[Federal Register: July 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 132)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 45885-45893]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jy02-21]                         


[[Page 45885]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl 
Chloride and Copolymers Production; Final Rule


[[Page 45886]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7243-9]
RIN 2060-AH82

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and 
Copolymers Production source category. These NESHAP require that PVC 
and copolymers production facilities, which already must comply with 
the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAP, continue to comply with that 
existing NESHAP. This rule reflects EPA's determination that the 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) control level resulting from compliance 
with the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAP already reflects the 
application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) and, thus, 
meets the requirements of section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
except for equipment leaks at new sources, for the PVC and Copolymers 
Production source category. For equipment leaks, new sources must 
comply with the most current technology standards in the Generic MACT 
rule. By requiring compliance with the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP, the EPA 
is promoting regulatory consistency and eliminating the costs that 
would be incurred by enforcing a new set of standards that likely would 
result in no additional HAP emissions reductions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-99-40 contains supporting information used in 
developing these MACT standards. All dockets are located at the U.S. 
EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, 
Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and 
may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is 
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 40 CFR 
63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing 
the NESHAP, contact Warren Johnson, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5124, johnson.warren@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory 
text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for 
review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air 
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.

Public Comments

    The NESHAP for this source category were proposed on December 8, 
2000 (65 FR 76958). The comment letters received on the proposal are 
available in Docket No. A-99-40, along with a summary of the comment 
letters and EPA's responses to the comments. In response to the public 
comments, EPA adjusted the final NESHAP where appropriate.

Worldwide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's final NESHAP will also be available on the WWW through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's 
signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                      NAICS code    SIC code        Examples of affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................       325211         2821  Facilities that polymerize vinyl
                                                                           chloride monomer to produce polyvinyl
                                                                           chloride and/or copolymer products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.211 of the 
rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final 
NESHAP is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 9, 2002. 
Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during 
judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
that are the subject of today's final NESHAP may not be challenged 
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. What Are the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts?
II. What Changes and Clarifications did we Make Since Proposal?
    A. Rule Applicability
    B. MACT Floor Determination
    C. Clarifications
III. How did we Respond to Significant comments?
    A. Rule Applicability
    B. MACT Floor Determination
    C. Recordkeeping and Reporting
IV. Administrative Requirements

[[Page 45887]]

    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Congressional Review Act
    J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts?

    The nationwide environmental and cost impacts for today's final 
rule are the same as for the proposed rule, which had no environmental, 
energy or economic impacts anticipated beyond the current requirements 
of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, which are already in effect.
    As a result of today's action, new sources in this source category 
must comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, instead of 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V, for leak detection and repair (LDAR), which are the 
standards to which existing sources must comply. Although more 
comprehensive, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, is also more flexible and 
for new sources would be no more costly, and perhaps less costly, than 
40 CFR part 61, subpart V. In addition, we do not anticipate the 
construction of any new sources within the next 5 years.

II. What Changes and Clarifications Did We Make Since Proposal?

A. Rule Applicability

    In the final rule, we have added language to explicitly clarify 
that only facilities in vinyl chloride service are affected, and 
language that specifically excludes research and development (R&D) 
facilities from the applicability.

B. MACT Floor Determination

    After considering comments and collecting additional information, 
we have concluded that the floor determination we made at proposal is 
the most appropriate basis for MACT for this source category.
    In reiterating our floor determination, we took into consideration 
that some plants are capable of stripping the residual vinyl chloride 
monomer (RVCM) from their resins to a greater degree than others. We 
also took into account that some State permits require lower quarterly 
and annual average RVCM limits based upon the resins being produced. We 
attributed the RVCM stripping rates as a function of the resin design 
specifications and properties rather than the performance of stripping 
technology.
    In order to respond to comments that we had not determined a 
stringent enough floor for RVCM, we collected additional information, 
specifically to try to consider other ways to determine the floor. 
Traditionally in MACT standards, control performance is measured as a 
fixed removal or destruction efficiency associated with the specific 
technology applied. The most stringent control performance often 
translates easily to a floor level of control when it exists at five or 
more facilities. We knew this was not the case with applying stripping 
technology to reduce RVCM, but wanted to better understand the 
correlation between the stripping efficiencies and the resins being 
produced to see if there was a way to come up with a daily RVCM limit 
based on actual performance rather than using the part 61 NESHAP as the 
basis for the floor.
    We began by trying to base best stripper performance on the lowest 
RVCM daily average numbers, but found that the lowest numbers 
(generally less than 10 parts per million (ppm)) are specifically tied 
to the producers of primarily suspension pipe grade resins. Although 
these facilities also produce smaller quantities of other PVC resins, 
they are able to keep their low daily averages because their output is 
generally greater than 80 percent pipe grade resins. At the other end 
of the spectrum, facilities producing primarily copolymer resins or 
blending resins, while using identical stripping technology, would not 
physically be able to meet these RVCM numbers. We believe that most of 
the industry, particularly the smaller specialty resin manufacturing 
facilities, would be adversely affected commercially because they would 
not be able to produce all the products they do now if we were to set 
limits that were based solely on the achievable RVCM in pipe grade 
resins. In particular, some copolymer, specialty and blending resins 
could get eliminated from the market place.
    We then considered segregating the facilities by resins type and 
identifying the best performers within each group of facilities. 
However, there is variation in the resin characteristics within each 
resin type, and just about all of the 28 facilities produce a wide 
array of resins which change to meet market demands for particular 
resin characteristics. More specifically, we considered segregating the 
sources based upon the resins each source produced. While each source 
seemed to specialize in the production of particular resin types, it 
was uncommon for any source to produce one type of resin exclusively 
during the course of any calendar quarter. While our focus was on the 
prominent RVCM differences between suspension and dispersion resins, 
some of the other resin types we considered in this segregation of 
sources included low fusion suspension resins, blending resins, micro 
suspension resins, emulsion resins, and copolymer resins. We found 
that, even after segregating the sources by primary resin type 
produced, the desired resin characteristics still have a greater 
influence on the RVCM than the stripper technology.
    We also considered adding quarterly limits in addition to the daily 
RVCM limits of the part 61 NESHAP because the commenters suggested that 
sources were achieving quarterly limits more stringent than the daily 
limits in the part 61 NESHAP. In order to do this, we took into account 
those copolymer and blending resins most difficult to strip. The 
resulting quarterly averages were around 1,500 ppm for dispersion 
resins other than latex and around 250 ppm for all other resins. But, 
by requiring these as quarterly limits, we in essence would simply 
require that facilities continue to operate as they do now, under the 
part 61 NESHAP, and in adding a quarterly limit, we create another 
reporting and recordkeeping burden with no commensurate HAP emissions 
reductions. In addition, since we did not have information on every 
facility in the category, we also ran the risk of inadvertently 
eliminating the production of some resins by setting too restrictive a 
quarterly limit.
    What we found in the additional information collected since 
proposal reinforced our conclusion that since wide variations can occur 
even in normal operations, the operators at these facilities must 
maintain a conservative operation, keeping the RVCM as low as possible 
without sheering the product resin by overly stripping in order to 
comply with the existing NESHAP. This is MACT for this source cateogry, 
and it is the performance level necessary to control RVCM to a maximum 
degree while also keeping enough flexibility in the rule to allow for 
the production of the wide range of resins being manufactured at these 
facilities.
    The most recent data show that, even among facilities with the 
lowest RVCM

[[Page 45888]]

numbers, facilities still have episodes of nearly 400 ppm as a daily 
average at normal operations. The part 61 NESHAP have daily not to 
exceed limits for RVCM of 400 ppm (2,000 ppm for dispersion, non-latex 
resins). From this, we conclude that the part 61 NESHAP still best 
represent the MACT floor for this source category.
    We also reconsidered other HAP besides vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) 
in the process, but have not found a floor for control that exists 
beyond the part 61 NESHAP. Currently, all HAP in this source category 
exist as feed stock to the polymerization process or solvents used for 
cleaning process equipment. Outside of the RVCM limits in the product 
and equipment leak definition, the driving factor in this source 
category for level of HAP control nationwide is the part 61 NESHAP 
limit on VCM. This limit requires that VCM emissions must be less than 
10 ppm before equipment can be opened or the process can be vented to 
the atmosphere. The process equipment centers around a reactor where 
the VCM is polymerized. This reactor and associated equipment remain 
closed, unless there is a reason to open them, and unspent VCM feed 
stock is either recovered and returned to the process or incinerated 
following the batch process. Likewise, other HAP present in the reactor 
either remain in the product after stripping or get stripped out and 
are either sent back to the process or incinerated. The floor level of 
control currently applied is driven by the presence of VCM, so by using 
VCM as a surrogate for all HAP from the reactor, we are controlling at 
the existing MACT floor.
    Arguably, there are outside activities which may introduce HAP 
mechanically to the PVC and copolymer resins following their 
manufacture in the reactor and before they leave the plant location. We 
consider these later material introductions or milling to be outside 
the source category description provided in the 1992 source category 
document to support the listing notice. The PVC and copolymer reactor 
process is a chemical manufacturing process in which the PVC and 
copolymer resins are created chemically from feed stocks. This is 
distinctly different than the mechanical mixing or milling of these 
resins with other materials, which sometimes follows PVC and copolymer 
manufacturing processes at a facility. We simply considered these 
follow-on operations to be outside the scope of PVC and copolymer 
manufacturing process equipment since they are separate mechanical 
operations that follow the chemical reaction, recovery and emissions 
control steps of the resin manufacturing process. This is also 
consistent with the part 61 NESHAP which makes this distinction by 
defining applicable process equipment as being in vinyl chloride 
service.
    Regarding the standards for equipment leaks, however, we agree with 
commenters' observations that ``HON-like'' requirements are practiced 
by one newly constructed source. Those requirements represent the most 
technologically advanced LDAR for this category. And, while this does 
not pose a floor for existing sources, we believe this does reflect 
MACT for new sources. We believe that new sources should be constructed 
with the latest technology in mind, and that these requirements would 
pose no new burdens, since, while the ``HON-like'' requirements are 
more comprehensive, they are also more flexible in allowing monitoring 
to be relaxed where not warranted. For this reason, we also see the 
``HON-like'' LDAR requirements as a fitting alternative for existing 
sources, if they elect to use them. Hence, we have added language to 
the final rule that requires new sources to comply with the LDAR 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards 
for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards, and allows existing 
sources to use these requirements as an alternative to the requirements 
in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, Nation Emission Standard for Equipment 
Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources). New sources that meet, or existing 
sources opting to meet, all the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
UU, to comply with MACT are henceforth not required to meet any of the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, since both of these subparts 
address the same emissions types and complying with both sets of 
requirements would be redundant. For consistency, the compliance 
schedule set forth in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, will continue to apply 
for new and existing sources as the referencing subpart, regardless of 
whether a source is meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
V, or part 63, subpart UU, to comply with MACT LDAR.

C. Clarifications

    After considering comments on using a table to specify which of the 
general provisions apply, we decided to keep the general provisions 
paragraphs unchanged from what was proposed. As written, these 
paragraphs make up only a few lines of rule text. And, although a table 
might make this rule appear more consistent with other MACT rules, a 
table here could add complexity to what is now very simple text.
    Commenters also expressed concerns over massive re-certification 
requirements or duplication of reports and records for sources already 
complying with the part 61 NESHAP that might be implied by the 
promulgation of the part 63 NESHAP unless otherwise clarified. Although 
we added no new language to the rule to clarify this, we want to 
clarify that the part 63 NESHAP do not require sources that are already 
in compliance with the part 61 NESHAP to re-certify their compliance 
status or create duplicate records or reports to demonstrate compliance 
with the part 63 NESHAP.

III. How Did We Respond to Significant Comments?

    This section presents a summary of our responses to significant 
public comments received on the proposed rule. A comprehensive summary 
of public comments and responses can be found in the document entitled 
``Public Comments and EPA Responses to the Proposed NESHAP for 
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production'' (Docket No. A-99-40).

A. Rule Applicability

    Comment: One commenter requested that we consider adding a 
provision to exclude facilities from the applicability that manufacture 
polyvinyl chloride and related copolymers for R&D purposes only.
    Response: Although we believe that we sufficiently addressed this 
in 40 CFR 63.212(c) of the proposal by referencing the exclusion for 
R&D facilities in 40 CFR 61.60(b), we agree that a simpler exclusion in 
the final rule would be more clear and consistent with other MACT 
standards. So, we have added this exclusion language in the rule in the 
place of the former reference to 40 CFR 61.60(b).
    Comment: Several commenters asked that we define the intended scope 
of the source definition, specifically as to whether the rule would 
affect activities and equipment that were not in vinyl chloride service 
as defined in 40 CFR 61.61(l). These commenters requested that we 
specifically state in the rule that the source includes all activities 
and equipment in vinyl chloride service, to be consistent with the part 
61 NESHAP, if that is what we intended.
    Response: Although we believe that we sufficiently addressed this 
by making a broad reference to the definitions in the part 61 NESHAP, 
we agree that a more specific phrase in the definition of source would 
be helpful. So, we have added language to the source definition in 40 
CFR 63.212(b) to clarify that the affected activities and

[[Page 45889]]

equipment are those that are in vinyl chloride service.

B. MACT Floor Determination

    Comment: Many comments we received endorsed the proposed MACT floor 
determination and resulting levels of stringency. However, two 
commenters challenged our floor approach and questioned whether we 
considered all available data. These two commenters specifically 
pointed to lower quarterly RVCM averages consistently achieved by some 
facilities, the use of ``HON-like'' LDAR at one newly constructed 
facility, and challenged our not identifying a best-performing five 
facilities in the category on which to base MACT.
    Response: We actually had considered much of these data and the 
lower RVCM numbers at proposal, and for the same reasons we set out in 
the proposal, we believe that the proposed determination is sound. We 
did, however, gather additional information to further study the 
relationships between the RVCM numbers and stripper performance across 
the industry. In responding to comments, our general approach was to 
see if additional information could support a decision to either lower 
the existing daily RVCM limits, or enhance these limits with additional 
quarterly limits as a way to effectively reduce HAP emissions. We 
reviewed a sampling of compliance reports which sources had submitted 
to State authorities in Delaware, Louisiana and Texas between May 1998 
and February 2001 which portrayed the general description of the resins 
being produced with both the daily and quarterly RVCM performance of 
each facility. We also studied further the effects of resin 
characteristics on stripping technology performance.
    We found that the stripping of RVCM from the product is most tied 
to the characteristics of the product being manufactured, more 
specifically the size, porosity, hardness and stability of the product 
particles. Smaller, less porous, and harder or less stable particles 
are more difficult to strip than larger and more porous particles, 
making each grade of resin somewhat unique in stripping capabilities. 
This makes the stringency less dependent upon the stripping technology 
and more dependent on product and process knowledge. As we looked 
closer into the relative performance of stripping different resin 
grades, we found that the facilities were consistently stripping the 
respective resins to the best of their abilities. Specifically, we 
found that the manufacturers of primarily suspension pipe grade resins 
consistently had lower quarterly RVCM numbers, around 10 ppm or lower, 
because these resins are the easiest to strip, being comprised of 
larger size, more porous and stable particles. Conversely, the 
manufacturers of primarily copolymer and blend resins consistently had 
higher quarterly numbers, around 250 ppm and lower, since these resins 
do not strip out of the resin characteristics as easily. With this 
knowledge, we considered introducing quarterly average limits (in 
addition to the daily RVCM limits required by the existing NESHAP) 
based upon the type of resin being manufactured at a particular 
facility, but decided that this is not realistic for two reasons. 
First, even the facilities which primarily produce the suspension pipe 
grade occasionally produce other resins. And, since these RVCM limits 
would be averaged across the facility, setting these quarterly limits 
could directly impact their ability to produce certain grades of resin 
and still comply with the MACT standards. Second, based on what we 
found in the existing quarterly reports, we realized that to codify 
best stripping performance as a step function of each resin type's 
design characteristics would simply mirror the level of performance 
that the industry is already achieving under the part 61 NESHAP. In 
practice, this codification would require additional reporting and 
recordkeeping with no commensurate reduction in HAP emissions.
    As for identifying the best-performing five facilities, the 
commenters related performance of the strippers directly to low 
quarterly RVCM numbers. If you only consider the data from one or two 
States, low RVCM numbers may appear to be a direct performance 
indicator due to a narrower representation of resin manufacturing. But, 
we considered the industry as a whole, on a national scale, taking into 
account resins that are not manufactured in all States and recognizing 
that the same technology was being applied across the category. 
Arguably, since performance is relative to resin characteristics, some 
of the better performers might actually be manufacturers of resins that 
are more difficult to strip, even though their RVCM daily averages are 
higher than others. From what we could determine from the data 
available, the manufacturers of those resins are applying the 
technology to the maximum degree for each of the respective resins that 
they produce in order to avoid compliance violations under the part 61 
NESHAP. The resulting variability in RVCM numbers averaged daily is a 
function of the resin characteristics and not a reasonable measure of 
stripper performance, unless you are only making one type of resin. 
Each of the facilities we reviewed produces multiple types of resins, 
each with unique characteristics and all employ stripper technology.
    In regard to the standards for LDAR, however, we agree with the 
commenters' observations that ``HON-like'' requirements are practiced 
by one newly constructed source, and that these requirements represent 
the most technologically advanced LDAR for this category. We believe 
this reflects MACT for new sources and believe that new sources should 
be constructed with the latest technology in mind. We also see the 
``HON-like'' LDAR requirements as a fitting alternative for existing 
sources, if they elect to use it.
    Comment: Two commenters contended that we overlooked the control of 
some HAP related to PVC and copolymers production in the proposal.
    Response: Although we considered other HAP besides VCM at proposal, 
we gathered more information to see if there were HAP in the process 
that were better controlled than what the part 61 NESHAP required. This 
also raised a clarity question about what was included in the process, 
similar to the comments we received asking us to clarify whether or not 
we intended to only include activities and equipment in vinyl chloride 
service. For activities and equipment that are in vinyl chloride 
service, we reconsidered the HAP in the process. We concluded that 
there were no more stringent control requirements than those of the 
part 61 NESHAP. We considered HAP that are introduced by activities and 
equipment that were not in vinyl chloride service to be outside the 
scope of the PVC and copolymers source category, consistent with the 
way we have distinguished between process units in other MACT standards 
and consistent with the part 61 NESHAP.

C. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: While commenters generally agreed with us that the 
compliance date for existing sources could become immediately effective 
upon publication, if having the same requirements as the part 61 
NESHAP, several commenters expressed concern over whether publication 
of the part 63 rule would trigger new testing and re-certification 
requirements, and duplication of records and reports in absence of 
other guidance. Their comments also expressed concern over the need for 
additional lead time if such testing, re-certification and reports and 
records would be necessary for demonstrating compliance.

[[Page 45890]]

    Response: It is not our intent to create new testing, re-
certification, reports and recordkeeping burdens for sources that have 
already demonstrated sustained compliance with the part 61 NESHAP. 
Although we have not added specific language to the part 63 rule in 
this regard, we expect that any documentation necessary for 
demonstrating compliance with the part 61 NESHAP would be satisfactory 
for demonstrating compliance with the part 63 rule.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
NESHAP. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults with State 
and local officials early in the process of developing the NESHAP.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it must include a certification from 
EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
the rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 
performance. No children's risk analysis was performed because no 
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at 
a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in 
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 
by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before 
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider 
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

[[Page 45891]]

than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. There are no cost burdens introduced by today's 
rule. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements 
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. 
Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent 
company has fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we have determined 
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. We have determined, following 
discussions with State and industry representatives, that the scope of 
today's rule includes no small entities as defined above. After 
considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
contained in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F (Vinyl Chloride NESHAP) under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
and has assigned OMB control No. 2060-0071. An Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document was prepared by EPA (ICR No. 186.08), and a copy 
may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at Office of Environmental 
Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download 
a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Today's NESHAP (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart J) require that PVC 
and copolymers production facilities continue to comply with 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart F. In addition, new sources must comply with 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UU, instead of 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, for LDAR. 
Although more comprehensive, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, is also more 
flexible and for new sources would be no more burdensome, and perhaps 
less burdensome, than 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, which are the 
standards to which the existing sources must currently comply. 
Therefore, today's NESHAP add no additional information collection 
burden. Consequently, no ICR has been prepared for today's NESHAP.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use 
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to 
do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Since this final rule does not include any new technical standards 
requirements, EPA is not adopting any voluntary consensus standards in 
this action.
    Under Sec. 63.7(f) of 40 CFR part 63 subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods in place of any existing EPA testing method requirements.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the 
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes 
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report 
containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S. 
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General 
of the United States, prior to publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and, therefore, will be effective 
on July 10, 2002.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 3, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of

[[Page 45892]]

the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart J to read as follows:
Subpart J--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.210  What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.211  Am I subject to this subpart?
63.212  What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
63.213  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.214  What are the requirements I must comply with?

Other Requirements and Information

63.215  What General Provisions apply to me?
63.216  Who administers this subpart?
63.217  What definitions apply to this subpart?

Subpart J--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.210  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and copolymers 
production.


Sec. 63.211  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a PVC 
plant, as defined in 40 CFR 61.61(c) of this chapter, that is a major 
source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that is located 
at, or is part of, a major source of HAP emissions.
    (b) You are a major source of HAP emissions if you own or operate a 
plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year.


Sec. 63.212  What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at 
PVC and copolymers production operations.
    (b) The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection 
of all equipment and activities in vinyl chloride service necessary to 
produce PVC and copolymers. This subpart applies to the PVC and 
copolymers production operations that meet the applicability criteria 
at 40 CFR 61.60(a)(3) of this chapter.
    (c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source after July 10, 
2002.
    (d) An affected source is existing if it is not new.
    (e) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.


Sec. 63.213  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this 
subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) If you startup your affected source before July 10, 2002, then 
you must comply with the standards in this subpart no later than July 
10, 2002.
    (2) If you startup your affected source after July 10, 2002, then 
you must comply with the standards in this subpart upon startup of your 
affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must be in 
compliance with the standards in this subpart by July 10, 2002.
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP and an 
affected source subject to this subpart, paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
this section apply.
    (1) An area source that meets the criteria of a new affected source 
as specified at Sec. 63.212(d) must be in compliance with this subpart 
upon becoming a major source.
    (2) An area source that meets the criteria of an existing affected 
source as specified at Sec. 63.212(e) must be in compliance with this 
subpart upon becoming a major source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.214  What are the requirements I must comply with?

    (a) You must meet all the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F 
of this chapter, as they pertain to processes that manufacture 
polymerized vinyl chloride, except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section. These requirements include the emission 
standards and compliance, testing, monitoring, notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
    (1) Where 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, references 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V, a new source must comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UU, instead of the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart V.
    (2) Where 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, references 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V, an existing source must comply with either the provisions of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, or the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V.
    (b) Sources that comply with all of the provisions of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UU, are not required to meet any of the provisions of 40 
CFR part 61, subpart V.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.215  What General Provisions apply to me?

    (a) All the provisions in 40 CFR part 61, subpart A of this 
chapter, apply to this subpart.
    (b) The provisions in subpart A of this part also apply to this 
subpart as specified in (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The general applicability provisions in Sec. 63.1(a)(1) through 
(8) and (13) through (14).
    (2) The specific applicability provisions in Sec. 63.1(b) through 
(e) except for the reference to Sec. 63.10 for recordkeeping 
procedures.
    (3) The construction and reconstruction provisions in Sec. 63.5 
except for the references to Sec. 63.6 for compliance procedures and 
the references to Sec. 63.9 for notification procedures.


Sec. 63.216  Who administers this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be administered by us, the EPA, or a delegated 
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency has the primary authority to administer and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if the authority to implement and enforce this subpart is 
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section are retained by the Administrator of EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards 
in Secs. 63.211, 63.212 and 63.214 under 40 CFR 61.12(d) of this 
chapter. Where these standards reference another subpart, the cited 
provisions will be

[[Page 45893]]

delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced 
subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 40 CFR 
61.13(h) of this chapter and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under 40 CFR 
61.14(g) of this chapter and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under 40 CFR 61.10 of this chapter and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.217  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act; 40 CFR 
61.02 of this chapter, the NESHAP General Provisions; 40 CFR 61.61 of 
this chapter, the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP; and, Sec. 63.2, in regard to 
terms used in Secs. 63.1 and 63.5.

[FR Doc. 02-17361 Filed 7-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P