National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, 58268-58301 [2019-21837]

Download as PDF 58268 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392; FRL–10000–81– OAR] RIN 2060–AT07 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. The proposal addresses the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The proposed amendments address the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the rule and amend provisions regarding electronic reporting of certain notifications, performance test results, and semiannual reports. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before November 29, 2019. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before November 4, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardousair. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2019–0392, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 2019–0392 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0392. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0392, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except Federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243– 04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2416; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: smith.korbin@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; and email address: hirtz.james@ epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Ketan Patel, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 9736; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: patel.ketan@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541–5628 or by email at perry.nancy@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0392. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0392. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG emergency response planning guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment POM polycyclic organic matter REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58269 A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)? B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? E. What other actions are we proposing? F. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58270 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992), the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is any facility engaged in producing passenger car and light duty truck tires, heavy duty truck tires, off-the-road tires, aircraft tires, and miscellaneous other tires. The category includes the following processes: Rubber compounding; tread rubber, cord, and bead production; tire building; green tire spraying; and tire curing and finishing. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NAICS code 1 Source category NESHAP Rubber Tire Manufacturing .............................................. 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX ....................................... 1 North 326211, 326212, 314992. American Industry Classification System. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubbertire-manufacturing-national-emissionstandards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP was promulgated on July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45588), and codified at 40 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. As promulgated, the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP applies to affected sources of HAP at rubber materials manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP. The affected source covered by this subpart is each new, reconstructed, or existing facility that manufactures rubber tires. The Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is subcategorized into four subcategories, which include rubber processing, tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application. Components of rubber tires include, but are not limited to, rubber compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord, and liners. Other components often associated with rubber tires but not integral to the tire, such as wheels, inner tubes, tire bladders, and valve stems, are not components of rubber tires or tire cord and are not subject to this subpart. At the time of this proposal we did not identify any major source facilities of tire cord production or puncture sealant application. Emissions limits in the 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category were set for each subcategory separately: 1. Rubber Processing There are no emission limits for rubber processing affected sources. 2. Tire Production There are two options for compliance under this subcategory. First is a HAP constituent option, which states that emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source, and that emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source. The second emission limit option is a production-based option. For this option, emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per megagram (0.00005 pounds per ton) of rubber used at the tire production affected source. 3. Tire Cord Production There are three options for compliance under this subcategory. The first option is a production-based option for existing tire cord production affected sources. As part of this option, emissions must not exceed 280 grams HAP per megagram (0.56 pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58271 The second option is a productionbased option for new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of this option, emissions must not exceed 220 grams HAP per megagram (0.43 pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source. The third option is a HAP constituent option available to both existing and new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of this option, emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source. 4. Puncture Sealant Application There are three options for compliance under this subcategory. The first option is a percent reduction option for existing puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of this option, facilities are required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic compounds (VOC)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight. The second option is a percent reduction option for new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of this option, facilities are required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as VOC) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight. The third option is a HAP constituent option for both existing and new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of this option, emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected source. 5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission Limits The three subcategories subject to emission limits (tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application) offer compliance alternatives to meet the abovementioned emission limits. For more information, a detailed breakdown of E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58272 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules the subcategory alternatives can be found in 40 CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR 63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989. C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? For the residual risk assessment, the EPA received data from a voluntary data gathering effort led by the United States Tire Manufacturing Association (USTMA). USTMA worked with its major source facility members to provide information to the Agency regarding the rubber tire manufacturing process and the associated air emissions. The information received included description of HAP-emitting processes, information on the HAPcontaining materials used, estimates of emissions, and descriptions of control technologies, if present. For all major sources who are not members of USTMA, data was collected from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes data necessary for conducting a risk assessment, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. The EPA used NEI emissions and the voluntary data gathered by USTMA as the primary data to develop the model input files for the residual risk assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. Additional information on the development of the modeling file for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category can be found in the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposal, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. For both the risk assessment and technology review in this action, the EPA visited three rubber tire manufacturing facilities. During the visits, the EPA discussed process operations, compliance with the existing NESHAP, description of the emission points, process controls, unregulated emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The EPA used the information provided by the facilities to understand the various VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 operations, existing controls, and new developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the source category. Additional information can be found in the site visit reports, Michelin Tire Lexington Site Visit Report, Goodyear Tire Fayetteville Site Visit Report, and Continental Tire Mt. Vernon Site Visit Report, which are available in the docket for this action. For both the risk assessment and technology review, the EPA also gathered data from facility construction and operating permits regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and process operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation from state permitting authorities through state-maintained online databases. The facility permits were also used to confirm that the facilities were major sources of HAP and were subject to the Rubber Tire NESHAP. In certain cases, we contacted facility owners or operators to confirm and clarify the sources of emissions that were reported. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? For the technology review, we collected information from the Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC). This is a database that contains casespecific information on air pollution control technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions above certain defined thresholds, an NSR permit must be obtained. The RBLC promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used for these source categories to reduce air emissions. Additional information about these data collection activities for the technology review is contained in the technology review memorandum titled Technology Review for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor and, thus, the Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information. 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that the policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will protect the public health. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors. Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category. Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk 3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263 D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007unsigned.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58273 from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58274 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II. D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.B of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/ rrisk/rtrpg.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? The estimated actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for each facility in the source category were obtained from USTMA’s voluntary data gathering and the 2014 NEI database. In addition, the EPA provided draft actual emissions data and stack parameters to facilities for review and confirmation. In some cases, facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be outliers, otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of the industry, or associated with high risk values in our initial risk screening analyses. Where appropriate, emission values and release characteristics were corrected, based on revised stack parameter information provided by the facilities. Additional information on the development of the modeling file for each source category, including the development of the actual emissions and emissions release characteristics, can be found in the document, Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) In order to calculate allowable emissions, a detailed analysis of the source category was conducted to PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 determine how each major source facility meets the emissions standards of the Rubber Tire NESHAP. All major sources comply with NESHAP by utilizing the purchasing alternative (40 CFR 63.5985(a)) or the monthly average alternative, without using an add-on control device (40 CFR 63.5985(b)). The purchasing alternative allows a facility to use only cements and solvents that, as purchased, contain no more HAP than allowed by the emission limits in Table 1 of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, option 1, HAP constituent option). The monthly average alternative, without using an add-on control device, allows a facility to use cements and solvents in such a way that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of the NESHAP to this subpart, option 1 or option 2. Calculating allowable emissions was challenging because certain HAP (those in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX) have lower emission limits than others (those not in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX). Since raw ingredients used in tire production vary for each company and type of tire, the allowable emissions are also variable. This variability makes calculating allowable emissions impractical. It is, however, reasonable to assume that 16 years after promulgation of the MACT standards, tire manufacturers have optimized their use of cements and solvents, and their current emissions, per unit of production, are a good reflection of what the MACT standard allows. For additional information, see Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions Memo, located in the docket for this action. Additionally, due to engineering advancements resulting in less cement/ solvent usage for this source category, we expect that majority of major source facilities use less than 1 ton of cement/ solvent. For facilities using the HAP constituent option (purchasing alternative), the emission limit results in an allowance of less than 2 pounds of HAP for those HAP listed in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, and less than 20 pounds for HAP not in Table 16 of this subpart. Due to the complexity of calculating allowable emissions for this source category, we solicit comments on calculating allowable emissions. Since the two utilized options of the standard cannot effectively be used to calculate representative allowable emissions, production data were used to determine production output from 2007 to 2016. These data are presented in Table 2 of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions Memo, which E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules can be found in the docket for this action. The annual total of tire weight, in pounds, was used instead of the number of tires due to the large variance in size of tires (and hence raw material used) at facilities within the source category. Based on data in Table 2, the highest year of total production was 2015. Actual emissions data we received from the source category were also from 2015. Therefore, we conclude that the emissions data modeled are representative of the maximum annual emissions between 2007 and 2016 and actual emissions are representative of allowable emissions for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).5 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.6 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 7 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of 5 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 6 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 7 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58275 emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 8 emitted by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// 8 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376& CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570 CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58276 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/glossaries andkeywordlists/search.do?details=& vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,9 we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be 9 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,10 reasonable worst-case dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.’’ 11 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.12 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 13 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could 10 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 11 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 12 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). 13 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/Emergency ResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG %20Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20March %202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). Rubber tires are manufactured via a continuous batch operation. In a continuous batch operation, manufacturing operations take place continuously, but occur in batches. On any single production line, a batch must complete the manufacturing process before the next batch may begin the manufacturing process on that production line. Since rubber tire facilities are large and have significant production capacities, there are multiple production lines operating simultaneously. This results in relatively consistent emissions. As discussed in the allowable emissions section (III.C.2) above, we do expect there to be some variability in emissions depending on the type of tire a facility is manufacturing. To account for this variability, we have selected a multiplier of two based upon the continuous nature of the batch processes, to use in assessing acute risks. We believe two is a conservative acute multiplier for this source category. Since the operation is a continuous batch process that operates around the clock, we do not expect there to be significant changes in hour-to-hour emissions such as those that may occur in industries that do not continuously operate their production lines. Slight variation in batch ingredients is accounted for by using the multiplier of two. A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in the memorandum, Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions Memo, available in the docket for this rulemaking. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 These refinements are discussed more fully in, Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM), cadmium, and lead, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB– HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB– HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology, Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2013–08/ documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB–HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP to assess the potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58277 assessment. The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/ or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and USGS lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58278 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption 14) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 15). If PB–HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB– HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume-rise on chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.16 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see 14 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 15 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. 16 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 the Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, we identified emissions of cadmium and POM. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated cadmium and POM are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km2; the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58279 activities were conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facilitywide risks. 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58280 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.17 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical 17 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=& glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.18 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,19 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine 18 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 19 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) co- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.20 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the 20 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58281 assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume-rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58282 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? 1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is 4-in-1 million. The risk drivers include several organic and metallic HAP from mixing, curing, and extruding operations. The total estimated cancer incidence from rubber tire manufacturing emission sources based on actual and allowable emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 500 years. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, 4,500 people are estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, are estimated to be less than 1 (0.2), with aniline emissions from mixing and curing processes driving the TOSHI value. TABLE 2—RUBBER TIRE MANUFACTURING INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1 Number of facilities Risk assessment Baseline Actual Emissions: Source Category ............................... Facility-Wide ..................................... Baseline Allowable Emissions: Source Category ............................... Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Maximum screen acute noncancer HQ 4 21 21 4 8 4,500 9,200 0.002 0.002 0.2 0.2 0.4 ........................ 21 4 4,500 0.002 0.2 ........................ 1 For this source category actual and allowable emissions are the same. individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is the spleen. 4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. The HQ of 0.4 is based upon an acute REL based upon worst-case screening values. 2 Maximum 3 Maximum 2. Acute Risk Results Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual emissions indicates that no pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of 1 (0.4). Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB– HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from facilities within the source category did not exceed the Tier 1 cancer screening value of 1 for POM emissions, while one facility exceeded the Tier 1 noncancer VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 screening value by a factor of 10 for cadmium emissions. For the one facility that did not screen out at Tier 1 for cadmium, we conducted a Tier 2 screening analysis. The Tier 2 screen replaces some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 with sitespecific data, the location of fishable lakes, and local wind direction and speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end assumptions about consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised foods (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish 14 for the fisher scenario and 90th percentile for consumption of locally grown or raised foods 15) for the farmer scenario and uses an assumption that the same individual consumes each of these foods in high end quantities PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (i.e., that an individual has high-end ingestion rates for each food). The result of this analysis was the development of site-specific concentrations of cadmium. It is important to note that, even with the inclusion of some site-specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the multipathway screening analysis is still a very conservative, health-protective assessment (e.g., upper-bound consumption of local fish, locally grown, and/or raised, foods) and likely will yield results that serve as an upperbound multipathway risk associated with a facility. The Tier 2 noncancer screening analysis for the single facility emitting cadmium above a Tier 1 screening value of 1 resulted in a Tier 2 noncancer screening value of 1 for the fisher E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules scenario and less than 1 for the farmer scenario. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results We conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category for the following pollutants: Cadmium, lead, and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. Cadmium emissions at one facility had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil threshold levels (no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) mammalian insectivores (shrew) by a maximum screening value of 3. A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for cadmium with no exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, we did not 58283 estimate any exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS. 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results Results of the assessment of facilitywide emissions indicate that, of the 21 facilities, 13 facilities have a facilitywide MIR greater than or equal to 1-in1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 8-in-1 million, mainly driven by chromium (VI) compounds and metal emissions from sources outside of the source category which include mixing, extruding, calendaring, and finishing operations; refer to Table 2. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 500 years. Approximately 9,200 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1 (0.2), mainly driven by emissions of aniline from mixing and curing processes. To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. TABLE 3—RUBBER TIRE MANUFACTURING DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Rubber Tire Manufacturing: Demographic Assessment Results—50 km Study Area Radius Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to rubber tire manufacturing Nationwide Total Population ......................................................................................................... Population with chronic HI above 1 due to rubber tire manufacturing 317,736,049 4,524 0 62 38 66 34 0 0 12 0.8 7 18 25 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 14 86 21 79 0 0 14 86 12 88 0 0 6 1 0 Race by Percent White .......................................................................................................................... Minority ...................................................................................................................... Race by Percent African American ....................................................................................................... Native American ........................................................................................................ Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................. Hispanic or Latino (includes white and non-white) ................................................... Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................. Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................. Education by Percent Over 25 and without High School Diploma ............................................................... Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................. Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................. The results of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population indicate that the demographic groups White, African American, people below the poverty level, and people over 25 with a high PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 school diploma that are living within 50 km of facilities in the source category exceed the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58284 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action. B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from rubber tire manufacturing facilities, and we considered these in determining acceptability. For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 4-in-1 million from actual and allowable emissions. The risk analysis also estimates a cancer incidence of 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 500 years, as well as a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value of 0.2 for both actual and allowable emissions. The results of the acute screening analysis also estimate a maximum acute noncancer HQ screening value of less than 1 based on the acute REL. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures. Based on the results of the multipathway cancer screening analyses of POM emissions, we conclude that the maximum cancer risk from ingestion exposure to the individual most exposed is less than 1-in-1 million for the Tier 1 farmer and fisher scenario. The maximum multipathway noncancer TOSHI screen value for cadmium is equal to 1 based upon the Tier 2 fisher scenario. Multipathway screening values were below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PB–HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. No additional screens or site-specific assessment was conducted since the multipathway screening values were deemed sufficient to demonstrate protection of public health VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 based upon the conservative nature of our model design. The cancer risk for both inhalation and ingestion is considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of the MACT rule review to determine whether there are any costeffective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further. The risks from this source category were deemed acceptable with a cancer risk to the individual most exposed of 4-in-1 million. Our risk analysis indicated the inhalation risks from this source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions to control process emissions from rubber tire manufacturing operations would result in minimal health benefits. Mixing, extruding, and buffing emissions result in 88 percent of the cancer incidence for this source category with metal emissions contributing to 40 percent of the cancer incidence. The inhalation chronic and acute noncancer risks were also below a HI and a HQ of 1, respectively. In addition, the multipathway screening analyses for PB–HAP and lead emissions also demonstrate a low potential for risks for cancer and noncancer health effects. The ingestion cancer risk also is less than 1-in-1 million based upon for the Tier 1 farmer and fisher scenario and the ingestion noncancer HI is less than 1 based upon the Tier 2 fisher scenario. Our review of post-control options for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category identified regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) as an option for reducing organic HAP emissions. The use of RTOs to control organic HAP PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emissions was evaluated and determined to not be cost effective during the original NESHAP. Upon review, we do not believe the associated costs for installing and operating an RTO have changed significantly since the original NESHAP. When evaluating the cost effectiveness of installing RTOs during the 2002 Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP, a model facility was used. The model facility estimated a mean reduction of 103 tons of HAP by using an RTO (Docket: A–97– 14 Document: II–B–12). The current mean total HAP emitted per facility within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is 18.8 tons of total HAP. This significant reduction in total HAP emitted for the source category, coupled with similar associated costs for installing and operating an RTO, leads to the conclusion that RTOs would be less cost effective now. Thus, we still find the use of an RTO to not be cost effective. We solicit comment on the cost effectiveness of using an RTO to control HAP emissions. If RTOs were installed, the MIR would change from 4-in-1 million to 3in-1 million and would result in an estimated 50-percent reduction in cancer incidence from 0.002 excess cancer cases per year to 0.001 cases per year. This control option would reduce excess cancer cases from one in every 500 years to one in every 1,000 years based upon actual emissions from controlled HAP emission sources. The source category is already controlling particulate matter or metal HAP with all facilities utilizing fabric filters/baghouses to control emissions, and we did not identify additional measures that could be used to control these HAP. As noted above, any further control of process emissions from rubber tire manufacturing operations would result in minimal health benefits. Based upon the low baseline risks, minimal available risk reductions, and lack of cost-effective control options to reduce organic and metal emissions from mixing, extrusion, and other process operations, we are proposing that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health. 3. Adverse Environmental Effect As described in section III.A of this document, we conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), POM emissions had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Cadmium E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at one facility with a maximum screening value of 3 for a surface soil NOAEL (mammalian insectivores—shrew). A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for cadmium emissions for this one facility, with no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and, therefore, propose that it is not necessary to set more stringent standards to prevent an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, the technology review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. In conducting the technology review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding the emissions from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. The review included a search of the RBLC database, reviews of air permits for rubber tire manufacturing facilities, and meetings with industry and the trade association (summarized in the docket for this action). We reviewed these data sources for information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the development of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. We also looked for information on improvements in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the development of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did not identify any cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies used at rubber tire manufacturing facilities since promulgation of the MACT standard. Based on the technology review, we have determined that there are no new control technologies. Additional information of our technology review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are proposing VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 revisions to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP related to SSM and electronic reporting. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the rule in order to ensure that it is consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for rubber tire manufacturing facilities. The proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. 1. SSM Requirements a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two regulatory provisions governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, which were promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption, which currently appears at 40 CFR 63.5990, and any reference to SSM requirements in 40 CFR part 63, part A (General Provisions). Consistent with the Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 17 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX (the General Provisions Applicability Table), as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58285 In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. All facilities subject to this rulemaking comply with the emission limits by either using the HAP constituent option (purchase alternative) found in 40 CFR 63.5985(a), or the monthly average alternative without using an add-on control device (40 CFR 63.5985(b)). Due to the continuous batch operation utilized across this source category, the EPA has no reason to believe that emissions are significantly different during periods of startup and shutdown from those during normal operations. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (containing regulatory definition of ‘‘malfunction’’). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. The EPA’s interpretation has been upheld as reasonable. See United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–10 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. See, e.g., National Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated’’). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58286 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in United States Sugar Corp v. EPA, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. See United States Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 608 (discussing work practice standards and explaining that ‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’). As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’’’). See also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent pollutant removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of, and significantly less stringent than, levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 in a way as to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devises or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will result in a violation of the standards at this time. At the time of this proposal, there are no major source facilities using control devices to comply with the emissions limits of this standard. However, the NESHAP contains the option to use a control device for compliance with the emission limits. Thus, while a malfunction event leading to increased emissions is unlikely at this time, it is possible if a facility were to use a control device in the future. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 and was not instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. See United States Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 606–10. b. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table (1) 40 CFR 63.5990 General Compliance Requirements We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 and 5 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general compliance requirement regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5990 that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general compliance requirement entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general compliance requirement. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.5990(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 and 5 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules with the general compliance requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5990. (2) SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. (3) Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Consistent with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. (4) 40 CFR 63.5993 Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5993. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions may not be performed during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1). The EPA is proposing to add language that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ available to the Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. (5) Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in columns 4 and 5 to a ‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ‘‘Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f)’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.5990(f)(3) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ (6) Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. Special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, have been removed from the rule (with exceptions PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58287 discussed below), thereby reducing the need for additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. (7) Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement for malfunctions, the EPA is proposing to replace the SSM report under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the existing reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions’ requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual report to be required under the proposed rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58288 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions are taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 2. Electronic Reporting Requirements Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP facilities submit electronic copies of the required notification of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.6009(k), performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(h), and semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, ‘‘Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,’’ available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0392. This proposed rule requirement does not affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13. For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(h), the proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 21 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT. Performance tests results collected using test methods that are not supported by the ERT at the time of the performance test are required to be submitted to the EPA electronically in a portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(g), the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate 21 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 spreadsheet report form to submit information to CEDRI, 1 year after finalizing this proposed action. A draft version of the proposed electronic spreadsheet reporting template for this report is included in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0392). The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior to availability of the final spreadsheet report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit the semiannual compliance report as currently required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the spreadsheet report template, rubber tire sources will be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required reporting template with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic spreadsheet report template has been available for at least 1 year. For the electronic submittal of notification of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.6009(k), the final spreadsheet report template discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain the information required for the notification of compliance status report and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance status report. As stated above, the final spreadsheet report template will be available after finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the spreadsheet report template after 1 year. Prior to the availability of the final spreadsheet report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit notice of compliance status reports as currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the availability of the final spreadsheet report template via the CEDRI website. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which an extension of time for electronic reporting may be requested from the EPA. In both circumstances, the decision to grant additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing a mechanism for requesting extensions of time for electronic reporting to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reasons outside of their control. An extension of time may be requested due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI where an owner or operator is precluded from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.6010. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.6010. Examples of force majeure events may include acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 22 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 23 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.24 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the 22 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 23 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 24 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports, no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? The EPA estimates that there are 21 rubber tire manufacturing facilities that are subject to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP affected by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. The bases of our estimates of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Rubber Tire Major Source Memo, which is available in the docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed rubber tire manufacturing facilities in the source category. B. What are the air quality impacts? We are not finalizing revisions to the emission limits other than to make them PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58289 applicable during SSM periods, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments, since facilities are already in compliance with emission limits during all periods, including SSM. C. What are the cost impacts? The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rule and becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is estimated to be $6,740 (2017$). The total cost per facility is estimated to be $321 per facility to review the final rule requirements and become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. All other costs associated with notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping are believed to be unchanged because the facilities in each source category are currently required to comply with notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements and will continue to be required to comply with those requirements. The number of personnel-hours required to develop the materials in support of reports required by the NESHAP remain unchanged. D. What are the economic impacts? Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a proposed rule. The total cost associated with this proposed rule is estimated to be $6,740, which is a one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rule and becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. The estimated cost per facility is $321. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. E. What are the benefits? The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. However, the proposed amendments would improve the rule by ensuring that the standards apply at all times and by requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance test results, and semiannual reports that would increase the usefulness of the data and would ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Because E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58290 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing emissions. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubbertire-manufacturing-national-emissionstandards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0392 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the project website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardousair. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1982.03. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of respondents was reduced from 23 to 21 based on consultation with industry representatives and state/local agencies. Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of rubber tire manufacturing PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX). Estimated number of respondents: 21 facilities. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports. Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 5,870 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $819,000 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than November 29, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities, since there are no small entities in the source category. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, and would not be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In our analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near operations identified as having the highest risks. Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category indicate that, for four of the 10 demographic groups, White, African American, people living below the poverty level, and adults over 25 without a high school diploma that reside within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from rubber manufacturing facilities, we find 4,500 people exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and nobody exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The results of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population for four of the 10 demographic groups; White people, people living below the poverty level, adults with a high school diploma, and African Americans that reside within 50 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 27, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58291 PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart XXXX—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Rubber Tire Manufacturing 2. Section 63.5990 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), paragraph (f) introductory text, paragraphs (f)(2), and (f)(3); and ■ b. Adding new paragraph (f)(4). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.5990 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations specified in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction if you are using a control device to comply with an emission limit. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations specified in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at all times (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], except as provided in § 63.5982(b)(4), you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58292 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. * * * * * (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each affected source that complies with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 3 to this subpart using a control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required. * * * * * (f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section as follows. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section as follows. * * * * * (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d)(1) and (2). (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2); and (4) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). ■ 3. Section 63.5993 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 63.5993 What performance tests and other procedures must I use? * * * * * (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1) unless otherwise specified in the test method. Each test run must last at least 1 hour. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.5993(c) above, unless otherwise PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 specified in the test method. Each test run must last at least 1 hour. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.5995 is amended by revising paragraph (d). The revisions read as follows: § 63.5995 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? * * * * * (d) For any other control device, or for other capture systems, ensure that the CPMS is operated according to a monitoring plan submitted to the Administrator with the Notification of Compliance Status report required by § 63.9(h). The monitoring plan must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section. Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator require an alternate monitoring scheme. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.6009 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: § 63.6009 What notifications must I submit and when? * * * * * (e) * * * (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each initial compliance demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in table 5 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10(d)(2). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], For each initial compliance demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in table 5 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10(d)(2) and § 63.6010(h)(1) through (3). * * * * * (k) You must submit to the Administrator notification reports of the following recorded information. Beginning on [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or once the reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, you must submit all subsequent notification of compliance status reports required in § 63.9(h) and § 63.6009(d) through (i) to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov). You must use the appropriate electronic report form (i.e., template) on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date on which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the notification of compliance status report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent notification of compliance status reports via CEDRI. The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. Where applicable, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage, in accordance with § 63.6010(i), or force majeure, in accordance with § 63.6010(j), for failure to timely comply with this requirement. ■ 6. Section 63.6010 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (4); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4); ■ c. Revising paragraph (d); ■ d. Revising paragraph (g); and ■ e. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 § 63.6010 when? What reports must I submit and * * * * * (b) * * * (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the first semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.5983. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the first semiannual compliance report must be submitted electronically via CEDRI no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.5983. * * * * * (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each subsequent semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each subsequent semiannual compliance report must be submitted electronically via CEDRI no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. * * * * * (c) * * * (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required. * * * * * (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58293 (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source is operating. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source is operating. (1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure. (2) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] information on the starting date, starting time, duration, and cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) and the corrective action taken. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.5990, and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. * * * * * (g) Before [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or once the reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, if acceptable to both the Administrator and you, you may submit reports and notifications electronically. Beginning on [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or once the reporting form has been available on the E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58294 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, you must submit the semiannual compliance report required in § 63.6010(c)(1) through (10), as applicable, to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https:// cdx.epa.gov). You must use the appropriate electronic report form on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date on which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. If you claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (h) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you use a control system (add-on control device and capture system) to meet the emission limitations, you must also conduct a performance test at least once every 5 years following your initial compliance demonstration to verify control system performance and reestablish operating parameters or operating limits for control systems used to comply with the emissions limits. Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (h) of this section. (i) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if you are required to electronically submit a report or notification (i.e., Notification of Compliance Status Report) through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report or notification within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report or notification must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (j) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if you are required to electronically submit a report or notification (i.e., Notification of Compliance Status Report) through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 7. Section 63.6011 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 63.6011 What records must I keep? (a) * * * (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], it is not required to keep records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction. * * * * * (e) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 8. Section 63.6015 is amended by revising the definition for Deviation to read as follows: § 63.6015 part? * * What definitions apply to this * * * 58295 Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this paragraph no longer applies. * * * * * ■ 9. Table 15 of Subpart XXXX is revised to read as follows: TABLE 15 TO SUBPART XXXX OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS [As stated in § 63.6010, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table] You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting period. b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation during the reporting period at an affected source where you are not using a CPMS, the report must contain the information in § 63.6010(d). If the deviation occurred at a source where you are using a CMPS or if there were periods during which the CPMS were out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain the information required by § 63.5990(f)(3). c. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6010(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6010(f). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6010(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6010(f). Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6010(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6010(f). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58296 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 15 TO SUBPART XXXX OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS—Continued [As stated in § 63.6010, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table] You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 2. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. a. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], actions taken for the event. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], by letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority (§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. Conduct a performance test at least once every 5 years following your initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.5993. b. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is no longer required. 3. Performance Test Report If you use a control system (add-on control device and capture system) to meet the emission limitations. 10. Table 17 of Subpart XXXX is revised to read as follows: Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], as stated in § 63.6013, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions ■ (GP) requirements according to the following table: TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART XXXX Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.1 ..................... Applicability ............................................. § 63.2 ..................... § 63.3 ..................... § 63.4 ..................... Definitions ............................................... Units and Abbreviations .......................... Prohibited Activities ................................ § 63.5 ..................... § 63.6(a) ................. Construction/Reconstruction ................... Applicability ............................................. § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ...... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. § 63.6(b)(5) ............ Notification .............................................. § 63.6(b)(6) ............ § 63.6(b)(7) ............ [Reserved] Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources that Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ...... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ...... § 63.6(c)(5) ............ [Reserved] Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources that Become Major. § 63.6(d) ................. § 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ...... [Reserved] Operation & Maintenance ....................... § 63.6(e)(3) ............ § 63.6(f)(1) ............. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ....... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). Compliance Except During SSM ............ Methods for Determining Compliance .... § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ...... § 63.6(h) ................. § 63.6(i) .................. Alternative Standard ............................... Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards Compliance Extension ............................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Not using a control device Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions; notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards .................................. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ............. Prohibited activities; compliance date; circumvention; severability. Applicability; applications; approvals ............................ GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. ....................................................................................... No ...................................... No. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for CAA section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes .................................... Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes .................................... Yes. Operate to minimize emissions at all times; correct malfunctions as soon as practicable; and operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met. ....................................................................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No. ....................................................................................... Compliance based on performance test; operation and maintenance plans; records; inspection. Procedures for getting an alternative standard ............ ....................................................................................... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Yes. Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58297 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART XXXX— Continued Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.6(j) .................. Presidential Compliance Exemption ....... § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ...... § 63.7(a)(3) ............ Performance Test Dates ......................... CAA section 114 Authority ..................... § 63.7(b)(1) ............ § 63.7(b)(2) ............ Notification of Performance Test ............ Notification of Rescheduling ................... § 63.7(c) ................. Quality Assurance/Test Plan .................. § 63.7(d) ................. § 63.7(e)(1) ............ Testing Facilities ..................................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. § 63.7(e)(2) ............ § 63.7(e)(3) ............ Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Test Run Duration .................................. § 63.7(f) .................. Alternative Test Method .......................... § 63.7(g) ................. Performance Test Data Analysis ............ § 63.7(h) ................. Waiver of Tests ....................................... § 63.8(a)(1) ............ § 63.8(a)(2) ............ Applicability of Monitoring Requirements Performance Specifications .................... § 63.8(a)(3) ............ § 63.8(a)(4) ............ § 63.8(b)(1) ............ [Reserved] Monitoring with Flares ............................ Monitoring ............................................... § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ...... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. § 63.8(c)(1) ............ Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Routine and Predictable SSM ................ SSM not in SSMP ................................... Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ......... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ........ § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ........ President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule. ....................................................................................... Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ....... If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with: Test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; and internal and external quality assurance procedures for testing. Requirements for testing facilities ................................ Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; and conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the Notification of Compliance Status report; and keep data for 5 years. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ...... Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. ....................................................................................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements; review of source operation and maintenance procedures, records, manufacturer’s instructions, recommendations, and inspection of monitoring system. Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test. ....................................................................................... § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ...... Monitoring System Installation ................ § 63.8(c)(4) ............ § 63.8(c)(6) ............ Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Requirements. Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS) Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements ................................ § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ...... § 63.8(d) ................. CMS Requirements ................................ CMS Quality Control ............................... Out-of-control periods, including reporting ................... ....................................................................................... § 63.8(e) ................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ....... CMS Performance Evaluation ................ Alternative Monitoring Method ................ § 63.8(f)(6) ............. § 63.8(g) ................. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ..... Data Reduction ....................................... ....................................................................................... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... § 63.9(a) ................. Notification Requirements ....................... Applicability and state delegation ................................. § 63.8(c)(5) ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM Not using a control device Yes .................................... Yes. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. No. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. No. No. Yes. Yes .................................... No. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). No ...................................... No. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e). Yes .................................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. No ...................................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). Yes .................................... 30OCP3 No. No. No. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. 58298 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART XXXX— Continued Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ...... Initial Notifications ................................... § 63.9(c) ................. Request for Compliance Extension ........ § 63.9(d) ................. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. § 63.9(e) ................. § 63.9(f) .................. § 63.9(g) ................. § 63.9(h) ................. Notification of Performance Test ............ Notification of VE/Opacity Test ............... Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status ........... § 63.9(i) .................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ......... § 63.9(j) .................. § 63.10(a) ............... Change in Previous Information ............. Recordkeeping/Reporting ....................... § 63.10(b)(1) .......... Recordkeeping/Reporting ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv) Records related to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. CMS Records ......................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)–(xi). § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)– (ix). Records ................................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ... Records ................................................... Records ................................................... Records ................................................... § 63.10(b)(3) .......... § 63.10(c) ............... § 63.10(d)(1) .......... § 63.10(d)(2) .......... § 63.10(d)(3) .......... § 63.10(d)(4) .......... Records ................................................... Records ................................................... General Reporting Requirements ........... Report of Performance Test Results ...... Reporting Opacity or VE Observations .. Progress Reports .................................... § 63.10(d)(5) .......... § 63.10(e) ............... § 63.10(f) ................ § 63.11 ................... § 63.12 ................... § 63.13 ................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Additional CMS Reports ......................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting ...... Flares ...................................................... Delegation ............................................... Addresses ............................................... § 63.14 ................... § 63.15 ................... Incorporation by Reference .................... Availability of Information ........................ After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], as stated in Not using a control device Submit notification 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct/reconstruct, notification of commencement of construct/reconstruct, notification of startup; and contents of each. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify Administrator 60 days prior ................................ No ................................................................................. No ................................................................................. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No. No. No. Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change .............. Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of more than 1 source. General Requirements; keep all records readily available; and keep for 5 years. ....................................................................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control; calibration checks; adjustments, maintenance. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emission limitations; performance test, performance evaluation, and visible emission observation results; and measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Records when under waiver ......................................... ....................................................................................... All documentation supporting Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status. Applicability determinations .......................................... ....................................................................................... Requirement to report ................................................... When to submit to Federal or State authority .............. ....................................................................................... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. ....................................................................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes .................................... No. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. ....................................................................................... Procedures for Administrator to waive ......................... ....................................................................................... State authority to enforce standards ............................ Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference ..................... Public and confidential information ............................... § 63.6013, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to the following table: Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.1 ..................... Applicability ............................................. § 63.2 ..................... § 63.3 ..................... § 63.4 ..................... Definitions ............................................... Units and Abbreviations .......................... Prohibited Activities ................................ § 63.5 ..................... Construction/Reconstruction ................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions; notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards .................................. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ............. Prohibited activities; compliance date; circumvention; severability. Applicability; applications; approvals ............................ Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM Not using a control device Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. 30OCP3 58299 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.6(a) ................. Applicability ............................................. § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ...... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. § 63.6(b)(5) ............ Notification .............................................. § 63.6(b)(6) ............ § 63.6(b)(7) ............ [Reserved] Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources that Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ...... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ...... § 63.6(c)(5) ............ [Reserved] Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources that Become Major. § 63.6(d) ................. § 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii)–(2) [Reserved] Operations & Maintenance ..................... Operation & Maintenance ....................... § 63.6(e)(3) ............ § 63.6(f)(1) ............. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ....... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). SSM Exemption ...................................... Methods for Determining Compliance .... § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ...... § 63.6(h) ................. § 63.6(i) .................. Alternative Standard ............................... Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards Compliance Extension ............................ § 63.6(j) .................. Presidential Compliance Exemption ....... § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ...... § 63.7(a)(3) ............ Performance Test Dates ......................... CAA section 114 Authority ..................... § 63.7(b)(1) ............ § 63.7(b)(2) ............ Notification of Performance Test ............ Notification of Rescheduling ................... § 63.7(c) ................. Quality Assurance/Test Plan .................. § 63.7(d) ................. § 63.7(e)(1) ............ Testing Facilities ..................................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. § 63.7(e)(2) ............ § 63.7(e)(3) ............ Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Test Run Duration .................................. § 63.7(f) .................. Alternative Test Method .......................... § 63.7(g) ................. Performance Test Data Analysis ............ § 63.7(h) ................. Waiver of Tests ....................................... § 63.8(a)(1) ............ § 63.8(a)(2) ............ Applicability of Monitoring Requirements Performance Specifications .................... § 63.8(a)(3) ............ § 63.8(a)(4) ............ § 63.8(b)(1) ............ [Reserved] Monitoring with Flares ............................ Monitoring ............................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Not using a control device GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. ....................................................................................... No ...................................... No. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for CAA section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes .................................... Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes .................................... Yes. ....................................................................................... Operate to minimize emissions at all times; correct malfunctions as soon as practicable; and operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met. ....................................................................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. No ...................................... No. ....................................................................................... Compliance based on performance test; operation and maintenance plans; records; inspection. Procedures for getting an alternative standard ............ ....................................................................................... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule. ....................................................................................... Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ....... If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with: Test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; and internal and external quality assurance procedures for testing. Requirements for testing facilities ................................ Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; and conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the Notification of Compliance Status report; and keep data for 5 years. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ...... Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. No. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No ...................................... No. No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. ....................................................................................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 58300 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ...... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. § 63.8(c)(1) ............ Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Routine and Predictable SSM ................ SSM not in SSMP ................................... Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ......... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ........ § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ........ Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements; review of source operation and maintenance procedures, records, manufacturer’s instructions, recommendations, and inspection of monitoring system. Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test. ....................................................................................... § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ...... Monitoring System Installation ................ § 63.8(c)(4) ............ § 63.8(c)(6) ............ Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Requirements. Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS) Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements ................................ § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ...... § 63.8(d) ................. CMS Requirements ................................ CMS Quality Control ............................... Out-of-control periods, including reporting ................... ....................................................................................... § 63.8(d)(3) ............ § 63.8(e) ................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ....... Written Procedures for CMS ................... CMS Performance Evaluation ................ Alternative Monitoring Method ................ § 63.8(f)(6) ............. § 63.8(g) ................. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ..... Data Reduction ....................................... ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... § 63.9(a) ................. § 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ...... Notification Requirements ....................... Initial Notifications ................................... § 63.9(c) ................. Request for Compliance Extension ........ § 63.9(d) ................. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. § 63.9(e) ................. § 63.9(f) .................. § 63.9(g) ................. § 63.9(h) ................. Notification of Performance Test ............ Notification of VE/Opacity Test ............... Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status ........... § 63.9(i) .................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ......... § 63.9(j) .................. § 63.10(a) ............... Change in Previous Information ............. Recordkeeping/Reporting ....................... § 63.10(b)(1) .......... Recordkeeping/Reporting ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) and (iv)–(v). § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...... Records related to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi), and (x)–(xi). CMS Records ......................................... § 63.8(c)(5) ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... Not using a control device Yes .................................... Yes. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). No ...................................... No ...................................... No ...................................... No. No. No. No. Yes .................................... No. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). No ...................................... No. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e). Yes .................................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... No. No. No. No. No No. Yes. No ...................................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. No. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... No ...................................... No. No. No. Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change .............. Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of more than 1 source. General Requirements; keep all records readily available; and keep for 5 years. ....................................................................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. No ...................................... No. ....................................................................................... No. See 63.6010 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. Yes .................................... No. Applicability and state delegation ................................. Submit notification 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct/reconstruct, notification of commencement of construct/reconstruct, notification of startup; and contents of each. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify Administrator 60 days prior ................................ ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control; calibration checks; adjustments, maintenance. Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM 30OCP3 Yes. Yes. 58301 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules Applicable to Subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.10(b)(2) (vii)– (ix). Records ................................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .... § 63.10(b)(2) (xiii) .. § 63.10(b)(2) (xiv) .. Records ................................................... Records ................................................... Records ................................................... § 63.10(b)(3) .......... § 63.10(c) ............... § 63.10(d)(1) .......... § 63.10(d)(2) .......... § 63.10(d)(3) .......... § 63.10(d)(4) .......... Records ................................................... Records ................................................... General Reporting Requirements ........... Report of Performance Test Results ...... Reporting Opacity or VE Observations .. Progress Reports .................................... § 63.10(d)(5) .......... § 63.10(e) ............... § 63.10(f) ................ § 63.11 ................... § 63.12 ................... § 63.13 ................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Additional CMS Reports ......................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting ...... Flares ...................................................... Delegation ............................................... Addresses ............................................... § 63.14 ................... § 63.15 ................... Incorporation by Reference .................... Availability of Information ........................ Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emission limitations; performance test, performance evaluation, and visible emission observation results; and measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Records when under waiver ......................................... ....................................................................................... All documentation supporting Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status. Applicability determinations .......................................... ....................................................................................... Requirement to report ................................................... When to submit to Federal or State authority .............. ....................................................................................... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... Procedures for Administrator to waive ......................... ....................................................................................... State authority to enforce standards ............................ Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference ..................... Public and confidential information ............................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Yes. Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No ...................................... No. No ...................................... Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. [FR Doc. 2019–21837 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:04 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\30OCP3.SGM Not using a control device 30OCP3

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58268-58301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21837]



[[Page 58267]]

Vol. 84

Wednesday,

No. 210

October 30, 2019

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 58268]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392; FRL-10000-81-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT07


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. 
The proposal addresses the results of the residual risk and technology 
review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
proposed amendments address the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM) provisions of the rule and amend provisions regarding electronic 
reporting of certain notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual reports.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before November 29, 2019.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before November 4, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0392, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0392 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2416; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-0881; and email address: [email protected]. For questions about 
monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Ketan Patel, Sector 
Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9736; 
fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building 
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541-5628 or 
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

[[Page 58269]]

    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM polycyclic organic matter
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) 
and 112(d)(3)?
    B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    E. What other actions are we proposing?
    F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to 
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal

[[Page 58270]]

government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is any facility engaged in 
producing passenger car and light duty truck tires, heavy duty truck 
tires, off-the-road tires, aircraft tires, and miscellaneous other 
tires. The category includes the following processes: Rubber 
compounding; tread rubber, cord, and bead production; tire building; 
green tire spraying; and tire curing and finishing.

                Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source category                        NESHAP                           NAICS code \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber Tire Manufacturing..............  40 CFR part 63, subpart     326211, 326212, 314992.
                                          XXXX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those 
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address 
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is 
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to 
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review 
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there 
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies'' 
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review 
is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two 
reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred 
to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows 
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains 
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory 
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document 
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority 
and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards 
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission 
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA 
discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate

[[Page 58271]]

residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a 
two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks 
are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health information, 
including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit 
on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) \1\ of approximately 
1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are 
unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary 
to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the 
second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
``in consideration of all health information, including the number of 
persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as 
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, 
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each 
particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards 
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin 
of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is 
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    The Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP was promulgated on July 9, 
2002 (67 FR 45588), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. As 
promulgated, the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP applies to affected 
sources of HAP at rubber materials manufacturing facilities that are 
major sources of HAP. The affected source covered by this subpart is 
each new, reconstructed, or existing facility that manufactures rubber 
tires.
    The Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is subcategorized 
into four subcategories, which include rubber processing, tire 
production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application. 
Components of rubber tires include, but are not limited to, rubber 
compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord, and liners. Other 
components often associated with rubber tires but not integral to the 
tire, such as wheels, inner tubes, tire bladders, and valve stems, are 
not components of rubber tires or tire cord and are not subject to this 
subpart. At the time of this proposal we did not identify any major 
source facilities of tire cord production or puncture sealant 
application.
    Emissions limits in the 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category were set for each subcategory separately:
1. Rubber Processing
    There are no emission limits for rubber processing affected 
sources.
2. Tire Production
    There are two options for compliance under this subcategory. First 
is a HAP constituent option, which states that emissions of each HAP in 
Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams 
HAP per megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total cements and solvents used 
at the tire production affected source, and that emissions of each HAP 
not in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 
grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total cements and 
solvents used at the tire production affected source.
    The second emission limit option is a production-based option. For 
this option, emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per megagram 
(0.00005 pounds per ton) of rubber used at the tire production affected 
source.
3. Tire Cord Production
    There are three options for compliance under this subcategory. The 
first option is a production-based option for existing tire cord 
production affected sources. As part of this option, emissions must not 
exceed 280 grams HAP per megagram (0.56 pounds per ton) of fabric 
processed at the tire cord production affected source.
    The second option is a production-based option for new or 
reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of this 
option, emissions must not exceed 220 grams HAP per megagram (0.43 
pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production 
affected source.
    The third option is a HAP constituent option available to both 
existing and new or reconstructed tire cord production affected 
sources. As part of this option, emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per 
megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord 
production affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per 
megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord 
production affected source.
4. Puncture Sealant Application
    There are three options for compliance under this subcategory. The 
first option is a percent reduction option for existing puncture 
sealant application spray booths. As part of this option, facilities 
are required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic 
compounds (VOC)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight.
    The second option is a percent reduction option for new or 
reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of 
this option, facilities are required to reduce spray booth HAP 
(measured as VOC) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight.
    The third option is a HAP constituent option for both existing and 
new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part 
of this option, emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 pounds 
per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant 
affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram 
(20 pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture 
sealant affected source.
5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission Limits
    The three subcategories subject to emission limits (tire 
production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application) 
offer compliance alternatives to meet the above-mentioned emission 
limits. For more information, a detailed breakdown of

[[Page 58272]]

the subcategory alternatives can be found in 40 CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR 
63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    For the residual risk assessment, the EPA received data from a 
voluntary data gathering effort led by the United States Tire 
Manufacturing Association (USTMA). USTMA worked with its major source 
facility members to provide information to the Agency regarding the 
rubber tire manufacturing process and the associated air emissions. The 
information received included description of HAP-emitting processes, 
information on the HAP-containing materials used, estimates of 
emissions, and descriptions of control technologies, if present.
    For all major sources who are not members of USTMA, data was 
collected from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 
a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria 
air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes 
estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and 
mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases 
an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes 
data necessary for conducting a risk assessment, including annual HAP 
emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and 
the related emissions release parameters.
    The EPA used NEI emissions and the voluntary data gathered by USTMA 
as the primary data to develop the model input files for the residual 
risk assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. 
Additional information on the development of the modeling file for the 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category can be found in the document, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposal, 
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    For both the risk assessment and technology review in this action, 
the EPA visited three rubber tire manufacturing facilities. During the 
visits, the EPA discussed process operations, compliance with the 
existing NESHAP, description of the emission points, process controls, 
unregulated emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The 
EPA used the information provided by the facilities to understand the 
various operations, existing controls, and new developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for the source category. 
Additional information can be found in the site visit reports, Michelin 
Tire Lexington Site Visit Report, Goodyear Tire Fayetteville Site Visit 
Report, and Continental Tire Mt. Vernon Site Visit Report, which are 
available in the docket for this action.
    For both the risk assessment and technology review, the EPA also 
gathered data from facility construction and operating permits 
regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and process 
operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation from 
state permitting authorities through state-maintained online databases. 
The facility permits were also used to confirm that the facilities were 
major sources of HAP and were subject to the Rubber Tire NESHAP. In 
certain cases, we contacted facility owners or operators to confirm and 
clarify the sources of emissions that were reported.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    For the technology review, we collected information from the 
Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control 
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC). 
This is a database that contains case-specific information on air 
pollution control technologies that have been required to reduce the 
emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's 
New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new 
construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions 
above certain defined thresholds, an NSR permit must be obtained. The 
RBLC promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and 
aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined 
information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are 
currently used for these source categories to reduce air emissions.
    Additional information about these data collection activities for 
the technology review is contained in the technology review memorandum 
titled Technology Review for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source 
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor and, thus, the Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information. 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, the Agency again considers all of the health risk 
and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that 
information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of 
control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of 
controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors. Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that the policy 
chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures 
of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also 
incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the 
uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the 
most exposed individuals can be

[[Page 58273]]

reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can 
then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with 
the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent 
behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure 
of public health risk from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA 
section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration 
of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his 
judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will protect the 
public health. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of 
the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability 
of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that an MIR of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors. Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include 
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and 
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be 
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. 
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA 
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that EPA believes the relative weight of 
the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of 
safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This 
occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with 
the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 
category. Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated 
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, 
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI 
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source category under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review 
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: 
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission 
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR 
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than 
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or 
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the 
assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In 
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of 
potential practices,

[[Page 58274]]

processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II. D of this 
preamble for information on the specific data sources that were 
reviewed as part of the technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.B of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains 
the following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as 
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those 
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's 
SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. 
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    The estimated actual emissions and the emission release 
characteristics for each facility in the source category were obtained 
from USTMA's voluntary data gathering and the 2014 NEI database. In 
addition, the EPA provided draft actual emissions data and stack 
parameters to facilities for review and confirmation. In some cases, 
facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be 
outliers, otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of the 
industry, or associated with high risk values in our initial risk 
screening analyses. Where appropriate, emission values and release 
characteristics were corrected, based on revised stack parameter 
information provided by the facilities. Additional information on the 
development of the modeling file for each source category, including 
the development of the actual emissions and emissions release 
characteristics, can be found in the document, Residual Risk Assessment 
for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    In order to calculate allowable emissions, a detailed analysis of 
the source category was conducted to determine how each major source 
facility meets the emissions standards of the Rubber Tire NESHAP. All 
major sources comply with NESHAP by utilizing the purchasing 
alternative (40 CFR 63.5985(a)) or the monthly average alternative, 
without using an add-on control device (40 CFR 63.5985(b)). The 
purchasing alternative allows a facility to use only cements and 
solvents that, as purchased, contain no more HAP than allowed by the 
emission limits in Table 1 of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, 
option 1, HAP constituent option). The monthly average alternative, 
without using an add-on control device, allows a facility to use 
cements and solvents in such a way that the monthly average HAP 
emissions do not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of the NESHAP to 
this subpart, option 1 or option 2. Calculating allowable emissions was 
challenging because certain HAP (those in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XXXX) have lower emission limits than others (those not in 
Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX). Since raw ingredients used 
in tire production vary for each company and type of tire, the 
allowable emissions are also variable. This variability makes 
calculating allowable emissions impractical. It is, however, reasonable 
to assume that 16 years after promulgation of the MACT standards, tire 
manufacturers have optimized their use of cements and solvents, and 
their current emissions, per unit of production, are a good reflection 
of what the MACT standard allows. For additional information, see 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions Memo, located in the docket for 
this action.
    Additionally, due to engineering advancements resulting in less 
cement/solvent usage for this source category, we expect that majority 
of major source facilities use less than 1 ton of cement/solvent. For 
facilities using the HAP constituent option (purchasing alternative), 
the emission limit results in an allowance of less than 2 pounds of HAP 
for those HAP listed in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, and 
less than 20 pounds for HAP not in Table 16 of this subpart. Due to the 
complexity of calculating allowable emissions for this source category, 
we solicit comments on calculating allowable emissions.
    Since the two utilized options of the standard cannot effectively 
be used to calculate representative allowable emissions, production 
data were used to determine production output from 2007 to 2016. These 
data are presented in Table 2 of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Emissions Memo, which

[[Page 58275]]

can be found in the docket for this action. The annual total of tire 
weight, in pounds, was used instead of the number of tires due to the 
large variance in size of tires (and hence raw material used) at 
facilities within the source category. Based on data in Table 2, the 
highest year of total production was 2015. Actual emissions data we 
received from the source category were also from 2015. Therefore, we 
conclude that the emissions data modeled are representative of the 
maximum annual emissions between 2007 and 2016 and actual emissions are 
representative of allowable emissions for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
source category.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \7\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of 
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk 
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response 
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In 
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone 
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such 
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if 
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to 
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we 
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \8\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest 
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census 
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://

[[Page 58276]]

iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/
search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts 
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP 
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and 
the environment,\9\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological 
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our 
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion 
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the 
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk 
Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of 
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of 
the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening 
Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings 
proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk 
and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, 
May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission 
point,\10\ reasonable worst-case dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th 
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, 
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is 
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the 
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening 
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response 
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, 
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \11\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\12\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\ 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as 
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above 
which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to 
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \12\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \13\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could

[[Page 58277]]

impair an individual's ability to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    Rubber tires are manufactured via a continuous batch operation. In 
a continuous batch operation, manufacturing operations take place 
continuously, but occur in batches. On any single production line, a 
batch must complete the manufacturing process before the next batch may 
begin the manufacturing process on that production line. Since rubber 
tire facilities are large and have significant production capacities, 
there are multiple production lines operating simultaneously. This 
results in relatively consistent emissions. As discussed in the 
allowable emissions section (III.C.2) above, we do expect there to be 
some variability in emissions depending on the type of tire a facility 
is manufacturing. To account for this variability, we have selected a 
multiplier of two based upon the continuous nature of the batch 
processes, to use in assessing acute risks.
    We believe two is a conservative acute multiplier for this source 
category. Since the operation is a continuous batch process that 
operates around the clock, we do not expect there to be significant 
changes in hour-to-hour emissions such as those that may occur in 
industries that do not continuously operate their production lines. 
Slight variation in batch ingredients is accounted for by using the 
multiplier of two. A further discussion of why this factor was chosen 
can be found in the memorandum, Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions 
Memo, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or 
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we 
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined 
estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. These 
refinements are discussed more fully in, Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk 
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the 
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at 
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, we identified 
PB-HAP emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM), cadmium, and lead, 
so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, 
the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three 
progressive tiers. In a tier 1 screening assessment, we determine 
whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP 
warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through 
ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions 
against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for 
several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening 
exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total 
Risk Integrated Methodology, Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure 
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates 
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins 
and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of 
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants represent a 
conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for 
RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this 
assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these 
PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to 
assess the potential for significant human health risks via the 
ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the 
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission 
rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening 
value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess 
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, 
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that 
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury 
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP 
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening 
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any 
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a 
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening 
assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 
combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and 
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer 
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the 
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from 
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between 
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the 
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed 
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each 
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations 
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local 
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
    In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the 
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer 
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the 
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by 
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, 
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. 
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at

[[Page 58278]]

the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to 
rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 
1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish 
consumption \14\) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile 
consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and 
gardener scenarios \15\). If PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a 
Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB-HAP 
emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB-HAP 
emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \15\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating 
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume-rise on 
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\16\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the 
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to 
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting 
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, 
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk 
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, 
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid 
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect 
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a 
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available 
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist 
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support 
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing source category, we identified emissions of cadmium 
and POM. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated cadmium 
and POM are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we 
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that 
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant 
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the 
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to 
the Tier 1 screening

[[Page 58279]]

threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment endpoint 
and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under 
the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in 
Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the 
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: 
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the 
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average 
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the 
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category 
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which 
is available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. 
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. For this source category, 
we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from 
the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were 
removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this 
preamble: What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action? Once a quality assured source category dataset was 
available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI 
for that facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze 
risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' 
for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent 
with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. 
For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to 
identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to 
the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks 
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this 
proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was 
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the 
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of 
interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides 
the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including 
all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category 
contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was 
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the 
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health

[[Page 58280]]

Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an 
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly 
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations 
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\17\ 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low 
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach,\19\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps 
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response 
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \18\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \19\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine

[[Page 58281]]

whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered 
significant and widespread.
    Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health 
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources 
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are 
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot 
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in 
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this 
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for 
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a 
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is 
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, 
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for 
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of 
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those 
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the 
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the 
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in 
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, 
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control 
options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR 
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and 
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) 
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is 
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most 
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of 
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels 
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined 
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or 
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening 
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant 
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM, 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are 
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important 
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR 
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on 
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the 
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we 
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This 
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally 
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the 
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of 
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface 
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We 
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human 
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological 
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end 
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the 
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. 
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that 
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for 
hour-by-hour plume-rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also 
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the 
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These 
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations 
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those 
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding 
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three 
tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.

[[Page 58282]]

    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful 
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP 
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been 
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, 
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models 
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may 
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may 
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and 
resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the 
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation 
cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current 
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category is 4-in-1 million. The risk drivers 
include several organic and metallic HAP from mixing, curing, and 
extruding operations. The total estimated cancer incidence from rubber 
tire manufacturing emission sources based on actual and allowable 
emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in 
every 500 years. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, 4,500 people 
are estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the 
source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, are estimated 
to be less than 1 (0.2), with aniline emissions from mixing and curing 
processes driving the TOSHI value.

                                        Table 2--Rubber Tire Manufacturing Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Maximum        Estimated       Estimated
                                                                            individual     population at   annual cancer      Maximum     Maximum screen
                     Risk assessment                         Number of      cancer risk   increased risk     incidence        chronic          acute
                                                            facilities    (in 1 million)  of cancer >=1-    (cases per       noncancer     noncancer HQ
                                                                                \2\        in-1 million        year)         TOSHI \3\          \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions:
    Source Category.....................................              21               4           4,500           0.002             0.2             0.4
    Facility-Wide.......................................              21               8           9,200           0.002             0.2  ..............
Baseline Allowable Emissions:
    Source Category.....................................              21               4           4,500           0.002             0.2  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this source category actual and allowable emissions are the same.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is the spleen.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value. The HQ of 0.4 is based upon an acute REL based upon worst-case screening values.

2. Acute Risk Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there 
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. Our screening 
analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual emissions 
indicates that no pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of 1 (0.4). Acute 
HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that 
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from 
facilities within the source category did not exceed the Tier 1 cancer 
screening value of 1 for POM emissions, while one facility exceeded the 
Tier 1 noncancer screening value by a factor of 10 for cadmium 
emissions.
    For the one facility that did not screen out at Tier 1 for cadmium, 
we conducted a Tier 2 screening analysis. The Tier 2 screen replaces 
some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 with site-specific data, the 
location of fishable lakes, and local wind direction and speed. The 
Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end assumptions about 
consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised foods (adult 
female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish \14\ for the 
fisher scenario and 90th percentile for consumption of locally grown or 
raised foods \15\) for the farmer scenario and uses an assumption that 
the same individual consumes each of these foods in high end quantities 
(i.e., that an individual has high-end ingestion rates for each food). 
The result of this analysis was the development of site-specific 
concentrations of cadmium. It is important to note that, even with the 
inclusion of some site-specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the 
multipathway screening analysis is still a very conservative, health-
protective assessment (e.g., upper-bound consumption of local fish, 
locally grown, and/or raised, foods) and likely will yield results that 
serve as an upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility.
    The Tier 2 noncancer screening analysis for the single facility 
emitting cadmium above a Tier 1 screening value of 1 resulted in a Tier 
2 noncancer screening value of 1 for the fisher

[[Page 58283]]

scenario and less than 1 for the farmer scenario. For lead, we did not 
estimate any exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    We conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category for the following pollutants: 
Cadmium, lead, and POM.
    In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which 
was evaluated differently), POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for 
any ecological benchmark. Cadmium emissions at one facility had Tier 1 
exceedances for the surface soil threshold levels (no observed adverse 
effect level (NOAEL) mammalian insectivores (shrew) by a maximum 
screening value of 3.
    A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for cadmium with no 
exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, we did not estimate 
any exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that, 
of the 21 facilities, 13 facilities have a facility-wide MIR greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk 
is 8-in-1 million, mainly driven by chromium (VI) compounds and metal 
emissions from sources outside of the source category which include 
mixing, extruding, calendaring, and finishing operations; refer to 
Table 2. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility 
is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 500 years. 
Approximately 9,200 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater 
than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI 
is estimated to be less than 1 (0.2), mainly driven by emissions of 
aniline from mixing and curing processes.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category across different demographic groups 
within the populations living near facilities.
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.

                      Table 3--Rubber Tire Manufacturing Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rubber Tire Manufacturing: Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with
                                                                            cancer risk at or   Population with
                                                                               above 1-in-1     chronic HI above
                                                             Nationwide       million due to    1 due to rubber
                                                                               rubber tire            tire
                                                                              manufacturing      manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        317,736,049              4,524                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 62                 66                  0
Minority...............................................                 38                 34                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                 12                 25                  0
Native American........................................                0.8                  0                  0
Other and Multiracial..................................                  7                  3                  0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and non-white)......                 18                  6                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 21                  0
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 79                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................                 14                 12                  0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 86                 88                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  6                  1                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 4,500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The 
percentages of the at-risk population indicate that the demographic 
groups White, African American, people below the poverty level, and 
people over 25 with a high school diploma that are living within 50 km 
of facilities in the source category exceed the corresponding national 
percentage for the same demographic groups.

[[Page 58284]]

    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the docket for 
this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, 
the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from 
rubber tire manufacturing facilities, and we considered these in 
determining acceptability.
    For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, the risk 
analysis indicates that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed 
is 4-in-1 million from actual and allowable emissions. The risk 
analysis also estimates a cancer incidence of 0.002 excess cancer cases 
per year, or 1 case every 500 years, as well as a maximum chronic 
noncancer TOSHI value of 0.2 for both actual and allowable emissions. 
The results of the acute screening analysis also estimate a maximum 
acute noncancer HQ screening value of less than 1 based on the acute 
REL. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level 
of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for 
repeated exposures. Based on the results of the multipathway cancer 
screening analyses of POM emissions, we conclude that the maximum 
cancer risk from ingestion exposure to the individual most exposed is 
less than 1-in-1 million for the Tier 1 farmer and fisher scenario. The 
maximum multipathway noncancer TOSHI screen value for cadmium is equal 
to 1 based upon the Tier 2 fisher scenario. Multipathway screening 
values were below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PB-HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. No 
additional screens or site-specific assessment was conducted since the 
multipathway screening values were deemed sufficient to demonstrate 
protection of public health based upon the conservative nature of our 
model design. The cancer risk for both inhalation and ingestion is 
considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper 
limit of acceptable risk. Considering all the health risk information 
and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in 
section III of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to 
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or 
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk 
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the 
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of the MACT rule 
review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or 
other measures that would reduce emissions further.
    The risks from this source category were deemed acceptable with a 
cancer risk to the individual most exposed of 4-in-1 million. Our risk 
analysis indicated the inhalation risks from this source category are 
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any 
risk reductions to control process emissions from rubber tire 
manufacturing operations would result in minimal health benefits. 
Mixing, extruding, and buffing emissions result in 88 percent of the 
cancer incidence for this source category with metal emissions 
contributing to 40 percent of the cancer incidence. The inhalation 
chronic and acute noncancer risks were also below a HI and a HQ of 1, 
respectively. In addition, the multipathway screening analyses for PB-
HAP and lead emissions also demonstrate a low potential for risks for 
cancer and noncancer health effects. The ingestion cancer risk also is 
less than 1-in-1 million based upon for the Tier 1 farmer and fisher 
scenario and the ingestion noncancer HI is less than 1 based upon the 
Tier 2 fisher scenario.
    Our review of post-control options for the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category identified regenerative thermal oxidizers 
(RTOs) as an option for reducing organic HAP emissions. The use of RTOs 
to control organic HAP emissions was evaluated and determined to not be 
cost effective during the original NESHAP. Upon review, we do not 
believe the associated costs for installing and operating an RTO have 
changed significantly since the original NESHAP. When evaluating the 
cost effectiveness of installing RTOs during the 2002 Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing NESHAP, a model facility was used. The model facility 
estimated a mean reduction of 103 tons of HAP by using an RTO (Docket: 
A-97-14 Document: II-B-12). The current mean total HAP emitted per 
facility within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is 18.8 
tons of total HAP. This significant reduction in total HAP emitted for 
the source category, coupled with similar associated costs for 
installing and operating an RTO, leads to the conclusion that RTOs 
would be less cost effective now. Thus, we still find the use of an RTO 
to not be cost effective. We solicit comment on the cost effectiveness 
of using an RTO to control HAP emissions.
    If RTOs were installed, the MIR would change from 4-in-1 million to 
3-in-1 million and would result in an estimated 50-percent reduction in 
cancer incidence from 0.002 excess cancer cases per year to 0.001 cases 
per year. This control option would reduce excess cancer cases from one 
in every 500 years to one in every 1,000 years based upon actual 
emissions from controlled HAP emission sources.
    The source category is already controlling particulate matter or 
metal HAP with all facilities utilizing fabric filters/baghouses to 
control emissions, and we did not identify additional measures that 
could be used to control these HAP. As noted above, any further control 
of process emissions from rubber tire manufacturing operations would 
result in minimal health benefits. Based upon the low baseline risks, 
minimal available risk reductions, and lack of cost-effective control 
options to reduce organic and metal emissions from mixing, extrusion, 
and other process operations, we are proposing that the current NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    As described in section III.A of this document, we conducted an 
environmental risk screening assessment for the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-
HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), POM emissions 
had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. 
Cadmium

[[Page 58285]]

emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at one facility with a maximum 
screening value of 3 for a surface soil NOAEL (mammalian insectivores--
shrew).
    A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for cadmium emissions for 
this one facility, with no exceedances of any of the ecological 
benchmarks. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the 
secondary lead NAAQS. Based on the results of the environmental risk 
screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as 
a result of HAP emissions from this source category and, therefore, 
propose that it is not necessary to set more stringent standards to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, the technology 
review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since 
the MACT standards were promulgated. In conducting the technology 
review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding the 
emissions from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. The 
review included a search of the RBLC database, reviews of air permits 
for rubber tire manufacturing facilities, and meetings with industry 
and the trade association (summarized in the docket for this action). 
We reviewed these data sources for information on practices, processes, 
and control technologies that were not considered during the 
development of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. We also looked for 
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that have occurred since the development of the Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing NESHAP.
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did 
not identify any cost-effective developments in practices, processes, 
or control technologies used at rubber tire manufacturing facilities 
since promulgation of the MACT standard.
    Based on the technology review, we have determined that there are 
no new control technologies. Additional information of our technology 
review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the docket 
for this action.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are 
proposing revisions to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP related to 
SSM and electronic reporting. We are proposing revisions to the SSM 
provisions of the rule in order to ensure that it is consistent with 
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the 
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 
emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require 
electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and 
compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for rubber 
tire manufacturing facilities. The proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two regulatory provisions 
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, which were 
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112. Specifically, the Court 
vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 
standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption, which 
currently appears at 40 CFR 63.5990, and any reference to SSM 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, part A (General Provisions). Consistent 
with the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing 
standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing 
several revisions to Table 17 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX (the 
General Provisions Applicability Table), as is explained in more detail 
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of 
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM 
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption 
as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
    All facilities subject to this rulemaking comply with the emission 
limits by either using the HAP constituent option (purchase 
alternative) found in 40 CFR 63.5985(a), or the monthly average 
alternative without using an add-on control device (40 CFR 63.5985(b)). 
Due to the continuous batch operation utilized across this source 
category, the EPA has no reason to believe that emissions are 
significantly different during periods of startup and shutdown from 
those during normal operations.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(containing regulatory definition of ``malfunction''). The EPA 
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during 
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 
112 standards. The EPA's interpretation has been upheld as reasonable. 
See United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-10 (D.C. Cir. 
2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must 
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled 
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when 
setting emission standards. See, e.g., National Ass'n of Clean Water 
Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that 
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the 
best units is to be calculated''). While the EPA accounts for 
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 
requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. 
The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as 
the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine 
operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of

[[Page 58286]]

the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory 
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 
112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in United States Sugar Corp v. EPA, 
accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if 
not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that 
can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. See United States 
Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 608 (discussing work practice standards and 
explaining that ``the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that 
could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, 
ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible 
standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array 
of circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'''). See also 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent pollutant 
removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, 
for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit 
is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the 
source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the 
control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the 
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As 
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the 
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 
standards that are not reflective of, and significantly less stringent 
than, levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning 
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 in a way as to 
avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent 
with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devises or emergency flaring events 
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such 
information.
    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will 
result in a violation of the standards at this time. At the time of 
this proposal, there are no major source facilities using control 
devices to comply with the emissions limits of this standard. However, 
the NESHAP contains the option to use a control device for compliance 
with the emission limits. Thus, while a malfunction event leading to 
increased emissions is unlikely at this time, it is possible if a 
facility were to use a control device in the future.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. See United States Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 606-10.
b. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
(1) 40 CFR 63.5990 General Compliance Requirements
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 and 
5 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to 
minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer 
necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM 
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general compliance 
requirement regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5990 that reflects the general 
duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods 
covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general compliance requirement 
entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, 
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general 
compliance requirement. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing at 
40 CFR 63.5990(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 and 5 to 
a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not 
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant

[[Page 58287]]

with the general compliance requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5990.
(2) SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan 
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. 
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard 
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events 
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve 
compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer 
necessary.
(3) Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from 
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 
Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this 
provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 
standards apply continuously. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. 
Cir. 1999). Consistent with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA 
is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
(4) 40 CFR 63.5993 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. 
The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing requirement at 
40 CFR 63.5993. The performance testing requirements we are proposing 
to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing 
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include 
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and 
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being 
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The 
proposed performance testing provisions may not be performed during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1). 
The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or 
operator to record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make 
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to 
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the 
Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the 
information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to 
add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the 
requirement to record the information.
(5) Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) by changing the ``yes'' in columns 4 
and 5 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM 
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of 
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``Applies as modified by 
Sec.  63.5990(e) and (f)'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The final sentence 
in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan 
requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add 
to the rule at 40 CFR 63.5990(f)(3) text that is identical to 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the 
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be 
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
(6) Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to 
a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions 
are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping 
and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and 
shutdown. Special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such 
as a startup and shutdown plan, have been removed from the rule (with 
exceptions discussed below), thereby reducing the need for additional 
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to 
a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources to record 
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with 
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM 
plans will no longer be required.
(7) Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a 
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for 
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement for malfunctions, the EPA is proposing 
to replace the SSM report under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the existing 
reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The replacement 
language differs from the General Provisions' requirement in that it 
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are 
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an 
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in the semiannual report to be required under the proposed 
rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, 
time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, 
if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate 
of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure 
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow 
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable 
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the 
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an 
applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR

[[Page 58288]]

63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required 
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These 
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40 
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 
report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to 
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will 
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions are taken 
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and 
operators of Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP facilities submit 
electronic copies of the required notification of compliance status 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.6009(k), performance test 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(h), and semiannual compliance 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission 
process is provided in the memorandum, ``Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,'' 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392. This proposed rule 
requirement does not affect submittals required by state air agencies 
as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(h), the 
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using 
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \21\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT. 
Performance tests results collected using test methods that are not 
supported by the ERT at the time of the performance test are required 
to be submitted to the EPA electronically in a portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(g), 
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the 
appropriate spreadsheet report form to submit information to CEDRI, 1 
year after finalizing this proposed action. A draft version of the 
proposed electronic spreadsheet reporting template for this report is 
included in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0392). The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, 
and overall design of the template. Prior to availability of the final 
spreadsheet report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected 
sources will be required to submit the semiannual compliance report as 
currently required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the spreadsheet 
report template, rubber tire sources will be notified about its 
availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required 
reporting template with the final rule. The owner or operator would 
begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is 
due, once the electronic spreadsheet report template has been available 
for at least 1 year.
    For the electronic submittal of notification of compliance status 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.6009(k), the final 
spreadsheet report template discussed above, which will reside in 
CEDRI, will also contain the information required for the notification 
of compliance status report and will satisfy the requirement to provide 
the notifications of compliance status information electronically, 
eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance 
status report. As stated above, the final spreadsheet report template 
will be available after finalizing this proposed action and sources 
will be required to use the spreadsheet report template after 1 year. 
Prior to the availability of the final spreadsheet report template in 
CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to 
submit notice of compliance status reports as currently required by the 
rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the availability of 
the final spreadsheet report template via the CEDRI website.
    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which an extension of time for electronic reporting may be requested 
from the EPA. In both circumstances, the decision to grant additional 
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and 
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing a 
mechanism for requesting extensions of time for electronic reporting to 
protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they 
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for 
reasons outside of their control. An extension of time may be requested 
due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI where an owner or operator is 
precluded from accessing the system and submitting required reports is 
addressed in 40 CFR 63.6010. The situation where an extension may be 
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event 
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of 
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying 
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by 
this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.6010. Examples of force majeure 
events may include acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \22\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \23\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\24\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the

[[Page 58289]]

memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \23\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \24\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must comply with all of the 
amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for 
submitting notifications and compliance reports, no later than 180 days 
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever 
is later. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction 
after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 
must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the 
amendments being proposed, with the exception of the proposed 
electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports, 
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, 
whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to 
meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until 
the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is 
not expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so 
the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as 
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would 
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
XXXX. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add 
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and 
compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are also proposing 
to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the 
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing 
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience 
with similar industries that are required to convert reporting 
mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar 
with the process of submitting performance test results electronically 
through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission 
capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a 
time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is 
generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our 
experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of 
regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read 
and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their 
operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of 
startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary 
adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the 
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual 
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment 
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for 
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA 
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] be in compliance 
with all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of 
the regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the 
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA estimates that there are 21 rubber tire manufacturing 
facilities that are subject to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP 
affected by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. 
The bases of our estimates of affected facilities are provided in the 
memorandum, Rubber Tire Major Source Memo, which is available in the 
docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned or 
potential new or reconstructed rubber tire manufacturing facilities in 
the source category.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are not finalizing revisions to the emission limits other than 
to make them applicable during SSM periods, we do not anticipate any 
air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments, since 
facilities are already in compliance with emission limits during all 
periods, including SSM.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rule and 
becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is 
estimated to be $6,740 (2017$). The total cost per facility is 
estimated to be $321 per facility to review the final rule requirements 
and become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. All 
other costs associated with notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping 
are believed to be unchanged because the facilities in each source 
category are currently required to comply with notification, reporting, 
and recordkeeping requirements and will continue to be required to 
comply with those requirements. The number of personnel-hours required 
to develop the materials in support of reports required by the NESHAP 
remain unchanged.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a 
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a proposed rule. The total cost associated with this 
proposed rule is estimated to be $6,740, which is a one-time cost 
associated with reviewing the revised rule and becoming familiar with 
the electronic reporting requirements. The estimated cost per facility 
is $321. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market 
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or 
absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result 
of the proposed amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. 
However, the proposed amendments would improve the rule by ensuring 
that the standards apply at all times and by requiring electronic 
submittal of initial notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual reports that would increase the usefulness of the data and 
would ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. 
Because

[[Page 58290]]

these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, 
as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions 
were estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing 
emissions.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional 
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are 
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used 
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such 
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to 
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the 
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more 
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the project website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

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

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1982.03. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, in the form 
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including 
reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and 
including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In 
addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed. 
The number of respondents was reduced from 23 to 21 based on 
consultation with industry representatives and state/local agencies.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of rubber tire 
manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XXXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual 
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to 
be 5,870 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$819,000 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and 
operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets 
identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-
related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for 
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than November 29, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities, since there 
are no small entities in the source category.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or

[[Page 58291]]

uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable 
duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, and would not be 
affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A, 
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed in sections IV.A, 
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble, we performed a demographic 
analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to 
individual demographic groups, of the population close to the 
facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In our analysis, we 
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer 
hazards from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category across 
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 
populations living near operations identified as having the highest 
risks.
    Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category indicate that, for four of the 10 
demographic groups, White, African American, people living below the 
poverty level, and adults over 25 without a high school diploma that 
reside within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than 
the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. 
When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from 
rubber manufacturing facilities, we find 4,500 people exposed to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and nobody exposed to a chronic 
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    The results of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 4,500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The 
percentages of the at-risk population for four of the 10 demographic 
groups; White people, people living below the poverty level, adults 
with a high school diploma, and African Americans that reside within 50 
km of facilities in the source category is greater than the 
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: September 27, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to 
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart XXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; Rubber Tire Manufacturing

0
2. Section 63.5990 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), paragraph (f) introductory text, 
paragraphs (f)(2), and (f)(3); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (f)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.5990   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission limitations specified in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
if you are using a control device to comply with an emission limit. 
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER], you must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission limitations specified in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at 
all times
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], except as provided in Sec.  63.5982(b)(4), 
you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], at all times, you 
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air 
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not 
require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels 
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination 
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and 
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the

[[Page 58292]]

Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
    (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each affected source that complies with 
the emission limits in Tables 1 through 3 to this subpart using a 
control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). After 
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
    (f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in your site-specific monitoring plan, you 
must also address the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (3) of this section as follows. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must also address the ongoing procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section as follows.
* * * * *
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 
accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d). After [DATE 
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d)(1) and (2).
    (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  
63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or 
operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of 
the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject 
to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, 
upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan 
is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., 
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be 
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for 
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of 
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.  
63.8(d)(2); and
    (4) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures 
in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), 
and (e)(2)(i).
0
3. Section 63.5993 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.5993   What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], performance tests shall be conducted 
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 
operator based on representative performance of the affected source for 
the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of 
startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an 
applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance 
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record 
the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, 
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 
tests.
    (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], You must conduct three separate test runs for 
each performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1) unless otherwise specified in the test method. Each test run 
must last at least 1 hour. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must conduct 
three separate test runs for each performance test required in this 
section, as specified in Sec.  63.5993(c) above, unless otherwise 
specified in the test method. Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.5995 is amended by revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.5995   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (d) For any other control device, or for other capture systems, 
ensure that the CPMS is operated according to a monitoring plan 
submitted to the Administrator with the Notification of Compliance 
Status report required by Sec.  63.9(h). The monitoring plan must meet 
the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section. Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to 
the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator 
require an alternate monitoring scheme.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.6009 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding 
paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6009  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each initial compliance demonstration 
required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart that includes a 
performance test conducted according to the requirements in table 5 to 
this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test 
according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], For each initial 
compliance demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart 
that includes a performance test conducted according to the 
requirements in table 5 to this subpart, you must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test 
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day 
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.  
63.10(d)(2) and Sec.  63.6010(h)(1) through (3).
* * * * *
    (k) You must submit to the Administrator notification reports of 
the following recorded information. Beginning on [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER

[[Page 58293]]

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or once the 
reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, 
whichever date is later, you must submit all subsequent notification of 
compliance status reports required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  
63.6009(d) through (i) to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov). 
You must use the appropriate electronic report form (i.e., template) on 
the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date on which the report form becomes available will 
be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the 
notification of compliance status report specific to this subpart is 
not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must 
submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses 
listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 
year, you must begin submitting all subsequent notification of 
compliance status reports via CEDRI. The applicable notification must 
be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of 
the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim that some of 
the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential 
business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the CEDRI 
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph. Where applicable, you may assert a claim of EPA system 
outage, in accordance with Sec.  63.6010(i), or force majeure, in 
accordance with Sec.  63.6010(j), for failure to timely comply with 
this requirement.
0
6. Section 63.6010 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (4);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d);
0
d. Revising paragraph (g); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.6010  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the first semiannual compliance report must 
be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, 
whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.5983. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the first semiannual compliance report must 
be submitted electronically via CEDRI no later than July 31 or January 
31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.5983.
* * * * *
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each subsequent semiannual compliance report 
must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, 
whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual 
reporting period. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each subsequent semiannual 
compliance report must be submitted electronically via CEDRI no later 
than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following 
the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction 
during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must 
include the information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
    (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each deviation from an emission 
limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an 
affected source, the compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
when the affected source is operating. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each 
deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating 
limit) that occurs at an affected source, the compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) and (d)(1) 
through (3) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source is operating.
    (1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the total operating time of each affected 
source during the reporting period. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in the event that 
an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the 
number of failures. For each failure record the date, time and duration 
of each failure.
    (2) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] information on the starting date, starting 
time, duration, and cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, 
if applicable) and the corrective action taken. After [DATE 180 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for 
each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list 
of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], record actions taken to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.5990, and any corrective actions taken to 
return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (g) Before [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or once the reporting form has been available on 
the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, if acceptable to 
both the Administrator and you, you may submit reports and 
notifications electronically. Beginning on [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or once the 
reporting form has been available on the

[[Page 58294]]

CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, you must submit the 
semiannual compliance report required in Sec.  63.6010(c)(1) through 
(10), as applicable, to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). You must use 
the appropriate electronic report form on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date on 
which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI 
website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report 
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the 
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the 
appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the form has been 
available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent 
reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the 
reports are submitted. If you claim that some of the information 
required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, 
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be 
generated using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the 
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph.
    (h) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you use a control system (add-on control 
device and capture system) to meet the emission limitations, you must 
also conduct a performance test at least once every 5 years following 
your initial compliance demonstration to verify control system 
performance and reestablish operating parameters or operating limits 
for control systems used to comply with the emissions limits. Within 60 
days after the date of completing each performance test required by 
this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test 
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed 
through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI, 
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (i) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if you are required to electronically submit a 
report or notification (i.e., Notification of Compliance Status Report) 
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system 
outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To 
assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements 
outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report or notification within the time 
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report or notification must be 
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is 
resolved.
    (j) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if you are required to electronically submit a 
report or notification (i.e., Notification of Compliance Status Report) 
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure 
for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert 
a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety

[[Page 58295]]

hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale 
power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
7. Section 63.6011 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6011  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], it is 
not required to keep records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) 
related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
* * * * *
    (e) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] any records required to be maintained by this 
subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be 
maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic 
copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, 
data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or 
the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.6015 is amended by revising the definition for Deviation 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6015  What definitions apply to this part?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject 
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], fails to meet any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this 
subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether 
or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after [DATE 
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
0
9. Table 15 of Subpart XXXX is revised to read as follows:

                          Table 15 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
 [As stated in Sec.   63.6010, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        You must submit a(n)              The report must contain . . .       You must submit the report . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report                  a. If there are no deviations from    Semiannually according to the
                                       any emission limitations that apply   requirements in Sec.   63.6010(b),
                                       to you, a statement that there were   unless you meet the requirements
                                       no deviations from the emission       for annual reporting in Sec.
                                       limitations during the reporting      63.6010(f).
                                       period. If there were no periods
                                       during which the CPMS was out-of-
                                       control as specified in Sec.
                                       63.8(c)(7), a statement that there
                                       were no periods during which the
                                       CPMS was out-of-control during the
                                       reporting period.
                                      b. If you have a deviation from any   Semiannually according to the
                                       emission limitation during the        requirements in Sec.   63.6010(b),
                                       reporting period at an affected       unless you meet the requirements
                                       source where you are not using a      for annual reporting in Sec.
                                       CPMS, the report must contain the     63.6010(f).
                                       information in Sec.   63.6010(d).
                                       If the deviation occurred at a
                                       source where you are using a CMPS
                                       or if there were periods during
                                       which the CPMS were out-of-control
                                       as specified in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                       the report must contain the
                                       information required by Sec.
                                       63.5990(f)(3).
                                      c. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE   Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                       OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                       FEDERAL REGISTER], If you had a       FEDERAL REGISTER], semiannually
                                       startup, shutdown or malfunction      according to the requirements in
                                       during the reporting period and you   Sec.   63.6010(b), unless you meet
                                       took actions consistent with your     the requirements for annual
                                       startup, shutdown, and malfunction    reporting in Sec.   63.6010(f).
                                       plan, the compliance report must      After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                       include the information in Sec.       PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                       63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180       FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is
                                       DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF     no longer required.
                                       FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                       REGISTER], this report is no longer
                                       required.

[[Page 58296]]

 
2. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE   a. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE   Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
 OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE   OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
 FEDERAL REGISTER], immediate          FEDERAL REGISTER], actions taken      FEDERAL REGISTER], by fax or
 startup, shutdown, and malfunction    for the event. After [DATE 180 DAYS   telephone within 2 working days
 report if you had a startup,          AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL    after starting actions inconsistent
 shutdown, or malfunction during the   RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this   with the plan. After [DATE 180 DAYS
 reporting period that is not          report is no longer required.         AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
 consistent with your startup,                                               RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this
 shutdown, and malfunction plan.                                             report is no longer required.
 After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
 PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
 FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is
 no longer required.
                                      b. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE   Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                       OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                       FEDERAL REGISTER], the information    FEDERAL REGISTER], by letter within
                                       in Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii). After      7 working days after the end of the
                                       [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF          event unless you have made
                                       PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE      alternative arrangements with the
                                       FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is     permitting authority (Sec.
                                       no longer required.                   63.10(d)(5)(ii)). After [DATE 180
                                                                             DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
                                                                             FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
                                                                             REGISTER], this report is no longer
                                                                             required.
3. Performance Test Report            If you use a control system (add-on   Conduct a performance test at least
                                       control device and capture system)    once every 5 years following your
                                       to meet the emission limitations.     initial compliance demonstration
                                                                             according to the requirements in
                                                                             Sec.   63.5993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
10. Table 17 of Subpart XXXX is revised to read as follows:
    Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], as stated in Sec.  63.6013, you must comply with 
the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to the 
following table:

          Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to This Subpart XXXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Applicable to Subpart XXXX?
                                                 Brief description of   ----------------------------------------
        Citation                Subject           applicable sections      Using a control        Not using a
                                                                                device          control device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.............  Applicability......  Initial applicability     Yes................  Yes.
                                                determination;
                                                applicability after
                                                standard established;
                                                permit requirements;
                                                extensions;
                                                notifications.
Sec.   63.2.............  Definitions........  Definitions for part 63   Yes................  Yes.
                                                standards.
Sec.   63.3.............  Units and            Units and abbreviations   Yes................  Yes.
                           Abbreviations.       for part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4.............  Prohibited           Prohibited activities;    Yes................  Yes.
                           Activities.          compliance date;
                                                circumvention;
                                                severability.
Sec.   63.5.............  Construction/        Applicability;            Yes................  Yes.
                           Reconstruction.      applications; approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a)..........  Applicability......  GP apply unless           Yes................  Yes.
                                                compliance extension;
                                                GP apply to area
                                                sources that become
                                                major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)...  Compliance Dates     Standards apply at        Yes................  Yes.
                           for New and          effective date; 3 years
                           Reconstructed        after effective date;
                           Sources.             upon startup; 10 years
                                                after construction or
                                                reconstruction
                                                commences for section
                                                112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).......  Notification.......  Must notify if commenced  Yes................  Yes.
                                                construction or
                                                reconstruction after
                                                proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).......  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).......  Compliance Dates     ........................  No.................  No.
                           for New and
                           Reconstructed Area
                           Sources that
                           Become Major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)...  Compliance Dates     Comply according to date  Yes................  Yes.
                           for Existing         in subpart, which must
                           Sources.             be no later than 3
                                                years after effective
                                                date; for CAA section
                                                112(f) standards,
                                                comply within 90 days
                                                of effective date
                                                unless compliance
                                                extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)...  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).......  Compliance Dates     Area sources that become  Yes................  Yes.
                           for Existing Area    major must comply with
                           Sources that         major source standards
                           Become Major.        by date indicated in
                                                subpart or by
                                                equivalent time period
                                                (for example, 3 years).
Sec.   63.6(d)..........  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)...  Operation &          Operate to minimize       Yes................  Yes.
                           Maintenance.         emissions at all times;
                                                correct malfunctions as
                                                soon as practicable;
                                                and operation and
                                                maintenance
                                                requirements
                                                independently
                                                enforceable;
                                                information
                                                Administrator will use
                                                to determine if
                                                operation and
                                                maintenance
                                                requirements were met.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).......  Startup, Shutdown,   ........................  Yes................  No.
                           and Malfunction
                           Plan (SSMP).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).......  Compliance Except    ........................  Yes................  No.
                           During SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)...  Methods for          Compliance based on       Yes................  Yes.
                           Determining          performance test;
                           Compliance.          operation and
                                                maintenance plans;
                                                records; inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)...  Alternative          Procedures for getting    Yes................  Yes.
                           Standard.            an alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)..........  Opacity/Visible      ........................  No.................  No.
                           Emission (VE)
                           Standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..........  Compliance           Procedures and criteria   Yes................  Yes.
                           Extension.           for Administrator to
                                                grant compliance
                                                extension.

[[Page 58297]]

 
Sec.   63.6(j)..........  Presidential         President may exempt      Yes................  Yes.
                           Compliance           source category from
                           Exemption.           requirement to comply
                                                with rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)...  Performance Test     ........................  No.................  No.
                           Dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).......  CAA section 114      Administrator may         Yes................  No.
                           Authority.           require a performance
                                                test under CAA section
                                                114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).......  Notification of      Must notify               Yes................  No.
                           Performance Test.    Administrator 60 days
                                                before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).......  Notification of      If rescheduling a         Yes................  No.
                           Rescheduling.        performance test is
                                                necessary, must notify
                                                Administrator 5 days
                                                before scheduled date
                                                of rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c)..........  Quality Assurance/   Requirement to submit     Yes................  No.
                           Test Plan.           site-specific test plan
                                                60 days before the test
                                                or on date
                                                Administrator agrees
                                                with: Test plan
                                                approval procedures;
                                                performance audit
                                                requirements; and
                                                internal and external
                                                quality assurance
                                                procedures for testing.
Sec.   63.7(d)..........  Testing Facilities.  Requirements for testing  Yes................  No.
                                                facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).......  Conditions for       Performance tests must    Yes................  No.
                           Conducting           be conducted under
                           Performance Tests.   representative
                                                conditions; cannot
                                                conduct performance
                                                tests during SSM; not a
                                                violation to exceed
                                                standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).......  Conditions for       Must conduct according    Yes................  No.
                           Conducting           to rule and EPA test
                           Performance Tests.   methods unless
                                                Administrator approves
                                                alternative.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).......  Test Run Duration..  Must have three test      Yes................  No.
                                                runs of at least 1 hour
                                                each; compliance is
                                                based on arithmetic
                                                mean of three runs; and
                                                conditions when data
                                                from an additional test
                                                run can be used.
Sec.   63.7(f)..........  Alternative Test     Procedures by which       Yes................  No.
                           Method.              Administrator can grant
                                                approval to use an
                                                alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g)..........  Performance Test     Must include raw data in  Yes................  No.
                           Data Analysis.       performance test
                                                report; must submit
                                                performance test data
                                                60 days after end of
                                                test with the
                                                Notification of
                                                Compliance Status
                                                report; and keep data
                                                for 5 years.
Sec.   63.7(h)..........  Waiver of Tests....  Procedures for            Yes................  No.
                                                Administrator to waive
                                                performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).......  Applicability of     Subject to all            Yes................  Yes.
                           Monitoring           monitoring requirements
                           Requirements.        in standard.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).......  Performance          Performance               Yes................  No.
                           Specifications.      Specifications in
                                                appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).......  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).......  Monitoring with      ........................  No.................  No.
                           Flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).......  Monitoring.........  Must conduct monitoring   Yes................  Yes.
                                                according to standard
                                                unless Administrator
                                                approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)...  Multiple Effluents   Specific requirements     Yes................  Yes.
                           and Multiple         for installing
                           Monitoring Systems.  monitoring systems;
                                                must install on each
                                                effluent before it is
                                                combined and before it
                                                is released to the
                                                atmosphere unless
                                                Administrator approves
                                                otherwise; if more than
                                                one monitoring system
                                                on an emission point,
                                                must report all
                                                monitoring system
                                                results, unless one
                                                monitoring system is a
                                                backup.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).......  Monitoring System    Maintain monitoring       Applies as modified  No.
                           Operation and        system in a manner        by Sec.
                           Maintenance.         consistent with good      63.5990(e) and (f).
                                                air pollution control
                                                practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)....  Routine and          ........................  No.................  No.
                           Predictable SSM.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)...  SSM not in SSMP....  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)..  Compliance with      How Administrator         Yes................  Yes.
                           Operation and        determines if source
                           Maintenance          complying with
                           Requirements.        operation and
                                                maintenance
                                                requirements; review of
                                                source operation and
                                                maintenance procedures,
                                                records, manufacturer's
                                                instructions,
                                                recommendations, and
                                                inspection of
                                                monitoring system.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)...  Monitoring System    Must install to get       Yes................  No.
                           Installation.        representative emission
                                                and parameter
                                                measurements; must
                                                verify operational
                                                status before or at
                                                performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).......  Continuous           ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                           Monitoring System                              by Sec.
                           (CMS) Requirements.                            63.5990(f).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).......  Continuous Opacity   ........................  No.................  No.
                           Monitoring Systems
                           (COMS) Minimum
                           Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).......  CMS Requirements...  ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                                                                          by Sec.
                                                                          63.5990(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)...  CMS Requirements...  Out-of-control periods,   Yes................  No.
                                                including reporting.
Sec.   63.8(d)..........  CMS Quality Control  ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                                                                          by Sec.
                                                                          63.5990(e) and (f).
Sec.   63.8(e)..........  CMS Performance      ........................  No.................  No.
                           Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...  Alternative          Procedures for            Yes................  Yes.
                           Monitoring Method.   Administrator to
                                                approve alternative
                                                monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).......  Alternative to       ........................  No.................  No.
                           Relative Accuracy
                           Test.
Sec.   63.8(g)..........  Data Reduction.....  ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                                                                          by Sec.
                                                                          63.5990(f).
Sec.   63.9(a)..........  Notification         Applicability and state   Yes................  Yes.
                           Requirements.        delegation.

[[Page 58298]]

 
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)...  Initial              Submit notification 120   Yes................  Yes.
                           Notifications.       days after effective
                                                date; notification of
                                                intent to construct/
                                                reconstruct,
                                                notification of
                                                commencement of
                                                construct/reconstruct,
                                                notification of
                                                startup; and contents
                                                of each.
Sec.   63.9(c)..........  Request for          Can request if cannot     Yes................  Yes.
                           Compliance           comply by date or if
                           Extension.           installed best
                                                available control
                                                technology or lowest
                                                achievable emission
                                                rate.
Sec.   63.9(d)..........  Notification of      For sources that          Yes................  Yes.
                           Special Compliance   commence construction
                           Requirements for     between proposal and
                           New Source.          promulgation and want
                                                to comply 3 years after
                                                effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e)..........  Notification of      Notify Administrator 60   Yes................  No.
                           Performance Test.    days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f)..........  Notification of VE/  No......................  No.................
                           Opacity Test.
Sec.   63.9(g)..........  Additional           No......................  No.................
                           Notifications When
                           Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)..........  Notification of      Contents; due 60 days     Yes................  Yes.
                           Compliance Status.   after end of
                                                performance test or
                                                other compliance
                                                demonstration, except
                                                for opacity/VE, which
                                                are due 30 days after;
                                                when to submit to
                                                Federal vs. State
                                                authority.
Sec.   63.9(i)..........  Adjustment of        Procedures for            Yes................  Yes.
                           Submittal            Administrator to
                           Deadlines.           approve change in when
                                                notifications must be
                                                submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j)..........  Change in Previous   Must submit within 15     Yes................  Yes.
                           Information.         days after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a).........  Recordkeeping/       Applies to all, unless    Yes................  Yes.
                           Reporting.           compliance extension;
                                                when to submit to
                                                Federal vs. State
                                                authority; procedures
                                                for owners of more than
                                                1 source.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)......  Recordkeeping/       General Requirements;     Yes................  Yes.
                           Reporting.           keep all records
                                                readily available; and
                                                keep for 5 years.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-    Records related to   ........................  Yes................  No.
 (iv).                     Startup, Shutdown,
                           and Malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)    CMS Records........  Malfunctions,             Yes................  No.
 and (x)-(xi).                                  inoperative, out-of-
                                                control; calibration
                                                checks; adjustments,
                                                maintenance.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-  Records............  Measurements to           Yes................  Yes.
 (ix).                                          demonstrate compliance
                                                with emission
                                                limitations;
                                                performance test,
                                                performance evaluation,
                                                and visible emission
                                                observation results;
                                                and measurements to
                                                determine conditions of
                                                performance tests and
                                                performance evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).  Records............  Records when under        Yes................  Yes.
                                                waiver.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)  Records............  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).  Records............  All documentation         Yes................  Yes.
                                                supporting Initial
                                                Notification and
                                                Notification of
                                                Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)......  Records............  Applicability             Yes................  Yes.
                                                determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c).........  Records............  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)......  General Reporting    Requirement to report...  Yes................  Yes.
                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)......  Report of            When to submit to         Yes................  No.
                           Performance Test     Federal or State
                           Results.             authority.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)......  Reporting Opacity    ........................  No.................  No.
                           or VE Observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)......  Progress Reports...  Must submit progress      Yes................  Yes.
                                                reports on schedule if
                                                under compliance
                                                extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)......  Startup, Shutdown,   ........................  Yes................  No.
                           and Malfunction
                           Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e).........  Additional CMS       ........................  No.................  No.
                           Reports.
Sec.   63.10(f).........  Waiver for           Procedures for            Yes................  Yes.
                           Recordkeeping/       Administrator to waive.
                           Reporting.
Sec.   63.11............  Flares.............  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.12............  Delegation.........  State authority to        Yes................  Yes.
                                                enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13............  Addresses..........  Addresses where reports,  Yes................  Yes.
                                                notifications, and
                                                requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14............  Incorporation by     Test methods              Yes................  Yes.
                           Reference.           incorporated by
                                                reference.
Sec.   63.15............  Availability of      Public and confidential   Yes................  Yes.
                           Information.         information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER], as stated in Sec.  63.6013, you must comply with the 
applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Applicable to Subpart XXXX?
                                                 Brief description of   ----------------------------------------
        Citation                Subject           applicable sections      Using a control        Not using a
                                                                                device          control device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.............  Applicability......  Initial applicability     Yes................  Yes.
                                                determination;
                                                applicability after
                                                standard established;
                                                permit requirements;
                                                extensions;
                                                notifications.
Sec.   63.2.............  Definitions........  Definitions for part 63   Yes................  Yes.
                                                standards.
Sec.   63.3.............  Units and            Units and abbreviations   Yes................  Yes.
                           Abbreviations.       for part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4.............  Prohibited           Prohibited activities;    Yes................  Yes.
                           Activities.          compliance date;
                                                circumvention;
                                                severability.
Sec.   63.5.............  Construction/        Applicability;            Yes................  Yes.
                           Reconstruction.      applications; approvals.

[[Page 58299]]

 
Sec.   63.6(a)..........  Applicability......  GP apply unless           Yes................  Yes.
                                                compliance extension;
                                                GP apply to area
                                                sources that become
                                                major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)...  Compliance Dates     Standards apply at        Yes................  Yes.
                           for New and          effective date; 3 years
                           Reconstructed        after effective date;
                           Sources.             upon startup; 10 years
                                                after construction or
                                                reconstruction
                                                commences for section
                                                112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).......  Notification.......  Must notify if commenced  Yes................  Yes.
                                                construction or
                                                reconstruction after
                                                proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).......  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).......  Compliance Dates     ........................  No.................  No.
                           for New and
                           Reconstructed Area
                           Sources that
                           Become Major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)...  Compliance Dates     Comply according to date  Yes................  Yes.
                           for Existing         in subpart, which must
                           Sources.             be no later than 3
                                                years after effective
                                                date; for CAA section
                                                112(f) standards,
                                                comply within 90 days
                                                of effective date
                                                unless compliance
                                                extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)...  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).......  Compliance Dates     Area sources that become  Yes................  Yes.
                           for Existing Area    major must comply with
                           Sources that         major source standards
                           Become Major.        by date indicated in
                                                subpart or by
                                                equivalent time period
                                                (for example, 3 years).
Sec.   63.6(d)..........  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)-     Operations &         ........................  No.................  No.
 (ii).                     Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)-   Operation &          Operate to minimize       Yes................  Yes.
 (2).                      Maintenance.         emissions at all times;
                                                correct malfunctions as
                                                soon as practicable;
                                                and operation and
                                                maintenance
                                                requirements
                                                independently
                                                enforceable;
                                                information
                                                Administrator will use
                                                to determine if
                                                operation and
                                                maintenance
                                                requirements were met.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).......  Startup, Shutdown,   ........................  No.................  No.
                           and Malfunction
                           Plan (SSMP).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).......  SSM Exemption......  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)...  Methods for          Compliance based on       Yes................  Yes.
                           Determining          performance test;
                           Compliance.          operation and
                                                maintenance plans;
                                                records; inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)...  Alternative          Procedures for getting    Yes................  Yes.
                           Standard.            an alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)..........  Opacity/Visible      ........................  No.................  No.
                           Emission (VE)
                           Standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..........  Compliance           Procedures and criteria   Yes................  Yes.
                           Extension.           for Administrator to
                                                grant compliance
                                                extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)..........  Presidential         President may exempt      Yes................  Yes.
                           Compliance           source category from
                           Exemption.           requirement to comply
                                                with rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)...  Performance Test     ........................  No.................  No.
                           Dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).......  CAA section 114      Administrator may         Yes................  No.
                           Authority.           require a performance
                                                test under CAA section
                                                114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).......  Notification of      Must notify               Yes................  No.
                           Performance Test.    Administrator 60 days
                                                before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).......  Notification of      If rescheduling a         Yes................  No.
                           Rescheduling.        performance test is
                                                necessary, must notify
                                                Administrator 5 days
                                                before scheduled date
                                                of rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c)..........  Quality Assurance/   Requirement to submit     Yes................  No.
                           Test Plan.           site-specific test plan
                                                60 days before the test
                                                or on date
                                                Administrator agrees
                                                with: Test plan
                                                approval procedures;
                                                performance audit
                                                requirements; and
                                                internal and external
                                                quality assurance
                                                procedures for testing.
Sec.   63.7(d)..........  Testing Facilities.  Requirements for testing  Yes................  No.
                                                facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).......  Conditions for       Performance tests must    No.................  No.
                           Conducting           be conducted under
                           Performance Tests.   representative
                                                conditions; cannot
                                                conduct performance
                                                tests during SSM; not a
                                                violation to exceed
                                                standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).......  Conditions for       Must conduct according    Yes................  No.
                           Conducting           to rule and EPA test
                           Performance Tests.   methods unless
                                                Administrator approves
                                                alternative.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).......  Test Run Duration..  Must have three test      Yes................  No.
                                                runs of at least 1 hour
                                                each; compliance is
                                                based on arithmetic
                                                mean of three runs; and
                                                conditions when data
                                                from an additional test
                                                run can be used.
Sec.   63.7(f)..........  Alternative Test     Procedures by which       Yes................  No.
                           Method.              Administrator can grant
                                                approval to use an
                                                alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g)..........  Performance Test     Must include raw data in  Yes................  No.
                           Data Analysis.       performance test
                                                report; must submit
                                                performance test data
                                                60 days after end of
                                                test with the
                                                Notification of
                                                Compliance Status
                                                report; and keep data
                                                for 5 years.
Sec.   63.7(h)..........  Waiver of Tests....  Procedures for            Yes................  No.
                                                Administrator to waive
                                                performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).......  Applicability of     Subject to all            Yes................  Yes.
                           Monitoring           monitoring requirements
                           Requirements.        in standard.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).......  Performance          Performance               Yes................  No.
                           Specifications.      Specifications in
                                                appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).......  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).......  Monitoring with      ........................  No.................  No.
                           Flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).......  Monitoring.........  Must conduct monitoring   Yes................  Yes.
                                                according to standard
                                                unless Administrator
                                                approves alternative.

[[Page 58300]]

 
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)...  Multiple Effluents   Specific requirements     Yes................  Yes.
                           and Multiple         for installing
                           Monitoring Systems.  monitoring systems;
                                                must install on each
                                                effluent before it is
                                                combined and before it
                                                is released to the
                                                atmosphere unless
                                                Administrator approves
                                                otherwise; if more than
                                                one monitoring system
                                                on an emission point,
                                                must report all
                                                monitoring system
                                                results, unless one
                                                monitoring system is a
                                                backup.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).......  Monitoring System    Maintain monitoring       Applies as modified  No.
                           Operation and        system in a manner        by Sec.
                           Maintenance.         consistent with good      63.5990(e) and (f).
                                                air pollution control
                                                practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)....  Routine and          ........................  No.................  No.
                           Predictable SSM.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)...  SSM not in SSMP....  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)..  Compliance with      How Administrator         No.................  No.
                           Operation and        determines if source
                           Maintenance          complying with
                           Requirements.        operation and
                                                maintenance
                                                requirements; review of
                                                source operation and
                                                maintenance procedures,
                                                records, manufacturer's
                                                instructions,
                                                recommendations, and
                                                inspection of
                                                monitoring system.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)...  Monitoring System    Must install to get       Yes................  No.
                           Installation.        representative emission
                                                and parameter
                                                measurements; must
                                                verify operational
                                                status before or at
                                                performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).......  Continuous           ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                           Monitoring System                              by Sec.
                           (CMS) Requirements.                            63.5990(f).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).......  Continuous Opacity   ........................  No.................  No.
                           Monitoring Systems
                           (COMS) Minimum
                           Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).......  CMS Requirements...  ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                                                                          by Sec.
                                                                          63.5990(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)...  CMS Requirements...  Out-of-control periods,   Yes................  No.
                                                including reporting.
Sec.   63.8(d)..........  CMS Quality Control  ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                                                                          by Sec.
                                                                          63.5990(e) and (f).
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).......  Written Procedures   ........................  No.................  No
                           for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(e)..........  CMS Performance      ........................  No.................  No.
                           Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...  Alternative          Procedures for            Yes................  Yes.
                           Monitoring Method.   Administrator to
                                                approve alternative
                                                monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).......  Alternative to       ........................  No.................  No.
                           Relative Accuracy
                           Test.
Sec.   63.8(g)..........  Data Reduction.....  ........................  Applies as modified  No.
                                                                          by Sec.
                                                                          63.5990(f).
Sec.   63.9(a)..........  Notification         Applicability and state   Yes................  Yes.
                           Requirements.        delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)...  Initial              Submit notification 120   Yes................  Yes.
                           Notifications.       days after effective
                                                date; notification of
                                                intent to construct/
                                                reconstruct,
                                                notification of
                                                commencement of
                                                construct/reconstruct,
                                                notification of
                                                startup; and contents
                                                of each.
Sec.   63.9(c)..........  Request for          Can request if cannot     Yes................  Yes.
                           Compliance           comply by date or if
                           Extension.           installed best
                                                available control
                                                technology or lowest
                                                achievable emission
                                                rate.
Sec.   63.9(d)..........  Notification of      For sources that          Yes................  Yes.
                           Special Compliance   commence construction
                           Requirements for     between proposal and
                           New Source.          promulgation and want
                                                to comply 3 years after
                                                effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e)..........  Notification of      Notify Administrator 60   Yes................  No.
                           Performance Test.    days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f)..........  Notification of VE/  ........................  No.................  No.
                           Opacity Test.
Sec.   63.9(g)..........  Additional           ........................  No.................  No.
                           Notifications When
                           Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)..........  Notification of      Contents; due 60 days     Yes................  Yes.
                           Compliance Status.   after end of
                                                performance test or
                                                other compliance
                                                demonstration, except
                                                for opacity/VE, which
                                                are due 30 days after;
                                                when to submit to
                                                Federal vs. State
                                                authority.
Sec.   63.9(i)..........  Adjustment of        Procedures for            Yes................  Yes.
                           Submittal            Administrator to
                           Deadlines.           approve change in when
                                                notifications must be
                                                submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j)..........  Change in Previous   Must submit within 15     Yes................  Yes.
                           Information.         days after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a).........  Recordkeeping/       Applies to all, unless    Yes................  Yes.
                           Reporting.           compliance extension;
                                                when to submit to
                                                Federal vs. State
                                                authority; procedures
                                                for owners of more than
                                                1 source.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)......  Recordkeeping/       General Requirements;     Yes................  Yes.
                           Reporting.           keep all records
                                                readily available; and
                                                keep for 5 years.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)     Records related to   ........................  No.................  No.
 and (iv)-(v).             Startup, Shutdown,
                           and Malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)..  Recordkeeping of     ........................  No. See 63.6010 for  ..................
                           failures to meet a                             recordkeeping of
                           standard.                                      (1) date, time and
                                                                          duration; (2)
                                                                          listing of
                                                                          affected source or
                                                                          equipment, and an
                                                                          estimate of the
                                                                          quantity of each
                                                                          regulated
                                                                          pollutant emitted
                                                                          over the standard;
                                                                          and (3) actions to
                                                                          minimize emissions
                                                                          and correct the
                                                                          failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii),  CMS Records........  Malfunctions,             Yes................  No.
 (vi), and (x)-(xi).                            inoperative, out-of-
                                                control; calibration
                                                checks; adjustments,
                                                maintenance.

[[Page 58301]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (vii)- Records............  Measurements to           Yes................  Yes.
 (ix).                                          demonstrate compliance
                                                with emission
                                                limitations;
                                                performance test,
                                                performance evaluation,
                                                and visible emission
                                                observation results;
                                                and measurements to
                                                determine conditions of
                                                performance tests and
                                                performance evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).  Records............  Records when under        Yes................  Yes.
                                                waiver.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)        Records............  ........................  No.................  No.
 (xiii).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (xiv)  Records............  All documentation         Yes................  Yes.
                                                supporting Initial
                                                Notification and
                                                Notification of
                                                Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)......  Records............  Applicability             Yes................  Yes.
                                                determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c).........  Records............  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)......  General Reporting    Requirement to report...  Yes................  Yes.
                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)......  Report of            When to submit to         Yes................  No.
                           Performance Test     Federal or State
                           Results.             authority.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)......  Reporting Opacity    ........................  No.................  No.
                           or VE Observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)......  Progress Reports...  Must submit progress      Yes................  Yes.
                                                reports on schedule if
                                                under compliance
                                                extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)......  Startup, Shutdown,   ........................  No.................  No.
                           and Malfunction
                           Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e).........  Additional CMS       ........................  No.................  No.
                           Reports.
Sec.   63.10(f).........  Waiver for           Procedures for            Yes................  Yes.
                           Recordkeeping/       Administrator to waive.
                           Reporting.
Sec.   63.11............  Flares.............  ........................  No.................  No.
Sec.   63.12............  Delegation.........  State authority to        Yes................  Yes.
                                                enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13............  Addresses..........  Addresses where reports,  Yes................  Yes.
                                                notifications, and
                                                requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14............  Incorporation by     Test methods              Yes................  Yes.
                           Reference.           incorporated by
                                                reference.
Sec.   63.15............  Availability of      Public and confidential   Yes................  Yes.
                           Information.         information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-21837 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.