[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20855-20873]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05853]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0417; FRL-10006-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT74

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Hydrochloric Acid Production Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Production source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, in this action we are finalizing
amendments to add electronic reporting; address periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and establish work practice standards
for maintenance activities pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are
making no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on the risk
analysis or technology review. Although these amendments are not
anticipated to result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), they will result in improved monitoring, compliance
and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0417. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Terri Hollingsworth, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability of
the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Marcia Mia, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
Cl2 chlorine
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR Risk and Technology Review
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On February 4, 2019, the EPA proposed the
results of the RTR for the HCl NESHAP and proposed amendments to add
electronic reporting and address periods of SSM. In the proposal, the
EPA also solicited public comments regarding maintenance activities. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble.
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's
responses to those comments is available in the Summary of Public
Comments and

Responses for Risk and Technology Review for Hydrochloric Acid
Production, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0417. A ``track changes''
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in
this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the HCl Production source category and how does the
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the HCl Production source
category in our February 4, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the HCl Production source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the HCl Production source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to section
112(d)(2) and (3) for the HCl Production source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the HCl Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the HCl Production Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the HCl Production Source Category
    C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
    D. Other Amendments
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source category                  NESHAP         NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl production and fume silica      HCl Production......          325180
 production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/hydrochloric-acid-production-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and
key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by
June 15, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that

emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10
tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect
the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 1570, February 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide `an ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the HCl Production source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the HCl Production NESHAP on April 17, 2003 (68
FR 19075). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN.
The HCl production industry consists of facilities that produce a
liquid HCl product from a gas stream containing HCl through absorption.
    The HCl production facility is the basic unit defined in the
NESHAP. Specifically, the rule defines an HCl production facility as
the collection of unit operations and equipment associated with the
production of liquid HCl product. The production of liquid HCl product
occurs through the absorption of gaseous HCl into either water or an
aqueous HCl solution. The HCl production facility includes HCl storage
tanks (as defined in 40 CFR 63.9075), HCl transfer operations that load
the HCl product into a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge, and
equipment leaks. A plant site could have several separate and distinct
HCl production facilities. The affected source includes all HCl
production facilities at the same site. An HCl production facility
begins at the point where a gaseous stream containing HCl enters an
absorber and ends at the point where the liquid HCl product is loaded
into a tank truck, rail car, ship, or barge, at the point the HCl
product enters another process on the plant site, or at the point the
HCl product leaves the plant site via pipeline. The source category
covered by this MACT standard currently includes 19 facilities.
    The 2003 NESHAP established emissions limitations for existing and
new process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and equipment
leaks. The NESHAP includes numerical emissions limitations for process
vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl transfer operations as well as work
practice standards for equipment leaks.

C. What changes did we propose for the HCl Production source category
in our February 4, 2019, proposal?

    On February 4, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the HCl Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNNN, that took into consideration the RTR analyses and proposed no
changes to the NESHAP based on our CAA section 112(f) and 112(d)(6)
(RTR) reviews. In addition, we proposed to add electronic reporting and
to remove exemptions for periods of SSM. Finally, we sought public
comments on work practice standards for maintenance activities.
    We proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the standards to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court
vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the HCl Production source category
and the EPA's decision that revisions to the NESHAP are not necessary
under the risk review or technology review because the NESHAP protects
public health with an ample margin of safety and protects against an
adverse environmental effect. We did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies under the technology
review that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source
category. However, this action finalizes other changes to the NESHAP,
including removal of exemptions for periods of SSM, and the addition of
electronic reporting requirements. This action also reflects changes to
the

February 2019 proposal in consideration of comments received during the
public comment period related to work practice standards for
maintenance activities described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
HCl Production source category?

    This section describes the final actions regarding the HCl
Production NESHAP that the EPA is taking pursuant to CAA section
112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to the NESHAP based on the risk
review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are
finalizing our proposed determination that risks caused by emissions
from HCl production are acceptable, and that the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and that more stringent
standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
    The EPA is, therefore, not revising the standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) (for NESHAP 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN) based on the
residual risk review and is readopting the existing standards under CAA
section 112(f)(2). See Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the
Risk and Technology Review for the Hydrochloric Acid Production Source
Category, available in the docket for this action, for discussion of
key comments and responses regarding the residual risk review.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the HCl Production source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and
(3) for the HCl Production source category?

    In the February 4, 2019, proposal, the Agency sought comments on
maintenance provisions recommended by industry prior to proposal to
address the anticipated removal of SSM exemptions from the NESHAP. A
company that owns multiple HCl production facilities and a trade
association representing HCl producers commented that removing the SSM
exemption would create uncertainty regarding how emissions from
intermittent planned maintenance activities would be regulated.
Commenters stated that equipment is cleaned and cleared of chemicals
prior to opening to the atmosphere for maintenance activities. The
commenters recommended work practice standards in lieu of numerical
emissions standards for maintenance activities due to the
impracticality of capturing and measuring these emissions.
    In this final rule, based on consideration of public comments, the
EPA is adding work practice standards for maintenance vents to ensure
emissions from these activities are subject to standards. As discussed
in section IV.D of this preamble, we determined that it is impractical
to measure the extremely small amounts of HCl and chlorine
(Cl2) that could be emitted after opening these
``maintenance vents'' to the atmosphere and that these emissions could
be adequately addressed through work practice standards.

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?

    The Agency is finalizing, as proposed, changes to the HCl
Production NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the EPA is
establishing standards in this rule that apply at all times. Table 7 to
Subpart NNNNN of Part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) is
being revised to change several references related to requirements that
apply during periods of SSM. The EPA eliminated or revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM
exemption. The EPA also made changes to the rule to remove or modify
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the
SSM exemption. Other than the periods of maintenance activities
described above which will be covered by work practice standards, the
EPA determined that facilities in this source category can meet the
applicable emission standards in the HCl Production NESHAP at all
times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Also, as stated in
our proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d
579, 606-610 (2016). The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM
periods that are being finalized in this rule are set forth in the
preamble to the proposed rule. See 84 FR 1584 through 1587 (February 4,
2019) and discussed below.
1. 40 CFR 63.9005 General Duty
    We are finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the General Provisions
table (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions during periods of SSM. With the elimination
of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing
the general duty. The EPA is adding general duty regulatory text at 40
CFR 63.9005(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions
during all periods of operation.
    The EPA is also revising the General Provisions table (Table 7)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to
a ``no.'' This provision requires malfunctions to be corrected as
quickly as practicable and minimize emissions consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii)
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.9005(b).
2. SSM Plan
    As proposed, the EPA is revising the General Provisions table
(Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column
3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of an
SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the
SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have the same incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance as they do during periods of normal
operation and, thus, planning requirements specific for SSM are no
longer necessary.
3. Compliance with Standards
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-
opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court
in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
and held that the CAA requires a standard to apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra

Club, the EPA is revising standards in this rule to apply at all times.
4. 40 CFR 63.9020 Performance Testing
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry
for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA
is instead adding a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.9020(a)(3). The performance testing requirements we are adding
differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in
several respects. Specifically, the new performance testing
requirements do not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restating
the SSM exemption. However, we are including similar language that
precludes startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. We are
including language in 40 CFR 63.9020(a)(3), similar to that in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), providing that performance tests conducted under this
subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions. This is because
conditions during malfunctions are not representative of normal
operating conditions. The EPA is adding language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
records an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make
available upon request by the Administrator such records ``as may be
necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,'' but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is adding in 40 CFR 63.9020(a)(3) includes the
record requirements in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and also makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
5. Monitoring
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry
for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3
to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of the
removal of the SSM exemption and other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that
require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and
that set out the requirements of a quality control program for
monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which
is no longer applicable. The EPA is adding to the rule at 40 CFR
63.9005(d)(5) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that
the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
6. 40 CFR 63.9055 Recordkeeping
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry
for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements
during startup and shutdown. These recordkeeping provisions are no
longer necessary because the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
during startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain recordkeeping for startup and
shutdown periods separate from the requirement that applies during
normal operation.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
a malfunction. The EPA is adding such requirements to 40 CFR 63.9055.
The regulatory text we are adding differs from that in the General
Provisions; the General Provisions require the creation and retention
of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is
finalizing, as proposed, that this requirement applies to any failure
to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record
the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also adding to 40 CFR 63.9055 a requirement
that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard which
the source failed to meet, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is requiring that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events when those actions were inconsistent with their SSM
plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will
no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and
record corrective actions is now applicable in 40 CFR 63.9055.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their
SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans
will no longer be required.
7. 40 CFR 63.9050 Reporting
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry
for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for SSM
events. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the
EPA is adding reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.9050(c)(5). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as stand-alone reports. We are
adding language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable
standard at any time to report the information concerning such events
in the semi-annual compliance report already required in 40 CFR
63.9050. We are requiring that the report must contain the number,
date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown
cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.

    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is finalizing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    The amendments eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for SSM events
when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow
the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report
when actions taken during a SSM event were not consistent with an SSM
plan, because such plans will no longer be required.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 7) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The
EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is eliminating this requirement because SSM plans
will no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) will no
longer be available to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12).
    The EPA is also finalizing a revision to the performance testing
requirements at 40 CFR 63.9020(a)(2) through (3). This final rule text
states that each performance test must be conducted under normal
operating conditions; and operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions
for purposes of conducting a performance test. The final rules also
require that operators maintain records to document that operating
conditions during the test represent normal operations.
    Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments
we received on the SSM provisions and our responses.

E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP requirements. The revisions are briefly described in this
section (refer to section IV.D of this preamble for further details).
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners or operators
of facilities in the HCl Production source category submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notice of
Compliance Status (NOCS) reports through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) website. Performance test and performance evaluation
test reports are prepared using the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT). We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow
facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility
(i.e., a possible outage in the CDX or Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or a force majeure event in the time just
prior to a report's due date), as well as the process to assert such a
claim. In addition, we are finalizing all proposed revisions for
clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical errors,
and cross-reference errors. No public comment has been received on the
editorial corrections and clarifications, and these changes are being
finalized as proposed. See 84 FR 1594 and 1596 (February 4, 2019).

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on April 15, 2020. Existing affected sources and
new affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on
or before February 4, 2019, must comply with the amendments no later
than 180 days after April 15, 2020. Affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after February 4, 2019, must comply with
all requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN, including the
amendments being finalized, no later than the effective date of the
final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA is finalizing
four changes that affect ongoing compliance requirements for this
subpart. First, we are changing the requirements for SSM by removing
the provisions that provide an exemption from the requirements to meet
the standard during SSM periods. Second, we are removing the
requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Third, we are adding
work practice standards for maintenance vents. Finally, we are adding a
requirement that performance test results and reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports be submitted
electronically. From the assessment of the timeframe needed for
implementing the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA proposed
a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period
practicable. The EPA received public comments from owners of HCl
production facilities requesting more than 180 days for electronic
reporting requirements to go into effect. Thus, the compliance date of
the final amendments for all existing sources and new sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 4, 2019,
will be October 13, 2020 for all revisions other than the electronic
reporting requirements, which will be April 16, 2021 or when final
electronic reporting templates for subpart NNNNN are finalized,
whichever is later. The compliance date of the final amendments for new
sources that commence construction or reconstruction after February 4,
2019, will be April 15, 2020.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the HCl Production source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the HCl Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the HCl
Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample

margin of safety, in the February 4, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNNNN (84 FR 1582). The results of the risk assessment
for the proposal are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble.
More detail may be found in the residual risk technical support
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Hydrochloric Acid Production
Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

                              Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Hydrochloric Acid Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cancer MIR \1\ (in 1 million)                    Population      Population      Max chronic
                                                         --------------------------------     Cancer        with cancer     with cancer    noncancer HI
                                                             Based on        Based on        incidence    risk of 1-in-1  risk of 10-in-    \2\ actuals
                                                              actual         allowable      (cases per      million or     1 million or        (and
                                                             emissions       emissions         year)           more            more         allowables)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................................               0               0               0               0               0         0.2 (2)
Whole Facility..........................................             600  ..............            0.09         980,000         130,000               6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum individual risk.
\2\ Hazard index.

    The results of the inhalation cancer risk assessment, as shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, indicate there is no quantifiable cancer risk
posed by the source category since the two HAP emitted from the HCl
Production source category are not known or suspected carcinogens.
Neither the EPA nor the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) has evaluated the weight of evidence with respect to human
carcinogenicity for Cl2. However, IARC has determined that
HCl is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. Likewise, the total
estimated cancer incidence is 0 (zero) excess cancer cases per year and
no people are estimated to have cancer risk associated with this source
category. The maximum modeled chronic noncancer target-organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI) value for the source category based on actual
emissions is estimated to be 0.2, driven by emissions of Cl2
from process vents. The target organ affected is the respiratory
system. The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI increases when
based on allowable emissions, with a TOSHI as high as 2 (respiratory)
driven by Cl2 emissions from process vents at two
facilities. Based on allowable emissions, 300 people are estimated to
have a noncancer HI above 1 at these two facilities.
    The screening and refined analyses for acute impacts were based on
an estimate of peak hourly actual emissions. To estimate the peak
hourly emission rates from the annual average rates, a default
multiplier of 10 was used for emission points in the source category.
The choice of a default multiplier of 10 is discussed in section
III.C.3.c of this preamble. The results of the acute refined analysis
indicate that the maximum off-facility-site acute hazard quotient (HQ)
is 0.7, based on the reference exposure level value for HCl, and occurs
at one facility.
    No HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment (cadmium, dioxins, polycyclic organic matter, mercury,
arsenic, and lead) are emitted from this source category. Therefore, a
multi-pathway assessment is not warranted. The only environmental HAP
emitted by facilities in this source category is HCl. Results of the
analysis for HCl indicate that, based on actual emissions, the maximum
annual off-site concentration is below all ecological benchmarks for
all facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
    All health risk factors were weighed, including those shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and
the EPA proposed that the risks posed by the HCl Production source
category are acceptable (see section IV.B.1 of proposal preamble, 84 FR
1570, February 4, 2019).
    The EPA then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN,
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
whether, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, and to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In
considering whether standards are required to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, the same risk factors were
considered as for the acceptability determination along with costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category. As discussed in the proposal
preamble (84 FR 1570, February 4, 2019), after considering all the
factors mentioned above, the EPA proposed that additional emissions
controls for the HCl Production source category are not required to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The Agency
also proposed that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard
to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. See sections IV.B.2
and 3 of the proposal preamble, 84 FR 1570, February 4, 2019.
2. How did the risk review change for the HCl Production source
category?
    The EPA did not receive any public comments or data that caused the
Agency to change our emissions estimates, risk assessment methods, or
decisions regarding acceptability and ample margin of safety from those
presented in the proposal. Therefore, the EPA did not rerun the risk
modeling analyses. At proposal, we determined that risks due to the HCl
Production source category are acceptable, no revisions are needed to
provide an ample margin of safety, and more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Upon
consideration of the comments received, we are finalizing our
determination that the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety and it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent an adverse environmental effect. More details regarding the
risk assessment can be found in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Hydrochloric Acid Production Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    The EPA received mixed public comments on the risk review, with
some

commenters supportive of our methodology and proposed decisions while
others disagreed. Examples from commenters on suggested changes to the
EPA's risk assessment methodology included that the EPA should lower
its presumptive limit of acceptability for cancer risks to below 100-
in-1 million, include emissions outside of the source categories in
question in the risk assessment, and assume that pollutants with
noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure. After review of
all the comments received, it was determined that no changes were
necessary. The comments and specific responses can be found in the
document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and
Technology Review for the Hydrochloric Acid Production Source Category,
available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in the proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of ``approximately 1-in-10
thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). All health risk
measures and factors in our risk acceptability determination are
weighed, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer
TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks,
the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    As noted above, the EPA did not receive any comments that resulted
in a change to the risk estimates for the source category. After
considering all comments regarding the EPA's risk review methodology
and proposed decisions, the EPA has determined to finalize its proposed
determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety,
and adverse environmental effects. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, in section IV.A.2 of this preamble, and in the EPA's
Response to Comment document for this final rule, the EPA determines
that the risks from the source category are acceptable, the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
and more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, the EPA is not revising the standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review,
and the Agency is readopting the existing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2).
    At proposal, the EPA sought public comments on the use of the
updated ethylene oxide cancer risk value for regulatory purposes.\2\ We
received a number of comments related to this request and as stated in
the proposal for the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP RTR proposal, we are
incorporating those comments into the record for that rulemaking and
plan to respond to them in the final RTR rulemaking for that source
category. See 84 FR 69187, December 17, 2019.\3\ We also note that the
Agency is taking action to address emissions of ethylene oxide in a
number of ways as described in the proposal preamble. See 84 FR 1584,
February 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA did so because the assessment of facility-wide
risks, undertaken to provide context for the source category risk,
indicated that the maximum facility-wide cancer MIR was 600-in-1
million, mainly driven by ethylene oxide emissions from a variety of
industrial processes, none of which are part of this source
category. See 84 FR 1583, February 4, 2019.
    \3\ The EPA held a public hearing on March 27, 2019, in
Washington, DC, at which time a number of speakers spoke to the use
of the updated ethylene oxide cancer risk value for regulatory
purposes. A transcript of that hearing has been placed in the docket
for this rulemaking and, as well, will be incorporated by reference
in the docket for the rulemaking for the Miscellaneous Organic
NESHAP RTR (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Technology Review for the HCl Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the HCl
Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for the HCl
Production source category. No developments were found in practices,
processes, and control technologies that could be applied to HCl
production facilities.
2. How did the technology review change for the HCl Production source
category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the technology review since the
February 4, 2019, RTR proposal for the HCl Production source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    The comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment
summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Hydrochloric Acid
Production, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing the technology
review as proposed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that warrant revisions to the standards. We
evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and, for
the reasons stated in our responses to those comments, we determined no
changes to the review are needed.

C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM

1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
    We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all
times. More information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in
the proposed rule (84 FR 1584, February 4, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
    Since proposal, the SSM provisions have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are
our responses?
    The comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment
summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Hydrochloric Acid
Production, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
SSM-related requirements?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 1584, February 4, 2019) and our response to
comment document, we are removing the provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all
times, and are finalizing revised requirements for periods of SSM, as
proposed.

D. Other Amendments

1. What other amendments did we propose for the HCl Production source
category?
    We proposed that owners or operators submit electronic copies of
initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through
the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. For initial notifications, initial
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, and deviation
reports, the proposed rule would require that owners or operators use
the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. We
also proposed two broad circumstances in which we may provide extension
to these requirements. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.9050(m) that an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.9050(n) that
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an
act of nature, act of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The Agency sought public comment on whether there was a need to
address equipment that is opened during regular maintenance activities,
in light of the proposed removal of the SSM exemptions, and if these
maintenance activities should be addressed via work practice standards.
See 84 FR 1589, February 4, 2019. Prior to the February 4, 2019,
proposal, industry representatives expressed concerns about the
regulatory status of certain equipment opened to the atmosphere during
periods for maintenance, given that they believed the activities
previously were exempted under the SSM provisions.
2. How did the other amendments for the HCl Production source category
change since proposal?
    We are finalizing as proposed the requirements for owners or
operators to submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports,
and performance test reports electronically. We also are finalizing, as
proposed, the provisions that allow facility operators the ability to
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility.
    After considering the public comments received regarding
maintenance activities that occur during startup and shutdown, the EPA
is finalizing a requirement for equipment designated as ``maintenance
vents'' to be thoroughly purged of HCl and Cl2 prior to
opening that equipment to the atmosphere. We have added paragraph (f)
to 40 CFR 63.9040 with requirements for equipment that owners/operators
designate as a maintenance vent. Owners or operators must demonstrate
that equipment served by a maintenance vent contains less than 20
pounds of residual HCl or Cl2 prior to opening that
equipment to the atmosphere.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the HCl
Production source category and what are our responses?
    We received one comment providing input on the proposed requirement
for owners and operators of HCl production facilities to submit
electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup reports,
annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance
test reports.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must not finalize the
proposed electronic reporting extension provisions because the
definition of a force majeure event is too broad, the provisions do not
set a firm deadline to request an extension of the reporting deadline,
and the decision to allow an extension is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator. The commenter urged that the proposed provisions
are unlawful and arbitrary because they would create a broad and vague
mechanism that a facility owner or operator could use to evade binding
emission standards by evading the binding compliance reporting
deadlines set to assure compliance with those standards. The commenter
further stated that the EPA should not import the concept of ``force
majeure'' into any part of the CAA, as to do so is a variation of the
prior malfunction exemptions that are unlawful under the CAA. The
commenter also noted that the EPA has provided that there are no known
issues with submission of ERT-formatted performance test and evaluation
reports in CEDRI (per the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP), thus, there is no
rational basis for providing the proposing reporting extensions. At a
minimum, the commenter requested that the EPA set a new firm deadline
to assure that the extension request allows only a temporary period
when the facility need not report, such as a 10-day extension, rather
than an open-ended extension without a deadline.
    Response: The commenter states that the brief case-by-case
extension of report submittal deadlines is a ``reporting exemption.''
This is not the case. The proposed provisions the commenter questions
are in paragraphs 40 CFR 63.9050(m) and (n).
    There is no exception or exemption to reporting, much less an
exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, only a
method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters
are required to justify their request and identify a reporting date.
There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that
can be granted, as this is something best determined by the
Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority as
defined in 40 CFR 63.2) when reviewing the circumstances surrounding
the request. Different circumstances may require a different length of
extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may
delay electronic reporting for a day, but a Hurricane Katrina scale
event may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the
facility has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no
ability to access electronically stored data or to submit reports
electronically. The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable of the
events leading to the request for extension and will assess whether an
extension is appropriate, and, if so, a reasonable length for the
extension. The Administrator may even request that the report be sent
in hard copy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new
fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation requires that the report
be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage
or after the force majeure event resolves.
    The concept of force majeure has been implemented by the EPA in
this context since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the
performance test extensions provided in 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1) and
63.7(a)(4). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a
requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the
discretion of the Administrator.
    The EPA disagrees that the ability to request a reporting extension
``would create a broad and vague mechanism'' that owners and operators
``could use to evade binding emissions standards'' or evade ``binding
compliance reporting deadlines'' for emissions standards. While
reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies to
assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions
standards, reporting obligations are separate from (i.e., in addition
to) requirements that an owner or operator be in compliance with an
emissions standard. The commenter references

deadlines set forth in the CAA for demonstrating initial compliance
following the effective date of emission standards, which differs from
deadlines for submitting reports. There are no such deadlines stated in
the CAA for report due dates, meaning the EPA has discretion to
establish reporting schedules, and also discretion to allow a mechanism
for extension of those schedules on a case-by-case basis. In fact,
under the commenter's reasoning, if the statutory deadlines for
compliance with standards were read to strictly apply to continuing
reporting requirements, no such reporting could be required after 3
years from the promulgation of the standards. This would not be a
reasonable result. Reporting deadlines are often different from
compliance deadlines. Rules under 40 CFR part 60 and 63 typically allow
months following an initial compliance deadline to conduct testing and
submit reports, but compliance with standards is required upon the
compliance date.
    Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope
for submitting an extension request for an electronic report is very
limited in that claims can only be made for an event outside of the
owner's or operator's control that occurs in the 5 business days prior
to the reporting deadline. The claim must then be approved by the
Administrator, and in approving such a claim, the Administrator agrees
that something outside the control of the owner or operator prevented
the owner or operator from meeting its reporting obligation. In no
circumstance does this electronic reporting extension allow for the
owner or operator to be out of compliance with the underlying emissions
standards. If the Administrator determines that a facility has not
acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the
Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report
timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are
infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's
claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters
impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
    Finally, the EPA disagrees that the existing statistics on the use
of CEDRI and e-reporting precludes the need for a provision to account
for an outage of the CEDRI system. Prudent management of electronic
data systems builds in allowances for unexpected, non-routine delays,
such as occurred on July 1, 2016, and October 20-23, 2017, and is
consistent with the already-existing provisions afforded for
unexpected, non-routine delays in performance testing [see 40 CFR
60.8(a)(1) and (2) and 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4)]. For both electronic
reporting and performance testing, owners or operators are to conduct
and complete their activities within a short window of time. The EPA
believes it is prudent to allow owners or operators to make force
majeure claims for situations beyond their reasonable control. The EPA
also disagrees that incidental issues with questions on completing the
form or the procedures for accessing CEDRI for which the CEDRI Helpdesk
is available, are conditions that would be considered either force
majeure or a CEDRI system outage. The existence of the Helpdesk for
answering questions on procedures in submitting reports to CEDRI have
no impact on the availability of CEDRI in such a circumstance. The
purpose of these requests for extensions are to accommodate owners and
operators in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report
electronically for reasons that are beyond their control and occur
during a short window of time prior to the reporting deadline. The
extension is not automatic, and the Administrator retains the right to
accept or reject the request. The language was added as part of the
standard electronic reporting language based on numerous comments
received on the proposal for the Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards (80 FR 15100,
March 20, 2015). As such, we have determined that no changes to the
electronic reporting requirements are necessary in the final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that the EPA address small and
intermittent levels of HCl and Cl2 emissions that could
occur during maintenance activities. According to the commenters, these
activities were previously not subject to the NESHAP due to the SSM
exemptions included in the HCl Production NESHAP. The commenters state
that lines and equipment used in this source category are routinely
cleared and cleaned of chemicals. The frequency of these activities
varies depending on the facility, but plants may be shut down annually
for scheduled maintenance. The equipment is purged free of materials
and washed with water, and in some cases, it is further purged with air
to a control device. Even in these scenarios after washing and purging,
when the equipment is opened to the atmosphere, there may be some small
trace levels of HCl and/or Cl2 that could be present and
potentially emitted. The commenters claim that it would be
significantly burdensome for every vent with these small amounts of HCl
or Cl2 emissions to be addressed by the rule's requirements
for process vents. The commenters state that this could trigger costly
controls, testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping/reporting obligations
for trace emissions.
    The commenters suggest two courses of action for the EPA to address
emissions from maintenance activities and vents through which emissions
occur during these periods. These suggestions are, (1) adding a
definition for maintenance vent to the list of sources excluded from
process vent standards, or (2) adding a work practice standard that
applies to maintenance vents, similar to work practices added in other
recent NESHAP amendments in which the SSM exemptions were removed.
    The commenters state that removing the SSM exemption creates
uncertainty regarding whether any emissions from a maintenance vent,
regardless of magnitude, may become subject to the standard. The
commenters also add that planned maintenance activities typically occur
on an annual basis. The commenters state that they believe the best
performing sources in the category drain and purge lines prior to
performing maintenance activities. The commenters state that should the
EPA choose to regulate emissions from these maintenance activities,
setting a numerical emission limit would be impractical because the
type and size of equipment being maintained differs between facilities.
Furthermore, the commenters assert that measuring emissions from these
maintenance activities would be impractical due to the small magnitude
of emissions and their short duration.
    Response: Upon consideration of the public comments submitted, the
EPA is finalizing a definition for maintenance vents and work practice
standards that minimize the potential for emissions from maintenance
activities that occur during periods of startup or shutdown. We agree
with the commenters that it is impractical to measure the small levels
of HCl or Cl2 that could be emitted from these pieces of
equipment during intermittent maintenance activities. Furthermore, we
agree with the commenters that cleaning and purging equipment to a
control device prior to opening that equipment during maintenance
activities represents the performance of the best performing sources in
the industry.
    Additional comments on the proposed electronic reporting
requirements and other amendments

discussed in this section and our specific responses to those comments
can be found in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Hydrochloric Acid
Production, available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the other amendments to the HCl Production source category?
    We considered the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to
require electronic reporting initial notifications, initial startup
reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and
performance test reports. For the reasons explained in the proposed
rule, and in our responses to those comments, we are establishing
electronic reporting, as proposed. These amendments will increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
More information concerning the proposed requirement for owners and
operators of HCl production facilities to submit electronic copies of
certain notifications and reports is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (84 FR 1593, February 4, 2019) and the document, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Hydrochloric Acid Production, available in the docket for this action.
Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for submission of initial
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports as
proposed. We are, however, allowing facilities up to 1 year from
publication of the final rule or 1 year from finalization of the
electronic reporting templates for owners/operators of HCl production
facilities to use electronic reporting. Furthermore, after considering
public comments, we are finalizing work practice standards for periods
of maintenance activities.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are 19 HCl production facilities currently operating as major
sources of HAP subject to the final amendments. A complete list of
facilities that are currently subject to the MACT standards is
available in the memorandum titled Industry Characterization for the
Hydrochloric Acid Production NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology Review
Final, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0417.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Because the EPA is not revising the emission limits, we do not
anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of these
amendments. However, we determined that the final requirements,
including the work practice standards for maintenance activities, are
at least as stringent as the current rule requirements. The work
practice standards include requirements for facilities to clear
equipment of HCl and Cl2 before it is opened to the
atmosphere. These requirements will minimize emissions during these
periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The cost impacts from these final amendments are net savings in
costs to affected HCl production facilities due to revised
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. One way to present cost
estimates is in present value (PV terms). The PV for these proposed
amendments is equal to an estimated cost savings of $55,341 at a
discount rate of 3 percent and a cost savings of $44,911 at a discount
rate of 7 percent, discounted to 2020. The equivalent annualized value,
which is an annualized value consistent with the PV estimates, is equal
to $7,649 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $7,029 at a discount rate
of 7 percent (2016 dollars). The time period over which these estimates
are calculated includes the 5-year period following promulgation of
these amendments. These calculations are documented in the Economic
Impact Analysis for the Hydrochloric Acid Production RTR Final, which
is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated
with the final requirements over the 5-year period following
promulgation of these amendments. This cost savings will not yield
adverse economic impacts to affected entities or markets. For further
information on the economic impacts associated with the final
requirements, see the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for
Hydrochloric Acid Production NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in
the docket for this action.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not finalizing changes to emissions limits, and we
estimate the final changes (i.e., changes to SSM, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting, and the addition work practices for
maintenance activities) are not economically significant. Because these
final amendments are not considered economically significant, as
defined by Executive Order 12866 and because no emissions reductions
were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, to examine the
potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the
facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer and noncancer risks from the HCl Production source
category across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities. When examining the risk levels of those exposed
to emissions from HCl production facilities, we found that no one is
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
the preamble to the proposed rule and the technical report titled Risk
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Hydrochloric Acid Production, which is available in the
docket for this action.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in section
IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the risk report,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Hydrochloric Acid Production Source
Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,
available in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2032.11. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    The EPA is finalizing amendments that revise provisions pertaining
to emissions during periods of SSM; add requirements for electronic
reporting of certain notifications and reports and performance test
results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. This
information will be collected to assure compliance with the HCl
Production NESHAP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of HCl
production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNNN).
    Estimated number of respondents: 19 (assumes no new respondents
over the next 3 years).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 22,000 hours (per year) to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,700,000 (per year), including $162,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, to comply with
all of the requirements in the NESHAP.
    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. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities among the 14 ultimate parent companies impacted by this
proposed action given the Small Business Administration small business
size definition for this industry (1,000 employees or greater for NAICS
325180), and no significant economic impact on any of these entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the HCl production facilities that have
been identified as being affected by this final action are owned or
operated by tribal governments or located within tribal lands. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections
IV.A of this preamble and the document, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Hydrochloric Acid Production Source Category in Support of the 2020
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards.
A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included in
the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
Hydrochloric Acid Production Residual Risk and Technology Review,which
is available in the docket for this action.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Hydrochloric Acid Production Facilities, available in the docket for
this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 12, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40
CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart NNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production

0
2. Section 63.8985 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8985   Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (f) An HCl production facility is not subject to this subpart if
all of the gaseous streams containing HCl and chlorine (Cl2)
from HCl process vents, HCl storage tanks, and HCl transfer operations
are recycled or routed to another process for process purpose, prior to
being discharged to the atmosphere.

0
3. Section 63.9005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c)
and (d)(4) through (6) to read as follows:

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

    (a) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, you must
be in compliance with the emission limitations and work practice
standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After October 13, 2020, for each
such source you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in
this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after February 4, 2019, you
must be in compliance with the emissions limitations in this subpart at
all times.
    (b) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). After October 13, 2020 for each such source,
and after April 15, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after February 4, 2019, at all
times you 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. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance
with operation and maintenance requirements 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.
    (c) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, you must
develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after October 13, 2020.
No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after February 4, 2019.
    (d) * * *
    (4) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, ongoing
operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(1) and (3), (c)(4)(ii), and
(c)(7) and (8), and 63.9025. After October 13, 2020 for each such
source, and after April 15, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after February 4, 2019,
ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3),
(c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7) and (8), and 63.9025.
    (5) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, ongoing
data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec.  63.8(d). After October 13, 2020 for each such
source, and after April 15, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after February 4, 2019,
ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d) except for the requirements
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans referenced in Sec.
63.8(d)(3). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures
on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (6) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, ongoing
recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec.  63.10(c) and (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i). After October
13, 2020 for each such source, and after April 15, 2020 for new and
reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after February 4, 2019, ongoing recordkeeping and reporting
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.
63.10(c)(1) through (14) and (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).

0
4. Section 63.9020 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:

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

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before October 13, 2020, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019, you must
conduct each performance test under representative conditions according
to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the specific
conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 3. After October 13,
2020 for each such source, and after April 15, 2020 for new and
reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after February 4, 2019, you

must conduct each performance test under conditions representative of
normal operations. The owner or operator must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (3) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 9025 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:

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

    (a) * * *
    (3) For at least 75 percent of the operating hours in a 24-hour
period, you must have valid data (as defined in your site-specific
monitoring plan) for at least 4 equally spaced periods each hour.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.9030 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after April 17, 2003, but
before February 5, 2019, before October 13, 2020, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial
compliance demonstration according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9045(f) and (g). After October 13, 2020 for such sources, and after
April 15, 2020 for new or reconstructed sources which commence
construction or reconstruction after February 4, 2019, you must submit
the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the
initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in
Sec. Sec.  63.9045(f) and (g) and 63.9050(d).

0
7. Section 63.9040 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (e) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after April 17, 2003, but
before February 5, 2019, before October 13, 2020, consistent with
Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating
in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine
whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e). After October 13, 2020 for such sources, and after April 15,
2020 for new and reconstructed sources which commence construction or
reconstruction after February 4, 2019, the exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction in Sec.  63.6(e) no longer apply.
    (f) An owner or operator may designate a process vent as a
maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result of startup or
shutdown, of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized,
degassed or placed into service. The owner or operator does not need to
designate a maintenance vent as a HCl process vent, HCl storage tank
vent, or an HCl transfer operation. The owner or operator must comply
with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section for each maintenance vent by October 13, 2020 or the date of
startup for new and reconstructed sources, whichever is later, unless
an extension is requested in accordance with the provisions in Sec.
63.6(i).
    (1) Prior to venting to the atmosphere, process liquids must be
removed from the equipment as much as practical and the equipment must
be washed with water or purged with air or otherwise depressurized to a
control device, fuel gas system, or back to the process to remove the
HCl and Cl2 until the equipment served by the maintenance
vent contains less than 20 pounds of HCl or Cl2.
    (2) For maintenance vents complying with the requirements in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator shall
demonstrate the mass of HCl or Cl2 in the equipment served
by the maintenance vent is less than 20 pounds for each maintenance
activity based on the equipment size and contents after considering any
contents drained or purged from the equipment. Equipment size may be
determined from equipment design specifications. Equipment contents may
be determined using process knowledge. The owner or operator must
maintain records for five years of the number of maintenance activities
for which maintenance vent provisions are used during each reporting
period.

0
8. Section 63.9045 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.9045   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (f) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, within 180 calendar days after
the applicable compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.8995.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.9050 is amended by revising paragraph (a), (c)(4) and
(5), (d) introductory text, and (f) introductory text and adding
paragraphs (g) through (n) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9050   What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit a compliance report that includes the
information in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, as
applicable, as specified in table 6 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after April 17, 2003,
but before February 5, 2019, before October 13, 2020, if you had a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you
took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, the compliance report must include the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the
information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i) is not required after October 13,
2020.
    (5) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after April 17, 2003, but
before February 5, 2019, before October 13, 2020, if there are no
deviations from any emission limitations that apply to you, a statement
that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(CMS) to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section and the following information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9)
of this section and Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(vi). This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *

    (f) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after April 17, 2003, but
before February 5, 2019, before October 13, 2020, for each startup,
shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not
consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan you must
submit an immediate startup, shutdown and malfunction report. Unless
the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of
reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report according to
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. An immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report is not required after October 13,
2020.
* * * * *
    (g) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
Submit the results of the performance test as an attachment in the ERT.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the
results of the performance evaluation following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance
evaluation as an attachment in the ERT.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (i) You must submit to the Administrator compliance reports.
Beginning on April 16, 2021 or 1 year after the appropriate electronic
reporting template becomes available on the CEDRI website, whichever is
later, submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified
in paragraph (l) of this section.
    (j) You must submit to the Administrator performance evaluations.
Beginning on April 16, 2021 or 1 year after the appropriate electronic
reporting template becomes available on the CEDRI website, whichever is
later, submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified
in paragraph (l) of this section.
    (k) You must submit to the Administrator a Notification of
Compliance Status. Beginning on April 16, 2021 or 1 year after the
appropriate electronic reporting template becomes available on the
CEDRI website, whichever is later, submit all subsequent reports
following the procedure specified in paragraph (l) of this section.
    (l) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via
CEDRI. CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (m) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (m)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5

business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay
in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date, time and length of the outage;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (n) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (n)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to
the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay
in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
10. Section 63.9055 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9055   What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after April 17, 2003, but
before February 5, 2019, before October 13, 2020, the records in Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction for a period of 5 years. A startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan is not required after October 13, 2020.
* * * * *
    (c) After October 13, 2020, you must keep records of each deviation
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For each deviation record the date, time, and duration of each
deviation.
    (2) For each deviation, record and retain a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.9005(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
11. Table 1 to subpart NNNNN of part 63 is amended by revising entry 2.
* * * * *

 Table 1 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                                Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
          For each . . .              limit and work practice standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2. Emission stream from an HCl      Reduce HCl emissions by 99 percent
 storage tank at an existing         or greater or achieve an outlet
 source.                             concentration of 120 ppm by volume
                                     or less.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
12. Table 6 of subpart NNNNN of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As stated in Sec.  63.9050(a), you must submit a compliance report
that includes the information in Sec.  63.9050(c) through (e) as well
as the information in the following table. For existing sources and for
new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 17, 2003, but before February 5, 2019,
before October 13, 2020, you must also submit startup, shutdown, and
malfunction reports according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9050(f)
and the following table. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is
not required after October 13, 2020.

      Table 6 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Then you must submit a report or
             If . . .                          statement that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There are no deviations from     There were no deviations from any
 any emission limitations that       emission limitations that apply to
 apply to you.                       you during the reporting period.
                                     Include this statement in the
                                     compliance report.
2. There were no periods during     There were no periods during which
 which the operating parameter       the CMS were out-of-control during
 monitoring systems were out-of-     the reporting period. Include this
 control in accordance with the      statement in the compliance report.
 monitoring plan.
3. There was a deviation from any   Contains the information in Sec.
 emission limitation during the      63.9050(d). Include this statement
 reporting period.                   in the compliance report.
4. There were periods during which  Contains the information in Sec.
 the operating parameter             63.9050(d). Include this statement
 monitoring systems were out-of-     in the compliance report.
 control in accordance with the
 monitoring plan.
5. There was a startup, shutdown,   For existing sources and for new or
 and malfunction during the          reconstructed sources which
 reporting period that is not        commenced construction or
 consistent with your startup,       reconstruction after April 17,
 shutdown, and malfunction plan.     2003, but before February 5, 2019,
                                     before October 13, 2020, contains
                                     the information in Sec.
                                     63.9050(f). Include this statement
                                     in the compliance report. A
                                     startup, shutdown, and malfunction
                                     plan is not required after October
                                     13, 2020.
6. There were periods when the      Contains the information in Sec.
 procedures in the LDAR plan were    63.9050(c)(7). Include this
 not followed.                       statement in the compliance report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
13. Table 7 to subpart NNNNN of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for ``Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2)'';
0
b. Adding entries for ``Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i)'', ``Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)'', and ``Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(iii)-(e)(2)'' in numerical
order;
0
c. Revising the entries for ``Sec.  63.6(e)(3)'', ``Sec.  63.6(f)(1)'',
and ``Sec.  63.7(e)(1)'';
0
d. Removing the entry ``Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3)'';
0
e. Adding the entries for ``Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i)'', ``Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)'', ``Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(iii)'', and ``Sec.  63.8(c)(2)-
(3)'' in numerical order;
0
f. Removing the entry for ``Sec.  63.8(d)-(e)'';
0
g. Adding entries for ``Sec.  63.8(d)(1)-(2)'', ``Sec.  63.8(d)(3)'',
and ``Sec.  63.8(e)'' in numerical order;
0
h. Removing the entry ``Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi)'';
0
i. Adding entries for ``Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)'', ``Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)'', ``Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iv)'', ``Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(v)'', ``Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi)'', and ``Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xi)'' in numerical order;
0
j. Removing the entry for ``Sec.  63.10(c)'';
0
k. Adding entries for ``Sec.  63.10(c)(1)-(14)'' and ``Sec.
63.10(c)(15'' in numerical order; and
0
l. Revising the entry for ``Sec.  63.10(d)(5)'';
    The additions and revisions read as follows:
* * * * *

            Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to subpart
               Citation                      Requirement                 NNNNN                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No, for new or           Subpart NNNNN requires
                                        minimize emissions.      reconstructed sources    affected units to meet
                                                                 which commenced          emissions standards at
                                                                 construction or          all times. See Sec.
                                                                 reconstruction after     63.9005(b) for general
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,   duty requirement.
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to correct   No, for new or           .......................
                                        malfunctions ASAP.       reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)-(e)(2)........  Operation and            Yes....................  .......................
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   No, for new or           .......................
                                        Malfunction Plans.       reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance except        No, for new or           .......................
                                        during startup,          reconstructed sources
                                        shutdown, and            which commenced
                                        malfunction.             construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conditions for           No, for new or           See Sec.   63.9020(a)
                                        conducting performance   reconstructed sources    for performance
                                        tests.                   which commenced          testing requirements.
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  General duty to          No, for new or           .......................
                                        minimize emissions and   reconstructed sources
                                        CMS operation.           which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        system O&M.                                       Sec.   63.9005(d).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to develop   No, for new or           .......................
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and   reconstructed sources
                                        Malfunction Plan for     which commenced
                                        CMS.                     construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        system O&M.                                       Sec.   63.9005(d)

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)................  Quality control program  Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        and CMS performance                               Sec.   63.9005(d).
                                        evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Written procedures for   No, for new or           See Sec.
                                        CMS.                     reconstructed sources    63.9005(d)(5) for
                                                                 which commenced          written procedures for
                                                                 construction or          CMS.
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,
                                                                 for all other affected
                                                                 sources before October
                                                                 13, 2020, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(e).......................  Performance evaluation   Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        of CMS.                                           Sec.   63.9005(d).

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  Records related to       No, for new or           See 63.9055 for
                                        startup, shutdown, and   reconstructed sources    recordkeeping of (1)
                                        malfunction periods.     which commenced          date, time and
                                                                 construction or          duration; (2) listing
                                                                 reconstruction after     of affected source or
                                                                 February 4, 2019. Yes,   equipment, and an
                                                                 for all other affected   estimate of the
                                                                 sources before October   quantity of each
                                                                 13, 2020, and No         regulated pollutant