[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76958-76965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31332]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6913-8]
RIN 2060-AH82


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Copolymers 
Production source category. These proposed 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 proposed 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) for 
the PVC and Copolymers Production source category. The EPA has 
determined that this source category includes facilities that are major 
sources of HAP, including vinyl chloride, vinylidene chloride (1,1 
dichloroethylene), and vinyl acetate. The EPA has classified vinyl 
chloride as

[[Page 76959]]

a known human carcinogen and vinylidene chloride as a possible human 
carcinogen. All of these HAP can cause noncancer health effects in 
humans. By proposing compliance with the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP as MACT, 
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.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 6, 2001.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by December 28, 2000, a public hearing will be held on 
January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate 
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-99-40, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also 
be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina.
    Docket: Docket No. A-99-40 contains information supporting today's 
action. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and 
may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren Johnson, Organic Chemicals 
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5124, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d9dcdbddc0dcdd9dc4d2c1c1d6ddf3d6c3d29dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ae0e5e2e4f9e5e4a4fdebf8f8efe4caeffaeba4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
public hearing information, contact Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals 
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a14151f161654171b08131b3a1f0a1b541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147a7b7178783a7975667d75547164753a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78195519161c550a551c171b131d0c381d0819561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a7b377b747e3768377e7579717f6e5a7f6a7b347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special 
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks 
in WordPerfect<Register> version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-99-40. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Warren Johnson, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel 
Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information 
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a 
submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made 
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing

    Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Maria Noell at least 
2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in 
attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Noell to verify the 
time, date, and location of the hearing. The address, telephone number, 
and e-mail address for Ms. Noell are listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If a public hearing is held, it 
will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, 
or arguments concerning today's action.

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 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. In addition to being available in the docket, an 
electronic copy of today's action will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of today's action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of affected
      Category         NAICS code    SIC code           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 
proposed 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.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What is the history of the source category?
    D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants 
emitted from the PVC and Copolymers Production source category?
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

[[Page 76960]]

    A. What source category is affected by these proposed NESHAP?
    B. What is PVC and copolymers production and what are the 
primary sources of emissions?
    C. What is the affected source?
    D. What are the compliance requirements in the proposed NESHAP?
    E. When must an affected source comply with these proposed 
NESHAP?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. What controls are used to limit HAP emissions?
    B. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
standards for new and existing sources?
    C. What is the relationship of today's proposed NESHAP to other 
rules?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
    C. Executive Order 13084, 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 of 1995.
    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.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act.
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.

I. Background

A. What is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of all major sources and some area sources of HAP and to 
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. 
The major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP are new and 
existing sources that produce PVC and copolymers. Major sources of HAP 
are those that are located within a contiguous area and under common 
control and have the potential to emit 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 
(10 tons/yr) or more of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) or more 
of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria are Used in Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures all major sources achieve the level of control already 
achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each 
source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot 
be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the 
best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer 
than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards 
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What is the History of the Source Category?

    The EPA recognized that PVC and copolymer production would not be 
addressed by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (40 CFR part 63, 
subparts G, F and H), which address the requirements of section 112(d) 
of the CAA for the manufacturing of synthetic organic chemical 
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) chemicals, including ethylene dichloride 
(EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). Therefore, on July 16, 1992 (57 
FR 31576), the EPA listed PVC and Copolymers Production as a separate 
source category. This source category was listed because we had not yet 
evaluated whether the existing part 61 NESHAP, specifically the Vinyl 
Chloride NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart F) was sufficient as MACT. Now 
that we have evaluated it and are proposing to find it adequate, the 
requirements constitute MACT in accordance with CAA section 112(d) and 
(q)(1). In addition, as with other NESHAP issued under the authority of 
CAA section 112(d), today's proposed NESHAP will also be subject to CAA 
section 112(f).

D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants emitted 
from the PVC and Copolymers Production source category?

    Polyvinyl chloride and copolymer products are not considered toxic, 
but the VCM feedstock is toxic, and the copolymer feedstocks, when they 
are used, may also be toxic chemicals (i.e., vinyl acetate and 
vinylidene chloride).
    Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air 
has resulted in central nervous system effects, such as dizziness, 
drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to 
vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has 
resulted in liver damage. There are positive human and animal studies 
showing adverse effects which raise a concern about potential 
reproductive and developmental hazards to humans from exposure to vinyl 
chloride. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via 
inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the 
risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. The EPA has classified 
vinyl chloride as a Group A, known human carcinogen. In addition, VCM 
is explosive when airborne in concentrations between 4 and 22 percent 
by volume. For these reasons, special care (e.g., nitrogen blankets and 
polymerization inhibitors) must be taken in storage and shipment of 
VCM, and manufacturing processes using VCM must control the VCM 
emissions, worker exposure, and the residual content of VCM in 
products.
    The primary acute (short-term) effects in humans from vinylidene 
chloride (1,1 dichlorethylene) exposure are on the central nervous 
system, including central nervous system depression and symptoms of 
inebriation, convulsions, spasms, and unconsciousness at high 
concentrations. Low-level, chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of 
vinylidene chloride in humans may affect the liver. Animal studies 
indicate that chronic exposure to vinylidene chloride can affect the 
liver, kidneys, central nervous system, and lungs. No studies were 
located regarding developmental or reproductive effects in humans, but 
birth defects have been reported in offspring of pregnant animals that 
had inhaled vinylidene chloride. Human data are considered inadequate 
in providing evidence of cancer from exposure to vinylidene chloride. 
Limited animal cancer data have shown an increase in kidney and mammary 
tumors, while other studies have not shown an increase in tumors. 
Vinylidene chloride has been classified as a Group C, possible human 
carcinogen.
    Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of workers to vinyl acetate 
has resulted in eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. Chronic 
(long-term) occupational exposure results in upper respiratory tract 
irritation, cough, and/or hoarseness. Nasal epithelial lesions and

[[Page 76961]]

irritation and inflammation of the respiratory tract were observed in 
mice and rats chronically exposed by inhalation. No information is 
available on the reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects 
of vinyl acetate in humans. Some limited animal data suggest reduced 
body weight, fetal growth retardation, and minor skeletal fetal defects 
at high exposure levels. An increased incidence of nasal cavity tumors 
has been observed in rats exposed by inhalation. The EPA has not 
classified vinyl acetate for carcinogenicity.

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What Source Category Is Affected by These Proposed NESHAP?

    The PVC and Copolymers Production source category includes all 
sources that are new and existing major sources that polymerize vinyl 
chloride monomer alone, or in combination with other materials, to 
produce PVC and copolymers.
    We estimate there are 28 PVC and copolymer manufacturing plants 
operating in the United States. This source category was listed under 
CAA section 112 because it contains major sources of HAP. Although 
today's proposal applies only to these major sources in the source 
category, the existing part 61 NESHAP make no distinction between major 
and area sources and, therefore, continue to apply to both. Likewise, 
the existing part 61 NESHAP make no distinction between new and 
existing sources and, therefore, require the same emission standards 
for both. Rationale for why we decided that new source MACT should be 
the same as existing source MACT in today's proposed NESHAP is 
discussed in section III.B.
    Although demand for PVC and copolymers has increased slightly in 
the last year, this increase and anticipated future increases are 
within the capacity of the current facilities. For this reason, we 
anticipate near zero growth of this source category beyond the existing 
sources over the next 5 years.

B. What Is PVC and Copolymers Production and What Are the Primary 
Sources of Emissions?

    Polyvinyl chloride and copolymer products have a large number of 
commercial and industrial applications. It is the manufacture of the 
resins used to make these products that is considered PVC and 
copolymers production. The resins are produced in a variety of mediums 
resulting from one of four basic polymerization process types: 
suspension, emulsion, bulk, and solution. Producing these resins 
involves batch reactor processes where VCM is polymerized with itself 
as a homopolymer or copolymerized with varying amounts of vinyl 
acetate, ethylene, propylene, vinylidene chloride, or acrylates. The 
resulting resins are generally dried into nontoxic powders or granules 
that are compounded with auxiliary ingredients and converted into a 
variety of plastic end products. These end products can be used in a 
large number of applications, including latex paints, coatings, 
adhesives, clear plastics, rigid plastics, and flooring.
    The PVC is not a HAP, but manufacturing PVC requires VCM, which is 
a HAP, as a primary feedstock, and trace amounts of unreacted VCM may 
linger in the PVC product. There are basically two ways for HAP to be 
introduced to the atmosphere from these processes: either the HAP is 
released from an opening or leak in the process equipment, or the 
residual HAP (i.e., unreacted VCM) in the product become airborne. 
Stripping at the production stage to recover unreacted feedstock 
reduces the air emissions from the product by reducing the residual HAP 
in the product.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    The affected source is the collection of all equipment and 
activities necessary to produce PVC and copolymers. To determine 
whether a facility is affected by today's action, you should examine 
the applicability criteria at 40 CFR 61.60(a)(3), (b) and (c).
    The following emission types (i.e., emission points) are currently 
covered by the existing part 61 NESHAP: reactor opening losses, 
equipment leaks, storage vessels, process vents, hoses and lines, 
wastewater operations, and major releases from process upsets.

D. What Are the Compliance Requirements in the Proposed NESHAP?

    As provided under the authority of CAA section 112(d) and (q), we 
are proposing that you comply with all the requirements of the Vinyl 
Chloride NESHAP, as specified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. The Vinyl 
Chloride NESHAP sets forth emission standards in the forms of numerical 
emission limits and work practices. The Vinyl Chloride NESHAP also sets 
forth all requirements for monitoring, test methods, recordkeeping, and 
reporting.

E. When Must an Affected Source Comply With These Proposed NESHAP?

    All existing sources, as defined at 40 CFR 61.02, should already be 
in compliance with today's proposed NESHAP since we are proposing that 
owners or operators comply with all the requirements of the Vinyl 
Chloride NESHAP.
    Therefore, we believe that the requirement to set a compliance date 
that is as expeditious as practicable is satisfied by setting the 
compliance date on [the effective date for the final rule] for existing 
sources. A new source must be in compliance with the NESHAP on [the 
effective date of the final rule] or at start up, whichever is later.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. What Controls Are Used To Limit HAP Emissions?

    Although the existing part 61 NESHAP contain standards for 
alternative controls, stripping is the primary control used for 
limiting VCM and other HAP emissions.
    Through stripping operations, residual unreacted VCM in the PVC and 
copolymers is minimized before subsequent process steps (e.g., product 
drying) occur. Stripping is also an economical way to recover unreacted 
feeds, primarily VCM, following the polymerization process. In 
stripping out the VCM from the product, other residual HAP are also 
removed. As a result, the stripping really controls all HAP by removing 
the unreacted chemicals from the PVC and copolymers before the product 
is exposed to the atmosphere during later processing steps, which 
typically include drying. It is important that these HAP be removed 
before drying, not only because dryers efficiently convey dilute HAP 
emissions to the atmosphere, but also because these HAP are explosive 
under certain conditions.
    In addition to stripping, other HAP control measures include 
operating under a closed-vent system with add-on control (e.g., flare) 
to incinerate HAP gases not returning to the process, minimizing the 
presence of HAP before opening a reactor or piece of process equipment 
containing VCM and other HAP, ongoing leak detection and repair (LDAR), 
ongoing area monitoring to sample the ambient air for the presence of 
VCM as a precautionary early warning of a major release, and other 
special care.

B. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Existing and New Sources?

    Because there are fewer than 30 sources in this source category, to 
identify the existing source MACT floor, we look at the average 
emission limitation achieved by the five best

[[Page 76962]]

performing sources. Since all 28 sources are subject to the existing 
part 61 NESHAP, we did not identify a group of five sources as best 
performers. Rather, we have identified the existing part 61 NESHAP as 
the existing source MACT floor.
    We are aware that some States have added numerical emission limits 
in facilities' permits that are lower than the numerical limits 
specified in the part 61 NESHAP. We do not believe, however, that using 
these lower State limits is an appropriate basis for identifying a 
group of five best performers in setting a new, lower emission limit 
within the context of a part 63 NESHAP.
    These lower State numbers are in addition to the limit in the part 
61 NESHAP, and they correspond to a longer averaging time. Unlike other 
NESHAP which may allow quarterly or annual averaging times to achieve a 
limit, the part 61 NESHAP require daily compliance with the limit on an 
instantaneous basis. Since process variability is inherent in even 
normal operations in the batch processes where PVC and copolymers are 
produced, facilities must set operational parameters below regulatory 
limits to ensure that the instantaneous limits are not exceeded.
    Also, these State limits are set based on the products each 
facility is manufacturing since PVC and copolymers vary in their 
ability to be stripped based on their morphology and resistance to 
sheer. Depending on the resins being produced, State operating permits 
generally stipulate lower numerical limits over a longer averaging 
time, in addition to the instantaneous daily limits required by the 
part 61 NESHAP. These permit conditions are good practice on the part 
of the State permitting authorities for ensuring control consistency 
over longer periods for the specific facilities. However, we do not 
believe that new part 63 NESHAP, based on the average of the best 
quarterly or yearly limits, would result in any greater emissions 
reductions beyond the current levels resulting from the part 61 NESHAP 
since we would have to factor in the wide range of product variability 
to set limits achievable across the source category.
    We are also proposing new source MACT equivalent to existing source 
MACT. Although some processes may be able to strip and achieve a HAP 
concentration lower than the limit specified in the Vinyl Chloride 
NESHAP, such a lower limit would not be applicable across the source 
category due to variations in the processes and product 
characteristics.
    After stripping, some unreacted VCM will remain suspended in the 
product. The amount of VCM remaining in a product varies with the 
product design. Excessive stripping could sheer some of the products 
while other products can strip to very low levels of residual HAP. 
Also, these residual HAP generally provide a necessary part of the 
product design characteristics. The existing part 61 NESHAP took this 
into account when requiring residual VCM to be limited to below 400 
parts per million (ppm) for all cases except for certain dispersion 
resins.
    We have also not identified any work practice standards more 
stringent than those required by the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP, which 
require that equipment be vapor tight and any HAP release to the 
atmosphere be less than 10 ppm VCM. In comparison to LDAR provisions or 
low concentration cutoffs (typically at 20 ppm) in other NESHAP, the 
Vinyl Chloride NESHAP work practice standards are more stringent.

C. What Is the Relationship of Today's Proposed NESHAP to Other Rules?

    The Vinyl Chloride NESHAP apply to sources that manufacture EDC, 
VCM, and PVC and copolymers. The sources that manufacture EDC and VCM 
are not the subject of today's proposal because they are already 
subject to the HON, which is the NESHAP for the source category that 
produces SOCMI chemicals. The PVC and copolymers are not considered 
SOCMI chemicals since they are produced in batch process reactors, 
which are distinctly different than the continuous process units 
employed by the SOCMI chemical manufacturers. Hence, PVC and copolymers 
were not included in the HON applicability because they are a separate 
source category and unique to SOCMI.
    Since the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP reside in 40 CFR part 61, and since 
today's proposal incorporates the existing standards, it is appropriate 
that the General Provisions to part 61 continue to apply. Today's 
proposed NESHAP affect only new and existing ``major sources,'' which 
is a concept not used in part 61. Therefore, in order to properly 
address applicability as it pertains to part 63 standards, certain 
terms and provisions in the General Provisions of part 63 that 
delineate MACT applicability, construction and reconstruction 
(specifically, provisions in Secs. 63.1 and 63.5) would also need to 
apply. Since today's proposed NESHAP require that reconstructed sources 
comply with the new source MACT requirements, they would be subject to 
the new source requirements under part 61 even though the term 
``reconstruction'' is not used in part 61. Within Secs. 63.1 and 63.5, 
the provisions in Sec. 63.1(a)(9) through (12) regarding notices, time 
periods, and postmarks; and the references in Secs. 63.5, 63.6, 63.9 
and 63.10 regarding administrative compliance, notification and 
recordkeeping procedures should be disregarded since these procedures 
are already defined in the part 61 General Provisions.
    We anticipate that all existing sources (an estimated 28 sources) 
are major sources, and that any new sources will also be major sources, 
as defined by the CAA. Part 70 requires that all major sources retain 
reports and records for 5 years under Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B), even 
though the 40 CFR part 61 NESHAP only require that reports and records 
be retained for 3 years. Under part 70, affected sources are expected 
to be in compliance with applicable standards on a continuous basis, 
and exceedances or excursions outside the established limits or 
parameter ranges, including those that occur during periods of startup, 
shutdown or malfunction, are considered deviations under 
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B).
    The 40 CFR part 61 NESHAP do not rely on the recent publication of 
performance specification (PS) 8 for volatile organic compound (VOC) 
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), PS 9 for gas 
chromatographic CEMS, or the quality assurance requirements for VOC 
measurement in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. We are 
soliciting comment on whether or not we should require PS 8 and 9, and 
appendix F in lieu of, or as an option to, the monitoring requirements 
in Sec. 61.68.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    There are no environmental, energy or economic impacts anticipated 
from these proposed NESHAP beyond the current requirements of 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart F, which are already in effect.

V. 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:

[[Page 76963]]

    (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 
proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.'' Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal 
governments own or operate PVC and copolymer production facilities. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to today's proposed NESHAP.

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 proposed 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 proposed and 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 than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-

[[Page 76964]]

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 proposed 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 proposed rule. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA 
has determined that this proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action 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 proposed rule includes no 
small entities as defined above. But, even if a small entity was within 
the scope of today's proposed rule, no adverse impact to the small 
entity would result, since today's proposed rule creates no new 
requirements or burdens for any of the affected entities.
    The EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues

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 Sandy Farmer by mail at Office of Environmental 
Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95f3f4e7f8f0e7bbe6f4fbf1ecd5f0e5f4bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cfafdeef1f9eeb2effdf2f8e5dcf9ecfdb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>, or by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also 
download a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Today's proposed NESHAP (i.e., proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart J) 
require that PVC and copolymers production facilities continue to 
comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. Therefore, today's proposed 
NESHAP add no additional information collection burden. Consequently, 
no ICR has been prepared for today's proposed NESHAP.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This proposal references 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. Since there are 
no new standard requirements in these proposed NESHAP, and there are no 
new requirements resulting from specifying subpart F of part 61, EPA is 
not proposing/adopting any voluntary consensus standards in today's 
proposed NESHAP.
    The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration 
requirements proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the 
public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should 
adopt them in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and 
performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be 
accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method 
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method 
(if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was 
used).

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: December 4, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding subpart J to read as 
follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

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?

[[Page 76965]]

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?

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) 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 copolymer production operations.
    (b) The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection 
of all equipment and activities 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).
    (c) An affected source does not include portions of your PVC and 
copolymers production operations that meet the criteria at 40 CFR 
61.60(b) or (c) .
    (d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source after December 8, 
2000.
    (e) An affected source is existing if it is not new.


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 [the effective date 
of this subpart], then you must comply with the standards in this 
subpart no later than [the effective date of this subpart].
    (2) If you startup your affected source after [the effective date 
of this subpart], 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 [the effective date of 
this subpart].
    (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?

    You must meet all the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, as 
they pertain to processes that manufacture polymerized vinyl chloride. 
These requirements include the emission standards and compliance, 
testing, monitoring, notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.215  What General Provisions apply to me?

    (a) All the provisions in 40 CFR part 61, subpart A, 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 section 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) . Where these 
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be 
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) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under 40 CFR 
61.14(g) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under 40 CFR 61.10 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, 
the Vinyl Chloride NESHAP; and, Sec. 63.2, in regard to terms used in 
Secs. 63.1 and 63.5.
[FR Doc. 00-31332 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>