[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30456-30464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14351]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6355-6]
RIN 2060-AH47


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Group 
IV Polymers and Resins

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed denial of petition for reconsideration and notice of 
public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Promulgated standards for the Group IV Polymers and Resins 
were published in the Federal Register on September 12, 1996. Two sets 
of petitioners have petitioned the EPA to reconsider the equipment leak 
standards contained in the promulgated rule as they pertain to 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) facilities. After consideration of the 
petitioners' comments and data, and a reanalysis of the equipment leak 
program, the EPA has determined to retain without modification the 
equipment leak provisions of the promulgated rule.
    Today's notice provides the opportunity to provide public comment 
on the new equipment leak analysis, which was conducted based on 
comments and additional data provided by the petitioners.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 9, 1999. 
For information on submitting electronic comments see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to 
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of 
data, views, or arguments concerning the EPA's decision to retain the 
equipment leak standards based on the comments and data provided by the 
petitioners and on the reanalysis incorporating those comments and 
data. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public 
hearing by July 1, 1999, a public hearing will be held on July 8, 1999, 
beginning at 9:30 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing or 
wishing to present oral testimony should contact Ms. Maria Noell at 
(919) 541-5607, Organic Chemicals Group (MD-13). If held, the public 
hearing will take place at the EPA's Office of Administration 
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102) 
Attention: Docket No. A-92-45, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate 
copy also be sent to Mr. Keith Barnett, US EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 
(919) 541-5605, fax (919) 541-3470, and electronic mail: 
[email protected]. Comments and data may also be submitted 
electronically by following the instructions listed in SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted through electronic mail.
    Technical Memoranda. The ``Summary of Responses to Petitioners' 
Comments'' memo may be obtained electronically from the EPA's 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) (see Supplementary Information for 
access information.)
    Docket. A docket, No. A-92-45, containing information considered by 
the EPA in the development of the standards for the Group IV Polymers 
and Resins, is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday at the EPA's, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 
first floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The proposed and 
promulgated regulations, the Basis and Purpose Document for the 
promulgated rule, Summary of Responses to Petitioners' Comments, 
(Docket Item VI-B-19), Equipment Leak Analysis for PET Facilities 
Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP (Docket Item VI-B-
20), and other supporting information are available for inspection and 
copying. Alternatively, a docket index, as well as individual items 
contained with the docket, may be obtained by calling (202) 260-7548 or 
(202) 260-7549. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The docket 
index is also available electronically on the Virtual Air Toxics 
Website at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pr4/pr4pg.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, US EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-5605, fax (919) 541-3470, and electronic mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................  Facilities manufacturing polyethylene
                            terephthalate (PET) using a batch dimethyl
                            terephthalate (DMT) process, PET facilities
                            using a continuous DMT process, PET
                            facilities using a batch terephthalic acid
                            (TPA) process, and PET facilities using a
                            continuous TPA process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the 
Group IV Polymers and Resins standard. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
facility is regulated, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in Sec. 63.1310 of the rule. If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronic Filing

    Electronic comments and data can be sent directly to the EPA at: a-
[email protected]. Electronic comments and data must be 
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and 
any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on 
diskette in Wordperfect 5.1 or 6.1, or ASCII file formats. All comments 
and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket number A-
92-45. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted 
through electronic mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at 
many Federal Depository Libraries.

[[Page 30457]]

Electronic Activity

    This notice is available through the Technology Transfer Network 
(TTN) web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site is a 
collection of related web sites containing information about many areas 
of air pollution science, technology, regulation, measurement, and 
prevention. The telephone number to access the OAQPS TTN via modem is 
(919) 541-5742. The TTN operates 24 hours a day, except on Mondays, 
when it is inaccessible from 8:00 a.m. to noon, East Coast Time. For 
further information and general questions regarding the TTN, call the 
TTN help line (919) 541-5384 or Mr. Hersch Rorex (919) 541-5637. This 
notice is also available in Docket No. A-92-45 (see ADDRESSES).
    The following outline is provided to aid in reading this notice. 
The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. 1995 Proposed Rule
    B. Public Comments on 1995 Proposed Rule
    C. 1996 Promulgated Rule
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. Emission Estimation
    B. Cost Estimation
    C. Heavy Liquid Components
III. Reanalysis of Equipment Leak Program
IV. Results and Conclusion
V. Solicitation of Comments
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Paperwork Reduction Act
    B. Executive Order 12866
    C. Executive Order 13045
    D. Regulatory Flexibility
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 12875
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13084

I. Background

A. 1995 Proposed Rule

    National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
for Group IV Polymers and Resins were proposed in the Federal Register 
(FR) on March 29, 1995 (60 FR 16090). The proposed standards included 
requirements for the control of emissions from equipment leaks. Under 
the proposed standards for equipment leaks, both existing and new PET 
facilities would be required to implement a leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) program. With a few exceptions, the LDAR program proposed was 
the same as that specified in the National Emission Standards for 
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart H; referred to hereafter as the HON) and the National Emission 
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain Processes 
Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 
63, subpart I). Under the proposed standards, work practice 
requirements to reduce emissions from equipment that is in organic 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) service for 300 or more hours per year 
were specified. The proposed standards defined ``in organic HAP 
service'' as being in contact with or containing process fluid that 
contains a total of 5 percent or more total HAP. The proposed standards 
applied to valves, pumps, compressors, connectors, pressure relief 
devices, open-ended valves or lines, sampling connection systems, 
instrumentation systems, agitators, surge control vessels, bottoms 
receivers, and closed-vent systems and control devices.

B. Public Comments on 1995 Proposed Rule

    Comments were received on the 1995 proposed rule, including 
comments on the equipment leak program. A summary of comments and 
responses to those comments can be found in ``Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions from Process Units in Thermoplastics Manufacturing Industry--
Basis and Purpose Document for Final Standards, Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses,'' (EPA-453/R-96-001b, May 1996).
    Overall, commenters had several objections concerning the proposed 
provisions as applied to PET affected sources. Commenters stated that 
emissions and emission reductions were overestimated; that little 
environmental benefit could be expected as a result of implementing an 
equipment leak program; that the proposed provisions were not cost 
effective (largely due to the overestimation of emissions and emission 
reductions); and that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements were 
excessive.
    In response to these comments, the EPA reevaluated the emission 
estimates, costs, and cost effectiveness of the proposed equipment leak 
standards for each PET subcategory. Based on the comments and 
reanalysis, the EPA made changes to the proposed rule, which are 
summarized in the following section.

C. 1996 Promulgated Rule

    On September 12, 1996, the final rule for the Group IV Polymers and 
Resins source category was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 
48208). In general, with regard to equipment leaks, subject facilities 
were required to comply with the HON. A few differences from the HON 
were included in the final rule. These differences, most of which were 
in response to comments received during the public comment period, 
included:
    1. For PET affected sources using a continuous TPA high viscosity 
process with multiple end finishers, the final rule does not require an 
equipment leak program.
    2. The final rule exempts from the equipment leak standards any PET 
Thermoplastic Product Production Unit (TPPU) in which all of the 
components are either in vacuum service or in heavy liquid service (or 
some combination of vacuum service and heavy liquid service).
    3. Indications of liquids dripping from bleed ports on pumps and 
agitators at facilities producing polystyrene resins are excluded from 
the definition of a leak.
    4. A submittal of an Initial Notification is not required.
    5. 150 days (rather than 90 days) are allowed to submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status.
    6. PET facilities are not required to provide a list of 
identification numbers for components in heavy liquid service, pressure 
relief devices in liquid service, and instrumentation systems.
    7. The final rule clarifies that, for the components identified 
above under Item 6, leaks are to be determined exclusively through the 
use of visual, audible, olfactory, or any other detection methods, but 
that Method 21 is not to be used.
    8. Bottoms receivers and surge control vessels are not regulated 
under the equipment leak provisions, but instead are regulated as 
storage vessels.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    Following promulgation of this rule, the EPA received two petitions 
for reconsideration regarding the LDAR provision of the 
rule.1 The petitioners also supplied additional data to the 
EPA in support of their petitions. The EPA held meetings with both sets 
of petitioners to discuss their petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA also received petitions regarding other sections of 
the rule and is responding to these separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two primary concerns expressed by these petitioners were:
    1. Light liquid LDAR program is more costly than estimated, is not 
cost effective, and thus should not be required.
    2. No substantive cost effectiveness analysis was performed on the 
heavy liquid LDAR program, which was added between proposal and 
promulgation; thus, EPA failed to meet its obligation under section 
112(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
    The petitioners requested that the EPA redo its analysis and 
believes that

[[Page 30458]]

such reanalysis would result in action to delete the equipment leak 
provisions from the Group IV Polymers and Resins rule.
    A summary of the reanalysis conducted in the response to the 
petitions is presented below in Section III, Reanalysis of Equipment 
Leak Program. The following paragraphs summarize the major comments 
made by the petitioners and the EPA's response to those comments. For 
more comments and responses, please see the ``Summary of Responses to 
Petitioners' Comments'' memo in Docket A-92-45.

A. Emission Estimation

    Comment: Two petitioners claim that the EPA's average SOCMI 
emission factors significantly overestimate equipment leak emissions 
and that baseline emissions would be more accurately predicted using 
the average emission factors identified in the 1993 Protocol document 
for components located at ethylene oxide/butadiene (EO/BD) process 
units (Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-93-
026, June 1993, page B-53).
    Response: This comment is essentially identical to comments 
presented during the public comment period on the proposed rule. 
However, these petitioners provide for the first time equipment leak 
rate data compiled from several of their non-PET facilities that they 
believe are representative of leak rates at their PET facilities. The 
petitioners then calculate average leak rates based on these leak 
frequencies and compare them to several average leak rates reported in 
the 1993 Protocol document, including those based on the EO/BD data, on 
the EPA 24-unit study, and the combined EO/BD and EPA 24-unit study 
data (which makes up the SOCMI data set). A comparison of the average 
leak rates appears to show that the petitioners' non-PET facilities are 
emitting at a rate lower than the average SOCMI factors.
    When developing the rule, the EPA provided each company, including 
the petitioners, with the opportunity to comment on the estimated 
emissions from equipment leaks, which were based on the average SOCMI 
emission factors. Most of the companies disagreed with the estimates, 
either stating they were too high or providing their own estimates. Two 
companies found no reason to dispute the EPA estimate. Two petitioners 
responded by providing emission estimates and detailed component counts 
for some of their facilities. However, for two of their facilities they 
used EPA SOCMI emission factors to estimate their equipment leak 
emissions. A third petitioner, in contrast, provided no comments on the 
procedure for calculating uncontrolled emissions from equipment leaks 
and stated the information on the component counts and their stream 
composition was unavailable at that time.
    In responding to the petitioners' comments, the EPA performed the 
equipment leak reanalysis using revised emission factors for the 
petitioners' facilities based on the equipment leak frequency rates 
presented by the petitioners. In addition to the petitioners, only one 
other company submitted data from which facility-specific leak 
frequencies could be derived. The EPA used these data to calculate 
facility-specific emission factors for the reanalysis for that 
facility. The leak frequency rates and the resulting facility-specific 
emission factors were not extended to analyses of other companies' 
facilities for several reasons: (1) The other companies either have not 
questioned the EPA emission estimates or have concurred with them, (2) 
the equipment leak programs to control emissions employed by the 
petitioners at their facilities may not represent programs practiced by 
other companies, and (3) several companies stated that they do not have 
any equipment leak programs.
    It is important to note that the EPA is using the petitioners' leak 
frequency rates for analysis purposes only in responding to the 
petitioners' comments, and is not accepting them as valid. The level of 
detail associated with the leak frequency rates and inconsistencies in 
the presentation of the data (as discussed in the following paragraph) 
make it impossible to verify the accuracy of the leak rate data. In 
addition, there is no certainty that these leak frequency rates are 
applicable to the petitioners' PET facilities, because the monitoring 
and repair program in place for the submitted data at the time of the 
reported initial measurements may not reflect the uncontrolled leak 
frequency from the PET facility.
    Two petitioners submitted information on the equipment leak 
frequencies for a number of non-PET facilities. Upon request, they also 
provided data to support those reported leak frequencies. In reviewing 
the supporting data, there appear to be a number of inconsistencies, 
some of which would affect the estimated leak frequency. For example, 
in the information submitted by one petitioner these inconsistencies 
include: (1) The number of leaking components reported in the 
summarization table do not match the monitoring results in the audit 
report; (2) start dates do not match between the summarization table 
and the audit report; (3) total number of components in the 
summarization table do not always match the number tested in the audit 
report; and (4) it is unclear what ``net'' readings refer to and it is 
possible that this is an incorrect accounting of leakers. In another 
petitioner's data, concerns are: (1) the data sheets do not match the 
numbers in the screening results table; and (2) it is unclear what 
``adjusted'' readings, which are presented for many of the process 
units and their leaking components, refer to and it is possible that 
this is an incorrect accounting of leakers. Notwithstanding these 
technical uncertainties, the EPA has used the petitioners' leak 
frequency rates in the reanalysis.
    Comment: Two petitioners state that one reason their baseline 
emissions are so much lower than predicted by the SOCMI emission 
factors is that since the 1970s a greater emphasis has been placed on 
repairing leaking equipment identified through sensory means, and that 
this is part of the normal practice at their facilities.
    Response: This comment is essentially identical to one submitted by 
one of the petitioners in response to the proposed rule. While these 
two petitioners state that they currently have in place a program that 
repairs leaks through coordination with their maintenance staff, they 
do not provide any information documenting the effectiveness of a 
sensory program relative to a monitoring program for components in gas/
vapor or light liquid service. But whatever their effectiveness, the 
EPA has used their data in the reanalysis.
    Comment: One petitioner claims that the EPA had information that 
industry-run LDAR programs were practiced in PET facilities and that by 
ignoring these programs the EPA over-estimated the number of leaking 
components.
    Response: In response to an EPA request to identify equipment leak 
programs prior to the 1995 proposal, most PET companies (including the 
petitioners for all of their facilities) indicated that they did not 
have an equipment leak program or did not respond. Two companies stated 
that they repair leaks on a visual-detection basis. None of the 
companies provided any data to quantify the impact on emissions as a 
result of these visual-detection programs. In addition, none of the 
companies described such programs in any detail. Therefore, prior to 
the public comment period, there was insufficient information for the 
EPA either to describe these visual-based

[[Page 30459]]

equipment leak programs or to quantify their effectiveness. During the 
public comment period, the EPA received additional statements (but no 
data or descriptions) from several commenters (including the 
petitioners) that there were industry-run LDAR programs. In fact, one 
of the petitioners stated during the public comment period that the 
MACT floor determination was flawed because the proposed equipment leak 
standards only require what PET TPA facilities are currently doing for 
components in heavy liquid service. Notwithstanding such statements, 
industry did not provide the EPA with information or data to describe 
the programs or to quantify the emission reduction associated with 
industry-run LDAR programs. In the absence of such information or data, 
the EPA could not incorporate these programs in its estimate of 
baseline emissions.
    Comment: One petitioner states that the EPA did not use emission 
estimates provided by the industry, that the EPA assumed all vapor 
components to be methanol, and that the EPA failed to revise the 
emission factor for vapor ethylene glycol, resulting in an 
overestimation of emissions from these components.
    Response: The petitioner correctly states that the EPA did not use 
emission estimates provided by the industry for equipment leaks. As the 
EPA explained in supporting technical documentation:
    Emissions data provided by industry for equipment leaks were not 
used. Instead, emissions were estimated by determining the equipment 
component counts at each facility (e.g. valves in gas service, pumps in 
light liquid service) and applying the appropriate emission factors for 
each component category. Emission factors reported in the EPA's 
protocol document for equipment leaks were used. This approach to 
estimating emissions for equipment leaks was taken to provide a 
consistent baseline for estimating the impacts of various leak 
detection and repair (LDAR) programs in use for various subcategories 
and to compensate for the fact that equipment leaks data provided by 
industry was not complete. For the several facilities that provided 
specific and clear information, the estimate of emissions was adjusted 
to account for low organic HAP concentrations and reduced hours of 
operations.
    The supporting technical documentation lays out the procedures for 
the design and costing of condensers to control styrene and methanol 
emissions from polystyrene and PET process vents. These systems are not 
applied to equipment leak emissions. At proposal and promulgation, the 
EPA assumed all vapor service components at PET DMT facilities were in 
methanol service, and applied a recovery credit to these components 
based on the value of methanol. The EPA did not make any assumptions at 
proposal and promulgation as to what compound was contacting the gas/
vapor service components at PET TPA facilities. The EPA did use the 
same emission factors to estimate emissions from gas/vapor service 
components at both DMT and TPA facilities.
    Based on comments received during the public comment period, the 
EPA responded by revising the emission factors for components in heavy 
liquid service. No data have been provided to indicate that it is 
inappropriate to use the emission factor for components in vapor 
service where the contact compound is ethylene glycol in the vapor 
phase.
    Based on the available data, the EPA believes the approach used by 
the Agency to estimate emissions is reasonable.
    Comment: One petitioner claims that the EPA has stated that LDAR 
programs for heavy liquid components have no measurable effect on heavy 
liquid component emissions. The petitioner then states that they must 
use zero for heavy liquid component emission reductions.
    Response: The EPA believes that there will be an emissions 
reduction for heavy liquid components as a result of the Group IV 
Polymers and Resins NESHAP, and that the petitioner misinterpreted the 
information. The requirements of the rule for heavy liquid components 
specify that if an operator sees, smells, or hears a leak, they are 
required to tag the component and complete repairs within 15 days. The 
current industry practice is to identify leaks through the same methods 
as specified in the rule, but they have no specific time limit for 
repairs. The EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that imposing 
specific time limits for repairs will result in repairs being completed 
in a more timely fashion, thereby reducing emissions.
    The comments provided by this petitioner indicate that they do not 
currently keep records on repairs of heavy liquid components. 
Therefore, it is not possible based on currently available data to 
determine the average repair times under current industry practice. If 
data were available, then it would be possible to quantify an emissions 
reduction.
    In the case of open-ended lines and sampling connections in heavy 
liquid service, the emission reductions have been quantified. The 
equipment leak program requires all open-ended lines regardless of type 
of service to be capped, etc., and all sampling connections to be 
controlled to a ``zero HAP emissions'' level.
    Comment: One petitioner states that the number of gas/vapor 
components at continuous TPA facilities is very small (11 at the 
petitioner's facility) and, therefore, the benefits derived from a LDAR 
program for these components are negligible.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the emission reduction benefit may 
vary depending on the number of components subject to a LDAR program 
and that the amount of emission reduction will vary from facility to 
facility. However, in determining the benefits to be derived from an 
equipment leak program, the EPA looks at all of the facilities in the 
category or subcategory and all of the components from which emission 
reduction may be achieved. This type of approach has been consistently 
applied in the MACT program (i.e., impacts and cost effectiveness has 
been determined across a category or subcategory, not on an individual 
facility basis). Based on this analysis, the EPA has determined that 
the amount of emission reduction and the cost to achieve that emission 
reduction is reasonable.

B. Cost Estimation

    Comment: Two petitioners claim that the EPA has underestimated the 
costs of implementing an equipment leak program based on Method 21 
screening. Specifically, the petitioners claim that the EPA did not 
reflect fixed costs or costs associated with including heavy liquid 
components in the equipment leak program and that the EPA 
underestimated the costs associated with performing Method 21 
monitoring.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges that specific cost elements were 
left out of the costing performed at proposal and promulgation. Revised 
costing was conducted and includes additional elements. Responses to 
specific cost items identified by these two petitioners are found in 
Tables 2 and 3 to the ``Summary of Responses to Petitioners' Comments'' 
memo.
    Comment: Two petitioners claim that the cost analysis contains 
fundamental technical errors that result in the EPA's grossly 
underestimating the cost of compliance with the LDAR program for PET 
facilities.
    Response: These two petitioners identify a number of errors that 
did occur in the regulatory cost analysis. These errors are corrected 
in the revised costing. Table 4 in the ``Summary of Responses to 
Petitioners' Comments''

[[Page 30460]]

memo presents each item claimed by the petitioners as to being in error 
or insufficiently explained and EPA's response to these items.
    Comment: According to two petitioners two significant errors occur 
in the EPA's cost effectiveness analysis. First, they assert that a 
valve monitoring frequency of 12 times per year could be required to 
maintain a leak frequency of 1 percent, versus the 4 times a year used 
in EPA's analysis. Second, they state that the EPA used an incorrect 
value for the leak frequency used to calculate repair costs. The 
petitioners claim that, by themselves, these errors underestimate the 
costs of the equipment leak program based on Method 21 screening by 
100%.
    Response: The EPA believes that the petitioners misstated the 
requirements of the rule. The comment implies that a facility must 
maintain a leak frequency of one percent. This is incorrect. A facility 
is not required to maintain a specified leak frequency for valves. The 
rule states that the required monitoring frequency varies from annual 
to monthly depending on the actual leak frequency found when monitoring 
is performed. Also, in order for a facility to be allowed to monitor on 
a quarterly basis, they must have a measured leak frequency of less 
than 2 percent, not the 1 percent value stated in the comment. The leak 
frequency is calculated as a rolling average of the last two 
consecutive monitoring periods.
    The value quoted by the petitioners to support their contention 
that monthly monitoring of valves would be required, 2.42 percent, was 
taken from information developed only for the purpose of estimating 
emissions from equipment leak programs currently in place. It does not 
reflect the percentage of valves we anticipate will leak when this rule 
is in place.
    Finally, these petitioners estimated the initial leak frequency for 
valves in their facilities under their current practices to be 3.02 and 
1.48 percent, respectively, using a leak definition of 500 ppmv. The 
EPA believes it is reasonable to assume based on these current leak 
frequencies that once the LDAR program is implemented the leak 
frequencies the facilities can expect to measure will be well below 2 
percent.
    The EPA agrees that the wrong subsequent leak frequencies were used 
to calculate repair costs and has revised them in the new cost 
analysis. The effect of this single change increases costs minimally.
    Comment: Two petitioners claim that the EPA failed to conduct a 
cost analysis for heavy liquid components. The petitioners state that 
no cost estimates are included for LDAR monitoring, maintenance, 
repair, or administrative costs. The petitioners also state that, in 
assuming these costs are zero (or impose no additional costs) without 
performing any type of analysis, the EPA has failed to meet its 
obligation under section 112(d)(2) of the CAA. According to the 
petitioners, the costs associated with a heavy liquid LDAR program are 
significant, and do not result in cost effective emission reduction.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the costing conducted at proposal and 
promulgation did not include costs for the implementation of the heavy 
liquid portion of the rule for valves, pumps, and connectors. In the 
new analysis, costing for these heavy liquid components is now 
explicitly included. Please refer to the ``Equipment Leak Analysis for 
PET Facilities Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP'' 
memo in the docket.
    Also, specific cost items identified by the petitioners are 
addressed in Table 3 in the ``Summary of Responses to Petitioners' 
Comments'' memo.
    Comment: One petitioner states that emissions reductions at its 
facility would be approximately 0.29 Mg per year at a cost of 
approximately $26,000 per Mg of emission reduction and that this cost 
figure ($26,000 per Mg) is ``many times the amount found by EPA to be 
unacceptably costly.''
    Response: The EPA has re-estimated emission reductions and costs 
for this petitioner's facility as well as for all of the other 
facilities. The EPA used the information provided by the petitioner in 
estimating the components that would be affected by the equipment leak 
program and for which emission reductions could be quantified. The EPA 
also reanalyzed costs at this facility.
    Based on this reanalysis, the cost effectiveness value of the LDAR 
program for this facility estimated by the EPA is much lower than that 
estimated by the petitioner. More details on the differences in the EPA 
and petitioner analyses may be found in the memo ``Summary of Responses 
to Petitioners' Comments'' in Docket A-92-45.

C. Heavy Liquid Components

    Comment: Two petitioners claim that the EPA promulgated LDAR 
requirements for heavy liquid service components that are different 
from the proposed rule without providing affected parties the 
opportunity to provide input. These two petitioners also claim that the 
EPA has violated the legal requirements for rulemaking by making a 
change that ``is not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules.'' Thus, 
EPA must provide opportunity for public comment on this ``new 
substantive'' requirement for components in heavy liquid service.
    Response: It is not necessary to address this comment because the 
new analysis (as presented in the ``Equipment Leak Analysis for PET 
Facilities Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP'' memo) 
and this Federal Register notice provide public notice and opportunity 
for comment. The EPA also notes that one of these petitioners, in its 
comments on the 1995 proposed rule, specifically suggested that the EPA 
allow the use of a leak detection and repair approach that would 
utilize visual inspection of process lines, and later informed the EPA 
that visual inspection would be acceptable to them.
    Comment: Two petitioners asked the EPA to consider two alternative 
programs for heavy liquid components--a ``minimal'' program and a 
``more conservative'' program--and determine which would be sufficient 
to meet the requirements for heavy liquid components.
    Response: Although not required to do so, the EPA reviewed the two 
programs and has determined that the minimal program as laid out by the 
petitioners is sufficient to meet the requirements set forth in the 
rule for components in heavy liquid service. (See Table 3 in the 
``Summary of Responses to Petitioners' Comments'' memo for more 
details.)
    Comment: One petitioner states the major cost for the LDAR program 
will be ensuring compliance with recordkeeping and repair scheduling 
requirements for heavy liquid ethylene glycol components. The 
petitioner also states that they already maintain all of the equipment 
components listed in the standard, but do not keep records or track 
repair deadlines. According to the petitioner, one employee on a full-
time basis will be required to ensure compliance with recordkeeping and 
scheduling to log and track monitoring and perform repairs. They claim 
that a current employee cannot be used, during periods of maintenance 
turn around or upsets, because he would not be available to perform the 
regulatory requirements. They also assume one full-time employee would 
be required because of the number of heavy liquid components at the 
facility (close to 80,000). Furthermore, maintenance employees would 
have to be trained on procedures for complying with the MACT equipment 
leak program, which requires that repairs be documented and

[[Page 30461]]

components tagged for tracking purposes.
    Response: As noted earlier, the EPA agrees that a number of cost 
components associated with the heavy liquid portion of the equipment 
leak program were left out of the costing done at proposal and 
promulgation. The EPA has addressed the petitioner's concerns in the 
revised costing and believes that the costs associated with the heavy 
liquid component program have been adequately addressed.
    Comment: One petitioner claims that the EPA has stated that the 
MACT equipment leak program will have no measurable effect on emissions 
from heavy liquid components, but has insisted that the petitioner 
implement a heavy liquid program that will cost more than the gas/vapor 
portion of the program. They noted a compliance cost of $2.50 per heavy 
liquid component for initial identification in the spreadsheet used for 
costing at proposal, but the EPA assumed no components in heavy liquid 
service, and a pre-existing LDAR program in place. Therefore, no costs 
incur as a result of the rule. This petitioner states that they have 
over 80,000 components in heavy liquid service. Using a compliance cost 
of $2.50 per component results in an annual cost of $200,000 for their 
facility, which is more than the estimated cost for the Method 21 
monitoring program, and no emission reduction is obtained for this 
cost.
    Response: The EPA agrees that a one-time, initial cost to identity 
components affected by the rule should be attributed to the heavy 
liquid portion of the rule as it affects valves, pumps, and connectors 
in heavy liquid service. In the revised costing, the EPA is using other 
petitioners' suggested cost of $1.13 per heavy liquid component (see 
Table 3 in the ``Summary of Responses to Petitioners' Comments'' memo). 
This cost covers identifying all equipment in heavy liquid service, 
including redoing or developing P&ID drawings at least to the extent 
that equipment in heavy liquid service with greater than 5% HAP would 
be differentiated. Although the rule does not require redoing or 
developing P&ID drawings, the EPA is using the petitioners' estimate to 
provide a conservative estimate of this cost item. Based on the 
component counts provided by the petitioner for this facility, the 
estimated one-time cost for this facility is $86,000 (76,047 components 
x $1.13 per component). This is equivalent to an annualized cost of 
approximately $12,000 per year, which is approximately 35% of the 
estimated annualized cost for the rest of the equipment leak program 
(before emission reduction credits) at the petitioner's facility.
    The EPA disagrees that there will be no emissions reduction for 
heavy liquid components as a result of the Group IV Polymers and Resins 
NESHAP. The current programs have no specific time limit for repairs. 
The program in the rule has specific time limits for repairs. The EPA 
believes it is reasonable to conclude that repairs will be accomplished 
in a more timely fashion, thereby reducing emissions. However, it is 
not possible to quantify the reduction based on currently available 
information because the petitioners do not keep records and track 
repair times in their current programs. If these data were available, 
then an emissions reduction could be estimated.
    Based on this reanalysis, which is based on costs suggested by the 
petitioners, the EPA concludes that the costs of the heavy liquid 
component program implementation will not be more expensive than the 
gas vapor portion of the program, and that there will be an emissions 
reduction that occurs as a result of the heavy liquid component 
requirements in the LDAR program.

III. Reanalysis of Equipment Leak Program

    The petitioners claimed that a number of errors exist in the 
analyses conducted by the EPA to support the proposed and promulgated 
rule. The EPA carefully reviewed each claimed error and where found to 
be accurate, the EPA has corrected the errors identified by the 
petitioners in the reanalysis. The EPA also carefully evaluated and 
considered all of the comments and data provided by the petitioners. 
Many of the comments were found to have merit and, in such instances, 
the EPA incorporated the comment or data or portions thereof directly 
into the reanalysis. The major changes made to the analysis as a result 
of the petitioners' comments and data are as follows:
    1. Corrected several errors identified by the petitioners 
including:
     The estimate of the number of leakers at a facility that 
must be repaired after each periodic monitoring with a LDAR program in 
place is based on the number of components and the subsequent leak 
frequency for the components. The subsequent leak frequency is that 
leak frequency experienced immediately prior to LDAR monitoring. In the 
previous analyses, the EPA used the average leak frequencies to 
determine the number of components repaired instead of the subsequent 
leak frequencies. In the reanalysis, the subsequent leak frequencies 
have been used.
     The cost estimate for the annual monitoring of components 
is based, in part, on the number of times per year the components are 
monitored. Under the HON LDAR program, connectors are to be monitored 
once per year. In the costing spreadsheets used for DMT-based 
facilities at promulgation, the monitoring frequency was incorrectly 
set at zero (0). In the reanalysis, the correct monitoring frequency of 
once per year (1) has been used.
     Part of the costs of an equipment leak program are 
contained in a ``miscellaneous'' category. The costing algorithms used 
for the PET facilities originated with the HON equipment leak costs. In 
the HON costing, the miscellaneous costs associated with pumps is 
calculated using a factor of 0.8. In the PET costing algorithms used at 
promulgation, a miscellaneous cost factor for pumps of 0.4 was used. In 
the reanalysis, the correct miscellaneous cost factor of 0.8 has been 
used.
     Part of the equipment leak costing program is an estimate 
of the costs to cap open-ended lines. This cost is estimated by 
multiplying the number of open-ended lines by the cost for a cap for 
each line. For several facilities, the equation for calculating this 
cost was missing in the costing spreadsheets used at promulgation. This 
error has been corrected in the reanalysis.
    2. For the petitioners' facilities and for one other, revised 
emission factors were used based on the leak frequency data provided by 
these companies. The revised emission factors result in lower emission 
and emission reduction estimates than would be estimated using the 
average SOCMI emission factors for the same components.
    3. The costing spreadsheets used at promulgation did not estimate 
costs for valves, pumps, and connectors in heavy liquid service. The 
costing spreadsheets used in the reanalysis include several cost items 
for these heavy liquid components including: (1) A location and 
identification cost, (2) tagging cost, (3) planning and training cost, 
and (4) data entry cost.
    4. At proposal and promulgation, recordkeeping and reporting costs 
were reported in Part A to the Supporting Statement and were not 
included in the costing spreadsheets. Under the reanalysis, 
recordkeeping and reporting costs are included in the costing 
spreadsheets. The estimated costs used were based on data supplied by 
two petitioners for facilities with 500 or more components subject to 
Method 21 monitoring. A lower estimate was used

[[Page 30462]]

for facilities with fewer than 500 components subject to Method 21.
    5. At proposal and promulgation, no costs were estimated for the 
use of a database system (computer, software) to record and track the 
information required by the equipment leak program. In the reanalysis, 
facilities with 500 or more components subject to Method 21 monitoring 
were assumed to purchase a computer and the software necessary to 
record and track the information required by the equipment leak 
program. For facilities with fewer than 500 components, the reanalysis 
assumes a facility will use log sheets and have assigned costs for such 
data logging.
    In addition, the EPA has made several changes to the analysis that 
are not identified by the petitioners or are a variation on the 
comments provided by the petitioners. These include:
    1. A recovery credit for ethylene glycol was incorporated for PET 
facilities using the terephthalic acid process. Previously, only a 
credit was included for methanol, which is a primary HAP emitted from 
facilities using the dimethyl terephthalate process in producing PET.
    2. Database systems costs, trip charges, administration and 
reports, planning and training, and trips by subcontractors were shared 
amongst multiple subcategories at the same facility. The number of 
pumps, valves, and connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service 
were used to ratio these costs.
    3. No costs were determined attributable to the actual repair of 
leaking heavy liquid components because these would normally be 
repaired already by the facility when found leaking.
    4. Facilities with fewer than 500 components subject to Method 21 
monitoring were judged to use in-house personnel to conduct the 
equipment leak program, while those with more than 500 components 
subject to Method 21 monitoring were judged to use subcontractor 
personnel to conduct the equipment leak program.
    5. An algorithm was used to determine whether it was less expensive 
for a facility to purchase or rent a monitoring instrument. The EPA 
found that is was less expensive for the facilities in this category to 
rent a monitoring instrument. This is consistent with the petitioners' 
costs in which they indicate the rental of an instrument when using a 
subcontractor to conduct the equipment leak program.
    Finally, in conducting the reanalysis, the EPA continued to 
evaluate the equipment leak program on a subcategory basis rather than 
a facility-wide basis. Some costs were shared (as noted above) across a 
facility, but the cost effectiveness of the equipment leak program was 
evaluated on a subcategory basis.

IV. Results and Conclusion

    The following table compares the cost effectiveness estimates for 
the four PET subcategories at proposal and promulgation and as a result 
of the reanalysis. As can be seen in the table, the cost effectiveness 
value of the equipment leak program has increased for all four PET 
subcategories from the analysis conducted in support of the 
promulgation package. For DMT facilities, the cost effectiveness value 
increased between 3 and 4 times. For TPA continuous facilities, the 
cost effectiveness value increased less than 10 percent, while the cost 
effectiveness value for TPA batch facilities doubled. The primary 
reason for the smaller increase in cost effectiveness values for the 
TPA facilities is due to the recovery credit offsetting the increased 
cost due to the explicit incorporation of costs for heavy liquid 
components.

               Summary of Cost Effectiveness Values of Equipment Leak Program for Group IV Resins
                                          [$/Mg of Emission Reduction]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Petition
                       Process subcategory                          reanalysis     Promulgation      Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMT-Batch.......................................................           2,350             687           1,057
DMT-Continuous..................................................           1,400             357             803
TPA-Continuous..................................................           1,800           1,630           1,203
TPA-Batch.......................................................           1,600             806           2,430
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results of the new analysis, the EPA still judges the 
equipment leak program as promulgated to be cost effective for PET 
facilities. Therefore, the EPA has determined that there is no need to 
remove the equipment leak standards from the promulgated rule for Group 
IV Polymers and Resins and no need to modify any provisions within the 
equipment leak program of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    The EPA solicits comments from interested persons on any aspect of 
the revised cost analysis for equipment leak programs at PET facilities 
and the EPA's proposed decision to retain without modification the 
equipment leak provisions of the rule for PET facilities. The EPA is 
specifically requesting factual information that may support either the 
approach taken in the revised equipment leak analysis or an alternate 
approach. In order to receive proper consideration, documentation or 
data should be provided.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    For the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, the information 
collection requirements were submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB approved the 
information collection requirements and assigned OMB control number 
2060-0351. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 
The EPA has amended 40 CFR 9.1, to indicate the information collection 
requirements contained in the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP.
    Today's action has no impact on the information collection burden 
estimates made previously. Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by OMB on the basis of the requirements of 
the Executive Order in addition to its normal review requirements. The 
Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:

[[Page 30463]]

    (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 obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Today's action does not fall within any of the four categories 
described above. Instead, it proposes to deny a request to change an 
existing rule. The proposed action does not add any additional control 
requirements. Therefore, this is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and was not 
required to be reviewed by OMB.

C. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (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 the EPA has reason to 
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety aspects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets E.O. 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 Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to the 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866, and it is based on 
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

D. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
Today's action will not impact any facilities defined as small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, I certify this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
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 to State, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 
the 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 objects of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before the 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that today's action 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 one year. This action does not impose any 
enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they 
own or operate no sources subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins 
NESHAP and therefore are not required to purchase control systems to 
meet the requirements of this NESHAP. Regarding the private sector, 
today's action will affect only 23 existing facilities nationwide. The 
EPA projects that annual economic effects will be far less than $100 
million. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    We also have determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This rule does not impose any enforceable duties on small 
governments, i.e., they own or operate no sources subject to this rule 
and therefore are not required to purchase control systems to meet the 
requirements of this rule.

F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a 
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those 
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 
requires the EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires the EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's action does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. This action does not impose any enforceable duties on 
State, local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate 
any sources subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP and 
therefore are not required to purchase control systems to

[[Page 30464]]

meet the requirements of this NESHAP. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to today's action.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note), directs the 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, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP includes technical 
standards. Therefore, the EPA searched for applicable voluntary 
consensus standards by searching the National Standards System Network 
(NSSN) database. The NSSN is an automated service provided by the 
American National Standards Institute for identifying available 
national and international standards.
    The EPA searched for methods potentially equivalent to the methods 
required by the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, all of which are 
methods previously promulgated by the EPA. The NESHAP includes methods 
that measure: (1) Determination of excess air correction factor 
(%O2)(EPA Method 3B); (2) sampling site location (EPA Method 
1 or 1A); (3) volumetric flow rate (EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D); (4) 
gas analysis (EPA Method 3); (5) stack gas moisture (EPA Method 4); (6) 
concentration of organic HAP (EPA Method 18 or 25A); and (7) organic 
compound equipment leaks (EPA Method 21). These EPA methods are found 
in appendix A to part 60.
    No potentially equivalent methods for the methods in the rule were 
found in the NSSN database search. Therefore, the EPA proposed to use 
the methods listed above. The EPA welcomes comment on this aspect of 
the rule and specifically invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP. 
Methods 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 a method other than Method 
301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).

H. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the 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 the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 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 the 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 action does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action imposes no 
enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to today's action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: May 28, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-14351 Filed 6-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-01-U