[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67789-67793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31354]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6500-2]
RIN 2060-A137


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action suspends the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization 
and Fumigation Operations (EO NESHAP) requirements for chamber exhaust 
and aeration room vents. The suspension allows affected sources subject 
to the EO NESHAP to defer compliance with the NESHAP requirements for 
chamber exhaust until December 6, 2001 and aeration room vents until 
December 6, 2000. This suspension does not affect the requirement for 
sources subject to the EO NESHAP to comply with provisions for 
sterilizer vents. This action does not change the level of the 
standards or the intent of the NESHAP promulgated in 1994.

DATES: This action is effective December 3, 1999. Comments may be 
submitted until January 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-88-03, category VIII Amendments, contains 
supporting information used in developing the standards. The docket is 
located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and 
may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. This docket also contains information 
considered by the EPA in proposing and promulgating the original EO 
NESHAP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
analysis performed in developing this interim rule, contact David W. 
Markwordt at the Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-0837, facsimile (919) 541-0942, e-
mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket

    The docket is an organized file of information considered by the 
EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file 
because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The 
docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and 
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that 
they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with 
the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the 
contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial 
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (Act).) 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.

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), judicial review 
of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
within 60 days of today's publication of this interim final rule. Under 
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the actions taken in today's notice may 
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the 
EPA to enforce these requirements.

Technology Transfer Network

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's interim final rule is also available through the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules 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

    Regulated categories and entities include:

               Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Entity category                   Description/SIC code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial................................  Medical suppliers/3841,
                                             3842, Pharmaceuticals/2834,
                                             5122, 2831, 2833.
                                            Spice manufactures/2099,
                                             5149, 2034, 2035, 2046.
                                            Contract Sterilizers/7399,
                                             7218, 8091.
Federal Government........................  Not Affected.
State/Local/Tribal Gov....................  Not Affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities regulated by the NESHAP addressed 
in this interim final rule. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of the NESHAP addressed in this interim final rule to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION section.

I. What Is the Background for This Suspension?

    On December 6, 1994, we promulgated the EO NESHAP which regulates 
emissions of ethylene oxide from new and existing commercial 
sterilization and fumigation operations using 1 ton or more of EO per 
year (59 FR 62585). The regulated category and entities affected by 
today's action are the sources described in 40 CFR 63.360. That 
provision includes commercial operations using ethylene oxide as a

[[Page 67790]]

sterilant and fumigant in the production of medical equipment and 
supplies, and in miscellaneous sterilization and fumigation operations 
at both major and area sources. Note that this description is not 
intended to be exhaustive but, rather, to provide a guide for readers 
interested in this suspension. To determine whether your facility is 
affected by today's action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.360 and the explanation provided in 
this interim final rule. If you have questions about the applicability 
of today's action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    In July 1997, we learned of reports of explosions at ethylene oxide 
sterilization and fumigation facilities. We subsequently suspended the 
EO NESHAP for 1 year until December 6, 1998 to provide time to 
determine the appropriate action necessary to mitigate the cause of the 
explosions (62 FR 64736).
    After becoming aware of the explosions, the industry worked through 
the Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Association (EOSA) to begin 
investigations. The EOSA established a Safety Committee in September 
1997 which has been meeting on a bimonthly basis since then. 
Sterilization industry leaders, abatement device vendors, and Federal, 
State and local agencies have been participating in the Safety 
Committee meetings.
    In a June 2, 1998 letter to EPA, the EOSA recommended, ``additional 
time to consider safe and economical control, installation, operation 
and maintenance alternatives applicable to aeration and chamber exhaust 
(backvent) emissions * * *'' (see Docket No. A-88-03). The Health 
Industries Manufacturers Association (HIMA) reviewed the 
recommendation. The EOSA and HIMA membership represent most of the 
ethylene oxide sterilization and fumigation industry. The EOSA 
``concluded that the oxidizer systems had not been properly integrated 
with traditional ethylene oxide sterilization process operations, that 
is, installation, operation and maintenance issues had not been 
sufficiently addressed by sterilizer operators.'' The EOSA also 
concluded that ``improperly overfeeding the oxidizer system from the 
chamber backvent was the primary safety concern.''
    We also conducted an independent investigation of the accidents and 
reviewed reports prepared by EPA Regional Offices and by EOSA member 
sterilization companies and, based on that investigation and review, 
concurred with the industry conclusion and recommendation (see Docket 
No. A-88-03). We further suspended the EO NESHAP for both aeration room 
vents and chamber backvents for 1 year until December 6, 1999 to 
provide time to determine the appropriate action necessary to mitigate 
the cause of the explosions (63 FR 66990). Aeration room vents were 
included in the suspension because control systems typically integrate 
both vents to the same control device.

II. What Is the Rationale for Today's Suspension of Chamber Exhaust 
and Aeration Room Vent Requirements?

    As noted above, in July 1997, the Agency learned of reports of 
explosions at ethylene oxide facilities. Several of these explosions 
occurred at facilities subject to the EO NESHAP. The Agency immediately 
began conducting a preliminary investigation to determine if the 
emission control equipment mandated by 40 CFR part 63, subpart O, was 
in any way associated with the cause of the problems at these 
facilities. The Agency, on December 9, 1997, wishing to adopt a 
cautious approach in order to assure public and worker safety, 
published in the Federal Register an interim final rule suspending 40 
CFR part 63, subpart O (62 FR 64736). Since publication of the December 
9, 1997 rule, both EPA and industry have continued to investigate the 
cause of the accidents.
    In 1998, the Agency agreed with industry that, in the cases where 
explosions occurred, the catalytic oxidizer units were overfed with 
ethylene oxide in concentrations above the safe operations limit due to 
abnormal activation of the chamber exhaust (backvent). The Agency 
concluded that main vent emissions routed through the vacuum pump 
played no role in the explosions. The Agency also concluded that any 
emissions control technology necessary to comply with the EO NESHAP 
needs to be properly integrated into the sterilization system and 
operations and must reflect the full range of normal and abnormal 
conditions that may occur.
    The suspension, in December 1998, for chamber exhaust vents was 
based on the assumption that sterilization chamber operators would be 
able to evaluate and integrate the emission control technology with 
sterilizer operation to ensure prevention of future explosions by 
December 6, 1999. To date, solutions to the safety problems have not 
been developed. Consequently, the EOSA and individual plant operators 
have requested EPA to eliminate the requirement for backdraft vents 
(see Docket No. A-88-03).
    It is beyond the Agency's legal mandate and technical expertise to 
certify equipment for safe use. The Clean Air Act generally requires 
the Agency to assess existing emission control technology for 
application to non-controlled emission sources. The use of existing 
technology by some sources in the relevant category presumes the 
ability to operate that technology in a proven safe manner. At the time 
of promulgation (December 1994), state-of-the-art control technology 
for chamber exhaust emissions apparently involved safety hazards not 
known at that time. Therefore, the Agency will reconsider its original 
MACT determination for chamber exhaust vents and propose a course of 
action in the near future.
    Today's 2-year suspension of control requirements for chamber 
exhaust emissions is based on the anticipated time required to propose 
and promulgate changes in the Federal Register. It's our intent to 
resolve this matter as quickly as possible, and we hope to finalize a 
revised rule in less than 2 years.
    Today's 1-year suspension of control requirements for aeration room 
vents is based on the fact that many facilities are routing chamber 
exhaust emissions to the emission control device for aeration room 
vents. Facilities that control both aeration and chamber exhaust 
emissions via one abatement device will need to disconnect the chamber 
exhaust vent from the aeration room control device. Therefore, the 
Agency is providing time to separate chamber exhaust emissions from 
integrated control systems, if needed.
    In this matter, we wish to err, if at all, on the side of safety. 
Accordingly, we are, today, further suspending the EO NESHAP emission 
limitation requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart O, for chamber 
exhaust and aeration room vents, as those emission points are defined 
at 40 CFR 63.361, until December 6, 2001 and December 6, 2000, 
respectively, pursuant to our general rulemaking authority under 
section 301(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a). Sources must continue to 
comply with the EO NESHAP emission limitation requirements in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart O, for sterilization chamber vents, as those emission 
points are defined at 40 CFR 63.361, because we have determined that 
their controls do not pose a safety concern.
    Section 301(a) of the Act grants the Administrator of the EPA the 
authority ``to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
his functions

[[Page 67791]]

under this Act.'' Given the unique circumstances and uncertainty 
surrounding the EO NESHAP, as described in this interim final rule, EPA 
believes that it is necessary to further suspend this rule's 
requirements for chamber exhaust and aeration room vents for the safety 
of the public and workers in and around EO facilities. The control 
requirements of the EO NESHAP for chamber exhaust and aeration room 
vents continue to pose potential safety problems for which viable 
solutions are not currently available. This action is consistent with 
the objectives of the Act as stated in section 101(b), 42 U.S.C. 
7401(b), ``(T)he purposes of this subchapter are * * * to promote the 
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population 
* * *.''
    The original EO NESHAP and today's interim final rule are 
promulgated pursuant to section 307(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(d), 
which requires that any rule subject to that section be issued only 
after the public has received notice of, and an opportunity to comment 
on, the rule. However, section 307(d)(1) exempts from those 
requirements any rule for which the Agency finds under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), that providing prior 
notice-and-comment would be impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to 
the public interest.
    We believe the circumstances presented here provide good cause to 
take this action without prior notice-and-comment. We find providing 
prior notice-and-comment would be impracticable and contrary to the 
public interest based on the potential ongoing danger to public and 
worker safety posed by the recent incidents at ethylene oxide 
facilities. There is simply not enough time to provide notice-and-
comment procedures before the current compliance date of December 6, 
1999 arrives, and until the compliance date is extended, sources are 
faced with having to install control equipment in time to meet the 
current compliance date. Only by omitting notice-and-comment from this 
action can we provide sources affected by the EO NESHAP with timely 
legal relief from the current compliance date while we further 
investigate the situation. Consequently, this action is being 
promulgated without prior notice-and-comment as provided for in section 
307(b)(1) of the Act and is immediately effective as provided for in 
section 112(d)(10) of the Act.
    Nonetheless, we are providing 30 days for submission of public 
comments. We will consider all written comments submitted in the 
allotted time period to determine if any change to this action is 
necessary.
    In suspending the EO NESHAP requirements for chamber exhaust and 
aeration room vents, the Administrator wishes to remind the public and 
the regulated community that the role of the EPA has been and continues 
to be protection of public health and the environment in a way that is 
consistent with safety concerns.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements of the EO NESHAP were 
submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
A copy of this Information Collection Request (ICR) document (OMB 
control number 2060-0283) may be obtained from Ms. Sandy Farmer, 
Information Policy Branch (2136), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    Today's action has no impact on the information collection burden 
estimates made previously. Today's action merely suspends the EO NESHAP 
requirements for chamber exhaust and aeration room vents for 1 year. 
This change does not impose new requirements. Consequently, the ICR has 
not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866

    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 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:
    (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 reduces the burden on certain sources by 
temporarily suspending the EO NESHAP requirements for chamber exhaust 
and aeration vents. Consequently, under Executive Order 12866, this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not 
subject to review by OMB.

C. Executive Order 13132

    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 regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    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 the Agency'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, EPA must include a certification 
from the agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States,

[[Page 67792]]

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. Today's 
action suspends existing requirements which were promulgated in 
December 1994. There are minimal, if any, impacts associated with this 
action, thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do 
not apply to this rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, whenever an 
Agency publishes any proposed or final rule in the Federal Register, it 
must, except under certain circumstances, prepare a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (RFA) that describes the impact of the rule on 
small entities (i.e., small businesses, organizations, and governmental 
jurisdictions). That analysis is not necessary if the Agency determines 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The EPA believes that there will be little or no adverse impact on 
any small entities as a result of the promulgation of this rule 
because, rather than imposing additional requirements, this rule 
provides additional time to comply with parts of the EO NESHAP. Because 
the impacts are anticipated to be insignificant or beneficial, EPA has 
concluded that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, an RFA is not 
required.

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, 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 
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 objects 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 burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of 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 regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. Instead, this rule provides 
additional time to comply with some requirements of the EO NESHAP. 
Because the rule is not expected to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary impact 
statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly, 
most effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because small 
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this 
rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to small 
governments. For the reasons stated above, the requirements of the UMRA 
do not apply to this section.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (NTTAA) requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with the 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that the use of VCS in this interim final rule is 
impractical. The suspension of the EO NESHAP requirements for chamber 
exhaust and aeration room vents is merely a procedural action that does 
not require sources to take substantive steps that lend themselves to 
VCS.

G. Executive Order 13045

    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) OMB determines is ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) EPA 
determines the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the 
rule has 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.
    This interim final rule is not subject to the Executive Order 
because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13084

    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 the Office of Management and Budget, 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 rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This interim final rule 
imposes no enforceable duties on these entities. Rather, the interim

[[Page 67793]]

final rule temporarily suspends certain regulatory requirements. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this rule.

I. Congressional Review Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, we submitted a report containing these final amendments and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of these final amendments in the Federal 
Register. This is not a ``major rule'' as defined by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: November 29, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart O--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.360 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(4), (g)(5), 
and (g)(6) and adding paragraphs (g)(7), (g)(8), (g)(9), and (g)(10) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.360  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) All aeration room vents subject to the emissions standards in 
Sec. 63.362 with an initial startup date before December 6, 2000, no 
later than December 6, 2000.
    (5) All aeration room vents subject to the emissions standards in 
Sec. 63.362 with an initial startup date on or after December 6, 2000, 
immediately upon initial startup of the source.
    (6) All aeration room vents at sources using less than 10 tons that 
increase their ethylene oxide usage after December 6, 2000, such that 
the aeration room vents become subject to the emissions standards in 
Sec. 63.362, immediately upon becoming subject to the emission 
standards.
    (7) All chamber exhaust vents subject to the emissions standards in 
Sec. 63.362 with an initial startup date before December 6, 2001, no 
later than December 6, 2001.
    (8) All chamber exhaust vents subject to the emissions standards in 
Sec. 63.362 with an initial startup date on or after December 6, 2001, 
immediately upon initial startup of the source.
    (9) All chamber exhaust vents at sources using less than 1 ton that 
increase their ethylene oxide usage after December 6, 2001, such that 
the chamber exhaust vents become subject to the emissions standards in 
Sec. 63.362, immediately upon becoming subject to the emission 
standards.
    (10) All chamber exhaust vents at sources using less than 10 tons 
that increase their ethylene oxide usage after December 6, 2001, such 
that the chamber exhaust vents become subject to the emissions 
standards in Sec. 63.362(e)(1), immediately upon becoming subject to 
the emission standards.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-31354 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P