NOX emissions
for 2007-2009 from the PCS Geismar plant for Train 4, which is
controlled with NSCR. The period spanning January 2009 through December
2009 was analyzed to be consistent with Train 5 (controlled with SCR).
The continuous data from a 12-month period show 2.41 lb NOX/
ton acid as the 99th percentile emissions level for a 30-day time
period for train 4. The result of this analysis is limited due to the
fact that the nitric acid train was operational for approximately 65
days during the 12-month period. It is unlikely that this short time
period is representative of the NSCR performance over time.
    The Agrium-Sacramento plant submitted data spanning from January
2010 through December 2010. The continuous data over the 12-month
period show 1.29 lb NOX/ton acid as the 99th percentile for
a 30-day time period. The 30-day periods with high NOX
emissions occurred during periods of startup and shutdown.
    As shown by Table 1, all units are meeting the current Subpart G
NOX emission standard of 3.0 lb NOX/ton acid,
regardless of the compliance period. We did not receive any long term
data from the nitric acid train using HPI but the table shows that the
NOX emissions from nitric acid trains using SCR are lower
than nitric acid trains using NSCR. For example, reviewing the 99th
percentile on a 30-day rolling basis, SCR data range from 0.38 to 0.50
lb NOX/ton acid and NSCR data range from 1.29 to 2.41 lb
NOX/ton acid. The lower emissions from SCR when compared to
emissions from NSCR are the main reason that SCR has been determined as
BSER.
    Whether NSCR can meet the levels achievable by SCR over a long
term, is uncertain. The long term CEMS data from 2 NSCR plants indicate
difficulty in meeting the 0.50 lb NOX/ton limit. However, we
have monthly average data from 2 other facilities using NSCR. These
plants with NSCR (Dyno Nobel-Deer Island and JR Simplot-Helm) submitted
monthly block averages for a three year period. For 2009, the monthly
block averages for both plants were very close and range from 7 to 17
ppm or approximately 0.15-0.36 lb NOX/ton acid. As these
data are not continuous but rather block monthly averages, comparison
of these with the CEMS data discussed above is not possible. These data
are presented to show that NSCR may be able to achieve the proposed
emission limit. Also, the data presented in the memorandum Summary of
Test Data Received from Section 114 ICR, dated August 25, 2010 (updated
December 17, 2010) show that low short-term NOX emissions
rates are possible when using NSCR and HPI.
    For the units controlled by SCR, we have not been able to identify
any specific factors associated with the El Dorado Nitrogen and PCS
Nitrogen Train 5 units that account for the lower emission levels
compared to the Agrium-North Bend unit. Thus, based on the information
currently in the record, we believe that emission levels of
NOX are not only dependent on the use of SCR but also on
process factors that result in variability that cannot be avoided
through better or different design or through changes in operating
practices.
    By selecting an emission limit based on the 99th percentile of
emissions data from unit with BSER (which is SCR), we ensure that this
limit reflects BSER but is also achievable during all periods by
facilities that have BSER equivalent

controls. The available data for units with BSER, which were used to
derive the proposed NOX emissions limit for new, modified
and reconstructed units, are from existing nitric acid units that have
been in operation for at least 10 years. Therefore, we believe that
reconstructed, modified and new sources will be able to meet the
proposed limit. We have no reason to believe that modified or
reconstructed sources would not be able to meet this limit. Thus, we do
not believe different standards are needed for modified or
reconstructed sources.
    Moreover, in the past when companies chose to increase production
or replace units, it is our understanding that they would build new
production units rather than modify or reconstruct existing units. In
fact, to our knowledge, no existing nitric acid production unit has
been reconstructed or modified since Subpart G was promulgated.
Therefore, we expect no reconstructions or modifications to occur for
the nitric acid industry in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, we
request comment on any reconstructions or modifications to nitric acid
production units that have taken place or information about any future
plans to do such modifications or reconstructions. Also, we request
data on the level of NOX emissions that these nitric acid
units are able to achieve. If these emission levels are different than
0.50 lb NOX/ton acid on a 30 day rolling basis, the
commenter should include data to support the suggested emission level.
    Nevertheless, we expect that growth within the industry will be
limited to newly constructed nitric acid production units. We believe
that new nitric acid production units will be able to meet the proposed
limit which takes into consideration routine operating variability as
well as variation due to weather and periods of startups and shutdowns.
The proposed emission limit of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid is a
never to exceed limit. We have not identified any specific process or
technology that new nitric acid production units could employ to
consistently meet an emission limit lower than 0.50 lb NOX/
ton acid. Therefore, we are proposing a limit of 0.50 lb
NOX/ton acid for Subpart Ga.
    As part of our BSER analysis, we are proposing that the standard be
stated as a rolling 30-day limit based on 30 consecutive operating days
and that the limit be met at all times including periods of startup and
shutdown. We believe that the 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid standard
is supported by existing source data. The use of a 30-day period
accounts for peaks in the data that occur during startup and shutdown.
These periods occur on average about 3 to 4 hours per month and
emissions during those periods are much higher than normal. Therefore,
the 3 to 4 hour periods can affect average emissions beyond that 3 to 4
hour period. Setting the standard with a 30-day compliance period meets
the statutory requirement that the standard reflect the degree of
emission limitation that is achievable through BSER, including during
periods that include startup and shutdown.
    Although the proposed limit of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid is
based on the data for SCR, NSPS do not require the use and installation
of a specific control device. We request additional long-term data (in
units of the standard) to determine whether NSCR and HPI can achieve
the proposed limit.
    For all of the reasons discussed above, we are proposing 0.50 lb
NOX/ton acid as the revised standard for Nitric Acid Plants
to be established in Subpart Ga.
    Periods of Startup or Shutdown. In proposing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and,
for the reasons explained below, has not proposed different standards
for those periods.
    According to information received from industry in the section 114
ICR, NOX emissions during startup and shutdown are higher
than during normal operations. Due to the relatively short duration of
startup and shutdown events (generally a few hours) compared to normal
steady-state operations, we believe that a 30-day emission rate
calculated based on 30 consecutive operating days will allow affected
sources to meet the 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown. We request comment on the
use of a 30-day emission rate calculated based on 30 consecutive
operating days. Further, we request comment on whether the standard
should be set with a compliance period that is shorter (such as 24
hours). For any comment suggesting a shorter time period, the comment
should explain why that different period is appropriate and include
data supporting the different compliance period and how startup and
shutdown would be factored into a shorter term limit.
    If you believe that the EPA's conclusion is incorrect, or that the
EPA has failed to consider any relevant information on this point, we
encourage you to submit comments. In particular, we note that the
general provisions in Part 60 require facilities to keep records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown or malfunction (40 CFR
60.7(b)) and either report to the EPA any period of excess emissions
that occurs during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction (40 CFR
60.7(c)(2)) or report that no excess emissions occurred (40 CFR
60.7(c)(4)). Thus, any comments that contend that sources cannot meet
the proposed standard during startup and shutdown periods should
provide data and other specifics supporting their claim.
    Periods of Malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, and
shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's
operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden,
infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA has
determined that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct
operating mode. Further, nothing in section 111 or in case law requires
that the EPA anticipate and account for the innumerable types of
potential malfunction events in setting emission standards. See,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.'')
    Further, it is reasonable to interpret section 111 as not requiring
the EPA to account for malfunctions in setting emissions standards. For
example, we note that section 111 provides that the EPA will set
standards of performance which reflect the degree of emission
limitation achievable through ``the application of the best system of
emission reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately
demonstrated. Applying the concept of ``the application of the best
system of emission reduction'' to periods during which a source is
malfunctioning presents significant difficulties. The ``application of
the best system of emission reduction'' is more appropriately
understood to include operating in such a way as to avoid malfunctions
of their units.
    Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 111 standards for the nitric acid
production units that will

be covered in the proposed Subpart Ga. As noted above, by definition,
malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events and it would be difficult
to set a standard that takes into account the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category.
Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration,
further complicating standard setting.
    If the standard is stated as a 30-day emission rate calculated
based on 30 consecutive operating days, or some other time period, we
believe that sources will be able to operate their plants in compliance
with the standard even if they experience malfunctions. Also, excess
emissions from a nitric acid production unit during a malfunction can
frequently be mitigated or avoided by shutting the plant down if a key
component fails.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to avoid malfunctions and to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 111 standard was, in
fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not
instead ``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.''
40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to add an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission
limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 60.71a (defining
``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other regulatory
provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to establish this
affirmative defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 60.74a. (See
40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by
poor maintenance and/or careless operation). For example, to
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by
a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control
and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in
a normal or usual manner * * *.'' The criteria also are designed to
ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize
emissions in accordance with section 60.72a(b) and to prevent future
malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible
when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded * * *''
and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of
the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health * * *.'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the
Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense
and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the
requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be
assessed in accordance with section 113 of the Clean Air Act (see also
40 CFR part 22.77).

B. How is the EPA proposing to revise the testing and monitoring
requirements?

    The current NSPS requires an initial performance test, the
installation of a continuous NOX monitor and the recording
of the daily production rate and hours of operations. We are proposing
that the new Subpart Ga also require the installation, operation, and
maintenance of an exhaust gas flow rate monitor. The capital cost of
this monitor is $39,000 and the total annualized cost for this monitor
for a new nitric acid production unit is estimated to be $15,000. The
gas flow rate monitor provides data on the volume of gas emitted per
unit of time, and this information combined with the data from the NOx
monitor will result in more accurate measurements of the total
NOX being emitted.
    Subpart G currently requires that owners/operators of nitric acid
production units conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate
initial compliance with the NOX emission limit. The initial
performance test is based on three one-hour test runs for
NOX using manual testing methods; specifically, Method 7
(or, alternatively, Method 7A, 7B, 7C, or 7D) for NOX
concentration, and Method 2 for volumetric flow rate (40 CFR 60,
appendix A-4). The nitric acid production rate also must be determined
during the initial performance test so that the emissions can be
calculated in terms of the emissions limit, lb NOX per ton
of acid produced (100 percent acid basis). The current rule does not
provide specific procedures or criteria for determining the production
rate or concentration.
    The current NSPS also requires the owner/operator to install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a CEMS for measuring NOX
concentration (40 CFR 60, appendix B, Performance Specification 2) to
demonstrate continuing compliance. The owner/operator is required to
establish a conversion factor expressed as lb NOX per ton
acid produced per ppm NOX by comparing the CEMS data (ppm
NOX) obtained during the performance test to the performance
test results (lb NOX per ton of acid). The conversion factor
is used to convert the CEMS concentration data into units of the
emissions standard on an on-going basis. Subsequently, the owner/
operator must report periods of excess emissions defined as any 3-hour
period during which the average nitric acid emissions (arithmetic
average of three contiguous 1-hour periods) as measured by the CEMS
exceed the emissions standard. The owner/operator must reestablish the
conversion factor during any subsequent performance test.
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, we are proposing to require use of a
continuous compliance determination method (CCDM) for NOX
for nitric acid production units subject to Subpart Ga. The proposed
CCDM is a continuous emissions rate monitoring system (CERMS) comprised
of the NOX CEMS and a continuous exhaust gas flow rate
monitoring system. The CERMS would be required to meet the requirements
of performance specification 6 (40 CFR 60, appendix B).
    Performance Specification 6 (PS6) provides performance criteria for
the flow rate monitoring system and stipulates the overall performance

criteria for the monitoring system in terms of pollutant emissions rate
(i.e., lb NOX/hour). PS6 refers to the criteria of
performance specification 2 (PS2) for the NOX CEMS.
Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) is capable of
measuring NOX through the requirements in Performance
Specification 15 (PS15). The proposed regulation allows use of the FTIR
CEMS for determining compliance with the NOX emissions
limit, in lieu of a monitor meeting the requirements of PS2, at the
discretion of the owner/operator.
    This proposed rule would require the acid production rate to be
determined on a daily basis. The daily NOX emissions rate
measured by the CERMS (lb) and the daily production rate (tons of acid
per day) are used to calculate the emissions rates in units of the
standard, lbs NOX per ton of acid. This proposed rule would
provide options for measuring the production rate and stipulates a
minimum accuracy requirement for the measurement equipment. This
proposed rule also requires that the concentration of the produced
nitric acid be tested daily.
    We are proposing that nitric acid production units subject to
Subpart Ga will not be subject to an opacity standard; consequently no
test or monitoring method for opacity is included in this proposed
rule. Using the nitric acid production rate and concentration of the
nitric acid, the NOX concentration from the NOX
CEMS, and the flow rate from the proposed flow monitor, the
NOX emission rate in units of the standard (lb
NOX/ton acid) can be determined at any point in time.
Therefore, an opacity standard is not required as an additional method
of demonstrating compliance with a NOX emission limit.

C. How is the EPA proposing to revise the notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements?

    The only recordkeeping requirements in the existing Subpart G are
of daily production rate and hours of operation. The reporting
requirements in the existing subpart G include reports of excess
emissions and production rate. The frequency of reporting is
semiannually as specified in 60.7(c).
    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being proposed as
separate sections for Subpart Ga. Owners/operators subject to Subpart
Ga must keep records of all performance tests and results; and dated
daily records of hours of operation, nitric acid production rate, and
nitric acid concentration; explanations for periods of noncompliance
and corrective actions taken; span exceedances; and any modifications
to CERMS which could affect the ability of the CERMS to comply with
applicable performance specifications.
    Owners/operators must report all performance tests and results;
dated daily records of NOX emission rates that exceed the
standard, explanations for periods of noncompliance and corrective
actions taken, span exceedances, and any modifications to CERMS which
could affect the ability of the CERMS to comply with applicable
performance specifications; and RATA (i.e., from the initial
certification) and performance test data. The frequency of reporting
for Subpart Ga is the same as for Subpart G.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
These Proposed Standards

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as
well as impacts on energy, solid waste, and other effects.

A. What are the impacts for new nitric acid production units?

    We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed 40 CFR
part 60, Subpart Ga that change the performance standards for new
nitric acid production units. The cost, environmental, and economic
impacts presented in this section are expressed as incremental
differences between the impacts of nitric acid production units
complying with the proposed Subpart Ga and the current NSPS
requirements of Subpart G (i.e., baseline). The impacts are presented
for future nitric acid production units that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification over the 5 years following promulgation
of the revised NSPS. Costs are based on 2nd quarter of 2010. The
analyses and the documents referenced below can be found in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750.
    In order to determine the incremental impacts of this proposed
rule, we first estimated the number of new nitric acid production units
that would become subject to regulation during the five year period
after promulgation of subpart Ga. Based on existing nitric acid
production units and estimated future growth rates, 6 new nitric acid
production units are expected to be required to meet the nitric acid
production demand in that five year period. For further detail on the
methodology of these calculations, see memorandum Impacts of Nitric
Acid NSPS Review--NOX, dated December 15, 2010, in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0750.
    The proposed Subpart Ga NOX emission limit reflects the
use of control technologies currently in use by the industry and
reflects an adjustment of the limit to more accurately reflect the
performance of these control technologies. The current Subpart G NSPS
NOX emissions limit can be achieved using a number of
control techniques including NSCR, SCR and HPI. In many cases, the air
pollution control systems used to meet the current NSPS could be used
to meet the proposed revised NOX emission limit for future
affected facilities. The potential nationwide emission reduction
associated with lowering the NOX limit from 3.0 to 0.50 lb
NOX/ton acid (100 percent acid basis) is estimated to be
2,000 tons per year (tpy) NOX. This potential emission
reduction may be overestimated because the majority of control systems
installed on future affected facilities would likely result in
emissions at or below the proposed emissions limit even in the absence
of these proposed revisions.
    There are many existing nitric acid production units currently
meeting 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid. Therefore, there is no
increase in control costs of meeting the proposed emission limit of
0.50 lb NOX/ton acid for new nitric acid production units
compared to the control costs to comply with subpart Ga. The only costs
incurred would be the installation of an air flow monitor, which is
discussed below.
    There are differences in notification, testing, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR) between Subpart G and the new
Subpart Ga that result in increased costs. We are proposing the use of
a CERMS for monitoring compliance with Subpart Ga. The CERMS requires
the installation of both a continuous NOX monitor and
continuous exhaust gas flow rate monitor. The current NSPS (subpart G)
requires only the installation of a continuous NOX monitor.
The installation, operation, and maintenance of an exhaust gas flow
rate monitor will increase the cost to nitric acid production units
over what would be incurred to comply with subpart G. We estimate that
the total increase in nationwide annual cost associated with this
proposed monitoring revision is $90,110 for all six of the new
production units projected to be built from 2011 to 2016.
    The estimated nationwide incremental 5-year NOX
emissions reductions and cost impacts for these proposed revisions are
summarized in Table 2 of this preamble. The methodology is detailed in
the memorandum Impacts of Nitric Acid

NSPS Review--NOX, dated December 13, 2010 (updated July 27, 2011). The
overall cost effectiveness is about $45 per ton of NOX
removed.

   Table 2--National Incremental NOX Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for New Nitric Acid Production Units
         Subject to Proposed Standards Under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ga (Fifth Year After Promulgation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Potential annual
                                                            Total annualized    NOX emission     Potential cost
     Proposed revisions for future affected facilities      cost [$1,000/yr]     reductions       effectiveness
                                                                                [tons NOX/yr]      [$/ton NOX]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to NOX emission limit...........................                $0             2,000             $0.00
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Revisions to MRR requirements.............................                90  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................                90             2,000                45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the secondary impacts for new nitric acid production units?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. In most
cases, to comply with the current Subpart G NOX emission
limit or this Subpart Ga NOX emission limit, the same
control system (SCR, NSCR, or HPI) would have been installed. These
proposed revisions only require the addition of exhaust gas flow
monitors, which would result in minimal secondary air impacts or
increase in overall energy demand.

C. What are the economic impacts for new nitric acid production units?

    We performed an economic impact analysis that estimates changes in
prices and output for nitric acid production units nationally using the
annual compliance costs estimated for this proposed rule. All estimates
are for the fifth year after promulgation since this is the year for
which the compliance cost impacts are estimated. The impacts to
producers and consumers affected by this proposed rule are slightly
higher product prices and slightly lower outputs. Prices for products
(nitric acid) from affected plants should increase by less than 0.07
percent for the fifth year. The output of nitric acid should decrease
by less than 0.50 percent for the fifth year. Hence, the overall
economic impact of this proposed NSPS should be low on the affected
industries and their consumers. For more information, please refer to
the Economic Impact Analysis for this proposed rulemaking in the public
docket.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a significant regulatory action because it could raise novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order
12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has
been assigned the EPA ICR number [2445.01].
    These proposed revisions to the existing new source performance
standards for nitric acid production units would add monitoring
requirements for future affected facilities. We have revised the ICR
for the existing rule.
    These proposed revisions to the new source performance standards
for nitric acid production units for future affected facilities include
a change to the emission limit and additional continuous monitoring
requirements. The monitoring requirements include installing a
continuous flow monitor and monitoring the nitric acid concentration.
These monitoring requirements are in addition to a CEMS for
NOX concentration which is required under the current
subpart G. These requirements are based on specific requirements in
Subpart Ga which are mandatory for all operators subject to NSPS. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to
the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to
the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 968 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $91,808 per year. The annualized capital costs are
estimated at $19,288 per year. The annualized operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs are $23,488. The total annualized capital and O&M costs are
$42,776 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0750. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after October 14, 2011, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by November 14,
2011. The final rule will respond to any OMB

or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on the economic impact of this action to all
affected small entities. Only four small entities may be impacted by
this proposed rule. We estimate that all affected small entities will
have annualized costs of less than 0.3 percent of their sales. We
conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (SISNOSE) for this rule.
    For more information on the small entity impacts associated with
this proposed rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small
Business Analyses in the public docket. Although this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, the EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this
proposed rule on small entities. When developing the revised standards,
the EPA took special steps to ensure that the burdens imposed on small
entities were minimal. The EPA conducted several meetings with industry
trade associations to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding
burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and reporting. 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

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one
year. This rule is not expected to impact state, local, or tribal
governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this proposed rule for
affected industrial sources is $90,010/yr. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule will not
apply to such governments and will not impose any obligations upon
them.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Nitric acid plants are privately
owned companies and there will be no direct impact on states and other
federal offices. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state
and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment on this
proposed rule from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of
nitric acid production units and not tribal governments. We do not know
of any nitric acid production units owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. However, if there are any, the effect of this proposed
rule on communities of tribal governments would not be unique or
disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 22,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes to use: ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination
of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, and ASTM E1584, Standard Test Method for
Assay of Nitric Acid, which have been incorporated by reference.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and specifically invites the public to identify

potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The EPA has also determined that a proximity-based
demographic study comparing populations in closest proximity to the
regulated sources to the general population is not appropriate for this
rulemaking due to lack of pollutants with localized effects.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: September 30, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(82) and
adding paragraph (a)(93) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (82) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Sec.  60.73a(f)(2) of
subpart Ga, table 7 of subpart IIII of this part, and table 2 of
subpart JJJJ of this part.
* * * * *
    (93) ASTM E1584-00(2005)e1, Standard Test Method for Assay of
Nitric Acid, IBR approved for Sec.  60.73a(b)(2) of subpart Ga.
* * * * *
    3. Section 60.70 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.70  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction or modification after August 17, 1971, and on or before
October 14, 2011 is subject to the requirements of Subpart G. Any
facility that commences construction or modification after October 14,
2011 is subject to Subpart Ga.
* * * * *
    4. Add Subpart Ga to read as follows:

Subpart Ga--Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
October 14, 2011

Sec.
60.70a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.71a Definitions.
60.72a Standards.
60.73a Emissions testing and monitoring.
60.74a Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit During
Malfunction.
60.75a Calculations.
60.76a Recordkeeping.
60.77a Reporting.

Subpart Ga--Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
October 14, 2011

Sec.  60.70a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to each nitric
acid production unit, which is the affected facility.
    (b) This subpart applies to any nitric acid production unit that
commences construction or modification on or after October 14, 2011.

Sec.  60.71a  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
    (a) Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
    (b) Nitric acid production unit means any facility producing weak
nitric acid by either the pressure or atmospheric pressure process.
    (c) Operating day means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 a.m.
during which the nitric acid production unit at any time during this
period.
    (d) Weak nitric acid means acid which is 30 to 70 percent in
strength.

Sec.  60.72a  Standards.

    (a) Nitrogen oxides. On and after the date on which the performance
test required to be conducted by Sec.  60.73a(a) is completed, you may
not discharge into the atmosphere from any affected facility any gases
which contain NOX, expressed as NO2, in excess of
0.50 pounds (lb) per ton of nitric acid produced, as a 30-day emission
rate calculated based on 30 consecutive operating days, the production
being expressed as 100 percent nitric acid. The emission standard
applies at all times.
    (b) General Duty to minimize emissions. At all times, the owner or
operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such
operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.

Sec.  60.73a  Emissions testing and monitoring.

    (a) Nitric acid production monitoring.
    (1) For any affected facility, you must determine the daily nitric
acid production parameters (production rate and concentration) by
installing, calibrating, maintaining, and operating a permanent
monitoring system (e.g., weigh scale, volume flow meter, mass flow
meter, tank volume) to measure

and record the weight rates of nitric acid produced in tons per day.
You must verify that each component of the monitoring system has an
accuracy and precision of no more than 5 percent of full
scale.
    (2) You may analyze product concentration via titration or by
determining the temperature and specific gravity of the nitric acid.
You may also use ASTM E1584-00(2005)e1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  60.17), for determining the concentration of nitric acid in
percent. You must determine product concentration daily.
    (3) For any affected facility, you must use the acid concentration
to express the daily nitric acid production as 100 percent nitric acid.
    (4) For any affected facility, you must record the daily nitric
acid production, expressed as 100 percent nitric acid, and the hours of
operation.
    (b) Nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitoring system. (1) You
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
rate monitoring system (CERMS) for measuring and recording the mass
emissions of NOX in accordance with the provisions of 60.13
and Performance Specifications 2 and 6 of appendix B of this part. The
CERMS must consist of equipment for measuring NOX
concentration and stack gas volumetric flow rate monitoring equipment
for measuring the volumetric flow rate and for calculating and
reporting hourly and daily NOX mass emissions rates in units
of lb/hour and lb NOX/ton of 100% nitric acid.
    (2) As applicable, use a span value, as defined in Performance
Specification 2 Sec.  3.11, for all NOX concentration
monitoring equipment equal to 125 percent of the maximum estimated
NOX emission concentration.
    (3) You must conduct performance evaluations of the NOX
CERMS according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance
Specifications 2 and 6 of appendix B of this part. For conducting the
relative accuracy evaluations, per Sec.  8.4 of the Performance
Specification 2, use either EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E
of appendix A-4 of this part; EPA Reference Method 320 of appendix A of
part 63 of this chapter; or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  60.17).
    (4) If you use EPA Reference Method 7E of Appendix A-4 of this
part, you must mitigate loss of NO2 in water according to
the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section and verify performance by conducting the system bias checks
required in Sec.  8 of EPA Reference Method 7E of appendix A-4 of this
part according to (b)(4)(iv) of this section, or follow the dynamic
spike procedure according to paragraph (b)(4)(v) of this section.
    (i) For a wet-basis measurement system, you must measure and report
temperature of sample line and components (up to analyzer inlet) to
demonstrate that the temperatures remain above the sample gas dew point
at all times during the sampling.
    (ii) You may use a dilution probe to reduce the dew point of the
sample gas.
    (iii) You may use a refrigerated-type condenser or similar device
(e.g., permeation dryer) to remove condensate continuously from sample
gas while maintaining minimal contact between condensate and sample
gas.
    (iv) If your analyzer measures nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) separately, you must use both NO and
NO2 calibration gases. Otherwise, you must substitute
NO2 calibration gas for NO calibration gas in the
performance of system bias checks.
    (v) You must conduct dynamic spiking according to Sec.  16.1 in EPA
Reference Method 7E of appendix A-4 of this part using NO2
as the spike gas.
    (5) You must use stack gas flow rate measurement equipment with a
full scale output of at least 125 percent of the maximum expected
exhaust volumetric flow rate (see Sec.  8 of Performance Specification
6, Appendix B, of this part).
    (d) CERMS Quality Assurance and Quality Control.
    (1) The CERMS must comply with the quality assurance requirements
in Procedure 1 of Appendix F of this part. You must use cylinder gas
audits to fulfill the quarterly auditing requirement at Appendix F,
Procedure 1, Sec.  5.1 of this part only on the NOX
concentration measurement equipment. You must conduct relative accuracy
testing to provide for calculating the relative accuracy for RATA and
RAA determinations in units of lb/hour and lb NOX/ton nitric
acid.
    (2) You must determine daily calibration drift assessments
separately for each analyzer in terms of its specific measurement. You
must perform the daily assessments in accordance with the procedures
specified in Sec. Sec.  8.1 and 13.1 of Performance Specification 6 of
appendix B of this part.
    (3) Should you apply an FTIR CEMS meeting the requirements of
Performance Specification 15, Appendix B of this part, you must replace
the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part with the validation requirements and criteria
of Sec. Sec.  11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of
appendix B of this part.
    (e) For each CERMS, including NOX concentration
measurement, volumetric flow rate measurement, and nitric acid
production measurement equipment, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must operate the CERMS and collect data at all required
intervals at all times the affected source is operating except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods as
defined in Appendix F, Sec. Sec.  4 and 5, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities
including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span
adjustments. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent,
not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You are
required to affect monitoring system repairs in response to monitoring
system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, and to return the
monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as practicable.
    (2) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions or out-of-control periods, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must use
all the data collected during all other periods in calculating
emissions and the status of compliance with the applicable emissions
limit in accordance with Sec.  60.72a(a).
    (3) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions
or out-of-control periods, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments, failure to
collect required data is a violation of the monitoring requirements.
    (f) Initial Performance Testing. You, as the owner or operator of a
new unit, must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the NOX emissions limit under Sec.
60.72a(a) beginning in the calendar month following initial
certification of the NOX

and flow rate monitoring CEMS. The initial performance test consists of
collection of hourly NOX average concentration, mass flow
rate (SCFH) recorded with the certified NOX concentration
and flow rate CEMS and the corresponding acid generation (tons) data
for all of the hours of operation for the first 30 days beginning on
the first day of the first month following completion of the CEMS
installation and certification as described above. You must assure that
the CERMS meets all of the data quality assurance requirements as per
Sec.  60.13 and appendix F, procedure 1 of this part and you must use
the data from the CERMS for this compliance determination.

Sec.  60.74a  Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit
During Malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec.  60.72a, you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 60.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving
all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative
defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
Sec.  60.72a to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of
this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance.

Sec.  60.75a  Calculations.

    (a) The 30-day rolling NOX emission rate is calculated
as the sum of all daily NOX mass emissions recorded by the
CERMS for 30 consecutive operating days divided by the sum of nitric
acid production for these 30 consecutive operating days. Calculate and
record the daily mass emissions of NOX according to the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must calculate the daily mass emissions according to
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC11.000

Where:

Md = daily mass emissions of NOX as
NO2, lb NOX.
Ci = concentration of NOX for hour i, lb/
standard cubic foot (scf).
Qi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i,
scf/hour.
n = number of operating hours in the operating day.

    (2) For any operating day where monitoring data are only available
for part of the hours where nitric acid is produced during that day due
to CERMS malfunctions, out-of-control periods, or repairs associated
with monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, you must
calculate Md for the periods where monitoring data are
available using Equation 1 in (a)(1) above, and then adjust upwards
overall operating hours on a pro rata basis.
    (3) You must ensure appropriate corrections for moisture are made
when measuring flow rates.
    (4) Following each calendar day on which the affected facility was
operated, you must calculate the 30-day NOX emission rate
according to Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC11.001

Where:

E30-day = emission rate of NOX as
NO2 calculated based on 30 consecutive operating days, lb
NOX/ton of 100 percent nitric acid.
Md = daily mass emissions of NOX as
NO2 for operating day d, lb NOX
Pd = daily nitric acid production for operating day d,
tons of 100 percent nitric acid.
m = number of days in the 30-day compliance period for which CERMS
data is available.

Sec.  60.76a  Recordkeeping.

    (a) For the NOX emissions rate, you must keep records of
the performance test data from the initial and subsequent performance
tests and from the performance evaluation of the continuous monitors.

    (b) You must maintain records of the following information for each
30 day period:
    (1) Hours of operation.
    (2) Production rate of nitric acid, expressed as 100 percent nitric
acid.
    (3) NOX mass emissions.
    (c) You must maintain records of the following time periods:
    (1) Times when you were not in compliance with the emissions
standards.
    (2) Times when the pollutant concentration exceeded full span of
the NOX pollutant monitoring equipment.
    (3) Times when the volumetric flow rate exceeded the high value of
the volumetric flow rate monitoring equipment.
    (d) You must maintain records of the reasons for any periods of
noncompliance and description of corrective actions taken.
    (e) You must maintain records of any modifications to CERMS which
could affect the ability of the CERMS to comply with applicable
performance specifications.
    (f) For each malfunction, you must maintain records of the
following information:
    (1) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
    (2) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with section 60.72a(b), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.

Sec.  60.77a  Reporting.

    (a) The performance test data from the initial and subsequent
performance tests and from the performance evaluations of the
continuous monitors must be submitted to the Administrator at the
appropriate address as shown in 40 CFR 60.4.
    (b) The following information must be reported to the Administrator
for each 30 day period where you were not in compliance with the
emissions standard:
    (1) Time period.
    (2) NOX emission rates (lb/ton of acid produced).
    (3) Reasons for noncompliance with the emissions standard; and
description of corrective actions taken.
    (c) You must also report the following whenever they occur:
    (1) Times when the pollutant concentration exceeded full span of
the NOX pollutant monitoring equipment.
    (2) Times when the volumetric flow rate exceeded the high value of
the volumetric flow rate monitoring equipment.
    (d) You must report any modifications to CERMS which could affect
the ability of the CERMS to comply with applicable performance
specifications.
    (e) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or test required under this
subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and
performance test data by successfully submitting the data
electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
    (f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, you must
submit a report that contains the following:
    (1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded.
    (2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with 60.72a(b), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
[FR Doc. 2011-26089 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P