National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing, 94886-94922 [2024-26895]

Download as PDF 94886 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392; FRL–5949.1– 03–OAR] RIN 2060–AV70 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Rubber Tire Manufacturing, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure that all emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from sources in the source category are regulated, the EPA is promulgating emissions standards for the rubber processing subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, which is the only unregulated subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. DATES: This final rule is effective on November 29, 2024. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 29, 2024. ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. 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 as pdf versions that can only be accessed on the EPA computers in the docket office reading room. Certain databases and physical items cannot be downloaded from the docket but may be requested by contacting the docket office at 202–566–1744. The docket office has up to 10 business days to respond to these requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are available electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Korbin Smith, khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 Sector Policies and Programs Division, Mail Drop: D243–04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2416; and email address: smith.korbin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 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: 3xRDL three times the representative detection level BDL below detection limit BLDS bag leak detection system CBI Confidential Business Information CEMS continuous emission monitoring system CFR Code of Federal Regulations DLL detection level limited DRE destruction and removal efficiency EPA Environmental Protection Agency fPM filterable particulate matter g gram g/Mg grams per megagram HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) ICR information collection request km kilometer lb pound lb/Mton pounds per million tons lb/ton pounds per ton MACT maximum achievable control technology Mg megagram NAICS North American Industry Classification System 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 PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PM particulate matter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RDL representative detection level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR risk and technology review SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction THC total hydrocarbons the court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit mg/Nm3 microgram per normal cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper predictive limit VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compound Background information. On November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed revisions to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP (88 FR 78692), specifically standards for the rubber processing subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, to ensure that all emissions of HAP from sources in PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the source category are regulated. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in Comment Summary and Response Document for Proposed NESHAP for Rubber Processing in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket. 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? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category in our November 16, 2023, proposal? D. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? B. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? A. Emission Standards for Unregulated Organic HAP Emissions from the Rubber Processing Subcategory B. Emission Standards for Unregulated Metal HAP Emissions from the Rubber Processing Subcategory C. Emission Testing and Compliance Demonstrations V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION NESHAP and source category Rubber Tire Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX). khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 1 North American System (NAICS). Industry NAICS 1 code 326211, 326212, 314992. Classification Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. 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 final VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) by January 28, 2025. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? On November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed revisions to the NESHAP for Rubber Tire Manufacturing.1 The EPA is finalizing in this action amendments to the NESHAP to ensure that all 188 PO 00000 FR78962, November 16, 2023. Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94887 emissions of HAP from sources in the source category are regulated. In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) decision issued on April 21, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA has an obligation to address unregulated emissions from a major source category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review.2 In setting standards for major source categories under CAA 112(d), EPA has the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA 112((b).3 The amendments in this rulemaking address currently unregulated emissions of HAP from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, specifically from the rubber processing subcategory. Available data indicate the following unregulated pollutants are emitted from the source category: organic HAP compounds and metallic HAP compounds. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing standards that reflect maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for these pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Additionally, in accordance with CAA, costs are not considered when setting these initial MACT standards. B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? The EPA promulgated the initial Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP on July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45598). The standards are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. The Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category consists of facilities that produce rubber tire components including but not limited to rubber compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord, and liners. The source category covered by the NESHAP currently includes 15 major source facilities.Since first established, the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category has been split into 4 subcategories for different phases of rubber tire manufacturing. These subcategories include rubber processing, tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application. In the original Rubber Tire Manufactuing NESHAP, emission limits were established for tire production, tire cord production and puncture sealant 2 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (‘‘LEAN’’). 3 See Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F3d 524, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (‘‘[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of section 112(d) to require the regulations of all HAPs listed in section 112(b)(1)’’ citations omitted). E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94888 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations application but no standards were established for rubber processing. The 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category (67 FR 45598) established emission limits on a subcategory basis as follows. 1. Rubber Processing There are currently no emission limits for the rubber processing subcategory. The EPA proposed emission limits for the rubber processing subcategory on November 16, 2023, and the EPA is finalizing emission limits for this subcategory with this action. 2. Tire Production There are 2 equivalent standards for the tire production subcategory, and sources can comply with either standard. The first standard, is based on HAP materials purchased and used in the process. This standard considers that the quantity of HAP material purchased will represent the amount of HAP emitted for uncontrolled processes. The emission limit requires that emissions of each HAP in table 21 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire production process not exceed 1,000 grams (g) HAP per megagram (Mg) (2 pounds per ton (lb/ ton)) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source, and requires that the amount of each HAP not in table 21 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire production process not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source. The second standard is a productionbased emission-limit option. A production-based standard sets a quantity of emissions allowed per unit of production (i.e., amount of HAP emitted per ton of rubber produced). For this option, emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per megagram (g/ Mg), (0.00005 lb/ton) of rubber processed at the tire production affected source. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 3. Tire Cord Production There are 3 standards for the tire cord production subcategory, and sources can choose which standard to comply with within this subcategory, depending, in part, on whether the source is an existing or new source. The first standard is a production-based emission-limit option for existing tire cord production affected sources. As part of this standard, emissions must not exceed 280 g HAP per Mg (0.56 lb/ ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source for the monthly average. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 The second standard is a productionbased emission-limit option for new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of this standard, emissions must not exceed 220 g HAP per Mg (0.43 lb/ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source. The third standard is a HAP constituent emission-limit option available to both existing and new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. A HAP constituent standard requires that no material be purchased and used at an affected facility that contains HAP in amounts above a specific composition limit. To comply with this standard, emissions of each HAP in table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire cord production process must not exceed 1,000 g HAP per Mg (2 lb/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, that is used in the tire cord production process must not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source. 4. Puncture Sealant Application There are 3 equivalent standards for the puncture sealant application subcategory, and sources can choose which standard to comply with within this subcategory depending, in part, on whether the source is an existing or new source. The first standard is a percent reduction emission-limit option for existing puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of this standard, facilities are required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight. The second standard is a percent reduction emission-limit option for new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of this standard, facilities are required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as VOCs) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight. The third standard is a HAP constituent emission-limit option for both existing and new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of this standard, emissions of each HAP in table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 g HAP per Mg (2 lb/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 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected source. 5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission Limits Compliance alternatives are available for the 3 subcategories currently subject to emission limits (tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application) to meet the emission limits mentioned earlier in section II.B. of this preamble. For more information on these compliance alternatives, a detailed breakdown of the compliance alternatives for these subcategories may be found at 40 CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR 63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989, for tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application, respectively. These alternatives are also summarized here. For tire production, alternatives for showing compliance are available for both emission standards. For the standard option based on the materials purchased and used the alternatives are to use only cements and solvents that as purchased contain no more HAP than allowed by the specified emission limitations; use cements and solvents such that the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission limitations; or use control devices to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission limitations. For the production-based standard option the alternatives are to use cements and solvents such that the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emissions limitations; or use control devices to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission limitations. For tire cord production there are two alternative compliance options: use coating solutions such that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the applicable emission limit; or use a control device to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the applicable emission limitation. For puncture sealant application, there are two alternative compliance options: use an emissions capture system and control device and demonstrate that the application booth emissions meet the specified emission limitations and operating limits; or use a permanent total enclosure that satisfies the Method 204 criteria in 40 CFR part 51 and demonstrate that the control device meets the specified operating limits and reduces at least 86 percent of emissions for existing sources and 95 percent of emissions for new sources. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 6. Recent Actions Relating to the NESHAP for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category In the 2020 Risk and Technology Review (RTR) (85 FR 44752), the EPA found that the risk associated with air emissions from rubber tire manufacturing was acceptable considering all the health information and factors evaluated, and risk estimation uncertainty. The EPA found that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA determined that there were no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that warranted revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Based on the analysis conducted as part of the RTR, no revisions to the numerical emission limits were made for any of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing subcategories. The 2020 RTR addressed periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by clarifying that emissions during SSM operations are subject to the NESHAP. In addition, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring electronic reporting of performance test results and reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 C. What changes did we propose for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category in our November 16, 2023, proposal? In response to the LEAN decision requiring the EPA to ensure that missing emission standards are promulgated when the EPA undertakes a 112(d)(6) technology review, on November 16, 2023, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that took into consideration the MACT analyses for the rubber processing subcategory. In the proposed rule, the EPA proposed numerical emissions limits for the rubber processing subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, which is the only unregulated subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category with unregulated HAP. Additionally, EPA solicited comment on several aspects of the proposed rulemaking. EPA solicited comment on the use of THC as a surrogate for organic HAP, as well as on the EPA’s approach to testing for THC, as opposed to testing for individual speciated organic HAP. EPA solicited comment on the use of THC as a surrogate in place of setting emission limits for PAHs, specifically. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 EPA solicited comment on our approach regarding the 30-day THC data. EPA solicited comment on the proposed approach to addressing negative THC values. EPA solicited comment on the proposed compliance periods, and specifically requested submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended provisions and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised provisions. The EPA proposed to establish MACT standards for the rubber processing subcategory for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP. For these MACT standards, we proposed a THC emission limit for mixers processing silica containing compounds and a THC emission limit for mixers processing non-silica containing compounds. Both limits were based on a 15-day rolling average. The EPA also proposed MACT standards for filterable particulate matter (fPM) and metal HAP. The emission limits proposed for new and existing sources were an emissions limit for fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP, with an emission limit for total metal HAP as an alternative. D. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal? Following publication of the proposed rule, the EPA offered the opportunity for a public hearing, but none was requested. However, the USTMA did request a meeting with the EPA, and the EPA and USTMA met in May 2024 and USTMA discussed supplemental testing performed by USTMA and the use of THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. A summary of that meeting is in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). III. What is included in this final rule? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the MACT provisions of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and sets emission limitations for the rubber tire processing subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP based on those determinations. A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? We are establishing MACT standards for the rubber processing subcategory in the rubber tire manufacturing source category, as required by the CAA. To satisfy the requirements of CAA section PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94889 112(d)(2) and (3), we are revising the NESHAP to include emissions limitations for the previously unregulated rubber processing subcategory including limitations for THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions; fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP; and an alternative limit for metal HAP. The standards in this final rule are similar in format to those in the proposed rule, but with updates to the standards based on public comments and additional data received and analyzed for the final rule. In the proposal, the EPA included separate THC standards for silica-containing and non-silica-containing processed rubber. Based on comments and data received during the comment period, the EPA is establishing a single MACT standard, instead of setting separate standards for the mixing of silica-containing and nonsilica containing compounds, as proposed. The same THC standard is being established for both new and existing facilities and is based on 3 times the representative detection level (3xRDL) since this value is larger than the calculated Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) for THC.4 Also based on the public comments, the final rule is allowing facility-wide averaging of the individual emissions from each mixer to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limits. The final rule is also setting standards for fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP, and an alternative standard for metal HAP, with the same standards applying for new and existing facilities. The final standards for fPM and metal HAP are also based on the 3xRDL value for fPM and metal HAP, since this value is larger than the calculated UPL. Also based on the public comments, the final rule is allowing facility-wide averaging of the individual emissions from each mixer to demonstrate compliance with the fPM emission limits. 1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons The EPA received data from 5 facilities for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions. The PAH compounds measured were aniline, dibenzofuran, hydroquinone, naphthalene, and o-toluidine. The PAH emissions were collected using U.S. EPA SW–846 Method 0010, extracted 4 It is the practice of the EPA to use the higher of the calculated UPL and 3xRDL value when setting an emission limit, as describedin the memorandum, Data and Procedure for Handling Below Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94890 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 using Method 3542, and analyzed using Method 8270E.5 Many of the measured emissions for the PAH compounds were below the detection limit (BDL) of the approved testing method, and others were detection level limited (DLL). Results are considered BDL when every measured result for a compound in a test run is less than the laboratory’s reported detection level.6 Data is considered DLL when only some results in a given test run are less than the laboratory’s reported detection level for that compound. The Agency’s practice in establishing emission limits for pollutants with DLL values is to use the DLL value to calculate the UPL and then to compare the calculated UPL to a value that is 3 times the pollutant’s RDL (3xRDL value). Consistent with our practice described in the aforementioned memo,7 the larger of the UPL calculation or the 3xRDL value becomes the emission limit. Reported levels of 2 PAH compounds— dibenzofuran and hydroquinone—are BDL at each facility; therefore, the EPA did not propose and is not promulgating emission limits for dibenzofuran or hydroquinone. The EPA has no data indicating the presence of polychlorinated dioxins or polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and measured unpolychlorinated dibenzofuran values are BDL, therefore, the EPA did not propose and is not promulgating separate emission limits for dioxin-like compounds. The test results for the remaining PAH species—aniline, naphthalene, and otoluidine—were DLL. However, these PAH species are also organic HAP and hydrocarbons and will be accounted for in THC measurements. As such, setting both a separate PAH standard in addition to a THC standard would be redundant and doubly regulate PAH emissions. In order to prevent this redundance, the EPA did not propose and is not promulgating a separate emission limit for PAHs and instead proposed and is promulgating a limit for THC emissions, which will encompass PAHs. The THC results include the effect of PAH, other organic HAP, and VOC contained in exhaust streams and are well suited to serve as surrogates for these compounds. 5 https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw/846/ compendium. 6 In keeping with the EPA’s practice, when all pollutant values fall below BDL, no emission limit should be established for that pollutant. 7 See the memorandum Data and Procedure for Handling Below Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 A detailed description of the analysis of the PAH data is included in the memorandum, Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry, located in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 2. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions a. THC Existing Source Standard The EPA determined the existing source MACT floor THC emission limit based on the top 2 performing mixers. There are 97 mixers; for a source category of this size, the CAA requires the EPA to use the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) when establishing the MACT floor level of control. The EPA has THC data measured for 12 mixers, and 12 percent of 12 mixers is 1.44 mixers, which we rounded up to 2 mixers for purposes of determining the existing source MACT floor. The EPA received THC data from an additional 5 mixers as a result of the ICR, but these data represented the uncontrolled emissions from units that were collected prior to the emission stream entering a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) and the EPA did not have data for the controlled emissions, which would be collected after the exhaust stream has passed through the RTO. In response to comments, the EPA determined the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of an RTO can vary depending on the THC inlet concentration, thus a reported DRE measured at one THC concentration may not be applicable to the THC concentrations observed for these mixers. As such, without specifically measuring DRE values for each THC concentration, accurate controlled emissions could not be determined for these 5 mixers by applying the reported DRE to emissions prior to the control device. While it is expected that emissions from these controlled mixers would be low, the EPA does not have post-control emission data from these mixers. As a result, the EPA is not including these 5 mixers in the MACT analysis. When determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole number to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this instance, we rounded up to 2 mixers for determining PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the existing source MACT floor. The EPA is promulgating the MACT floor THC emission limit for existing sources based on the average 15-day emission rate achieved by the 2 best performing (i.e. lowest emitting) mixers. From the data available, the 2 best performing mixers are Continental Mt. Vernon mixer #22, which is controlled by an RTO, and Goodyear Fayetteville mixer #4, which has no control device for THC. For these 2 best performing mixers, the EPA included each mixer’s daily average THC emission rate in a list and then calculated 15-day rolling averages from the combined daily averages. The 15-day rolling averages were then used to calculate the 15-day UPL THC emission rate in g/Mg rubber produced, which was 24 g/Mg. The EPA-calculated THC emission limits for existing mixers are based on the calculated 99 percent UPL or 3xRDL, whichever is higher, calculated from the 15-day rolling averages of the data combined from the 2 mixers. The 3xRDL for THC for the 2 combined mixers is 63.1 g/Mg rubber produced. Because the 3xRDL value is higher than the calculated UPL value from the 2 combined mixers, and because the EPA rounds up when simplifying to 2 significant figures, the existing source THC limit in the final rule is 64 g/Mg rubber produced. You may choose to comply with the THC emission limit for each rubber processing mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an alternative facility-wide average for THC emissions for all mixers is discussed in section A.2.d. The maximum THC parts per million (ppm) value (from minute-to-minute analysis provided during the information collection request (ICR)) from the 2 best performers is 25 ppm, so an appropriate instrument range is 0 to 50 ppm, which leads to an RDL value of 3.082 ppm and a 3xRDL value of 9.25 ppm. For additional information on how the EPA calculated these RDL values please see the memorandum titled Measurement Detection Capabilities for EPA for Instrumental Test Methods located in the docket for this rule. When this 3xRDL value is combined with the average flow rate, and production of the best performers, the result is 63.1 g/Mg rubber produced. Since the 3xRDL value is higher than the UPL value of 24 g/Mg rubber produced, the 3xRDL value (63.1 g/Mg) is the basis for the existing source MACT floor for all rubber processing, which is then set to 64 g/Mg. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 Of the 12 mixers for which the EPA has measured emissions, 4 mixers (33 percent) have emissions (based on their calculated UPL) that are estimated to be greater than the final rule THC limit of 64 g/Mg rubber produced (rounded to 2 significant figures) and thus would need to install a control device. Therefore, we estimate that 33 percent of the 97 mixers (33 mixers) located at major sources would need to be controlled (e.g., by an RTO) to meet the final rule limit. Based on data received in response to the CAA section 114 information request, which shows on average currently installed RTOs are shared by 3 co-located mixers, EPA estimates, on average, one RTO will be shared by 3 mixers for any new RTOs installed as a result of this rulemaking. Accounting for the current number of mixers and RTOs at each major source facility, the EPA estimates that a total of 17 RTOs (corresponding to a total of 35 mixers) would likely be needed to comply with this final rule. Given that 9 RTOs already exist at the regulated facilities at issue, the EPA expects that the cumulative impact to industry would be the installation of 8 new RTOs. EPA acknowledges it is possible some facilities may choose to comply with the rule through a variety of technology pathways including the installation of boilers instead of RTOs or a different ratio of RTOs to mixers than assumed in this analysis. However, EPA has no way of accurately knowing how facilities will choose to comply thus we are unable to determine exactly what business decisions firms will make. For additional information on how EPA calculated the amount of RTOs likely to be installed for this rulemaking see the memo ‘‘Rubber Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0392). b. THC Beyond-The-Floor Existing Source Standard In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, as a second step in the standard-setting process, the EPA must also examine whether to adopt additional, and more stringent, ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ regulatory options. The first step, as discussed in the preceding section, requires the establishment of an emission floor— developed under CAA section 112(d)(3). The second step requires consideration of whether additional reductions are achievable, taking into account the factors listed in section 112(d)(2) (i.e., cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements). If additional reductions VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 are determined to be achievable, taking these factors into account, the resulting emissions standards are referred to as ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ MACT standards.8 Unlike the MACT floor, which represents the minimum stringency requirement, the EPA must consider various impacts of more stringent regulatory options when considering beyond-the-floor options. If the EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory options are not reasonable, then EPA selects the MACT floor as the final MACT standard. However, if the EPA concludes that the beyond-the-floor levels of control are reasonable, when considering additional emissions reductions that would be achieved, then those beyond-the-floor measures represent the applicable MACT standard. As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we identify control options or techniques that could achieve emission reductions beyond the MACT floor level of control. The EPA did not identify any control options or techniques other than what is currently used (i.e., an RTO) that could serve as a basis for establishing a limit beyond the MACT floor. In addition to the lack of additional control options, the MACT floor limit for the existing source category already reflects the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured. Following the EPA’s well-established approach to determining MACT floor limits, the EPA is finalizing a MACT floor limit for the existing source category that is based on the 3xRDL value. This is because—for the measurement method and data—the value of 3xRDL is higher than the combined calculated UPL for the 2 best performing sources. This MACT floor limit based on 3xRDL reflects the detection limit of the measurement method and represents the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured. Because no further measurable reductions can be achieved from these sources, EPA is unable to adopt a beyond-the-floor limit in this action. c. THC New Source Standard The THC MACT emission limits for new sources are based on the emission limitation achieved by the single best performing similar source. However, as stated above the MACT floor limit is 8 CAA section 112(d)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that emissions standards promulgated under section 112 ‘‘shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emisions of the hazardous air pollutants,’’ after taking into consideration ‘‘the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements,’’ which EPA ‘‘determines is achievable.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94891 based on the 3xRDL value for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value is higher than the combined UPL, and thus represents the lowest level at which THC can be reliably detected. Because the MACT floor limit is based on the 3xRDL value for the THC measurements, it is not feasible to establish a lower limit. Therefore, the final MACT standard for new and existing mixers is the MACT floor limit and is 64 g/Mg. You may choose to comply with the THC emission limit for each rubber processing mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an alternative facility-wide average for THC emissions for all mixers is discussed in section A.2.d. d. Alternative THC Standard: FacilityWide Averaging In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received public comment regarding the potential for a facility-wide standard. Upon review, the EPA is establishing an alternative standard based on facility-wide averaging. Averaging across rubber mixers is appropriate, and consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2)–(3), because the total quantity of HAP that may be emitted by the regulated source is not greater than if each mixer complied separately with the applicable standard. For additional information on EPA’s decision to include facility-wide averaging, see the Response to Comments document available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0392). This standard is based on averaging the individual emissions of each mixer at a facility. For an individual mixer, the THC emission limit for both new and existing sources is 64 g/Mg (1.3 × 105 lb/Mton) of rubber processed; thus, the average for all mixers across a facility is also 64 g/Mg. Because the THC emission limit is already set at the 3xRDL level, no emissions discount is applied for setting the standard for facility-wide averaging. To comply based on averaging, the facility would sum the emissions from all mixers at the facility over a 15-day period and divide the sum of the emissions by the sum of the rubber processed in all of the mixers at the facility over the same 15-day period. 3. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP a. Existing Source Standard Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, the E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 94892 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations EPA has fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data is available from 5 of the mixers. The EPA had no reason to assume a difference in fPM and metal HAP emissions based on the mixing of silica-containing or non-silicacontaining compounds. Thus, a single emission standard was calculated for mixing all classes of rubber compounds. For each mixer, the EPA calculated the 99 percent UPL for both fPM and the sum of the metal HAP that were measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorous, and selenium). Detailed data by individual run and for each metal HAP, as well as total metal HAP and fPM, were provided and are summarized in the memorandum, Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry, included in the docket for this rulemaking. In the metal HAP measurements for Continental, Mt. Vernon, the phosphorous data were unreliable because of a contaminated reagent and are not included in the table and in the total metals. The PM data provided from USTMA before proposal for Danville mixers #5 and #7 were the only data containing fPM and corresponding rubber production data. The metal HAP data provided for Danville mixers #5 and #7 by USTMA before proposal were not in the format needed to calculate production-based emission rates. After proposal, the EPA also received additional fPM data from USTMA for 4 mixers as part of their public comments, and these data are also summarized in Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry memorandum, available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0392). The data for 3 mixers consisted of at least 3 runs, which is consistent with the fPM testing that the EPA requested in the ICR, and the data for the fourth mixer consisted of only 2 runs, which is fewer than the minimum number of runs requested in the ICR and the number needed to calculate a UPL value. There are 97 mixers; for a source category of this size, the CAA requires the EPA to determine the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has information). The EPA has metal HAP data from 5 mixers. The EPA calculated 12 percent of 5 mixers for metal HAP, which VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 results in 0.6. When determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole number to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this instance, we rounded the value of 0.6 up to one mixer for purposes of determining the existing source MACT floor for metal HAP. Since the EPA has fPM emissions data from a total of 10 mixers for which UPL values could be calculated, the MACT floor final rule limit for fPM is based on 12 percent of 10 mixers, which is 1.2. This includes the 7 tests from the EPA ICR, and 3 of the tests from USTMA for which a UPL value could be calculated. When determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole number to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this instance, we rounded the fPM of 1.2 up to 2 and the metal HAP value of 0.6 to one mixer for purposes of determining the existing source MACT. Because metal HAP are emitted as fPM, the EPA is using fPM as a surrogate for metal HAP. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing an alternative emission limit for total metal HAP. Data gathered from the CAA section 114 information request identified that the primary control devices utilized for metal HAP emissions on rubber tire mixers are baghouses and capture of fPM will reliably indicate capture of metal HAP. It is also practical to use fPM as a surrogate for metal HAP because the fPM emission limit accounts for variability in individual metal HAP emission rates among different batches of rubber compound being mixed. The EPA calculated the UPL for fPM as 2.5 g/Mg (4900 lb/Mton) of rubber produced and total metal HAP emission rate of 3.7 × 10¥2 g/Mg (74 lb/Mton) rubber produced. The lowest fPM UPL emission rate and the lowest metal HAP emission rate were measured at the same mixer, and the fPM and metal HAP emissions were measured simultaneously. The EPA calculated the 3xRDL for fPM using the average flow rate of the top 2 mixers. The average flow rate was 9,622 dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) and average production rate was 17.98 tons per hour (ton/hr) for Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1 and Goodyear Danville Mixer #7 as representative values. The calculations also used a fPM RDL of 2 mg and 3xRDL PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 of 6 mg in a sample volume of 2 dscm, or 3 mg/dscm. These values would provide a fPM 3xRDL value of 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton) rubber processed. These calculations are detailed in the MACT memo for the final rule. Because the 3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the final rule fPM emission limit is based on the 3xRDLvalue instead of the 99percent UPL value. Rounded to 2 significant figures, this limit is 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 × 103 lb/Mton). The EPA also used the flow and production data from Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1 (top performer) to calculate the 3xRDL value for total metal HAP. The calculations used the RDL values for each metal HAP in a sample volume of 2 dscf. The total metal HAP 3xRDL value is 109.7 mg in a sample volume of 2 dscm, or a value of 5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg rubber (110 lb/Mton) rubber processed using the flow and production data for Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1. Because the 3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the final rule total metal alternative emission limit is based on the 3xRDL value instead of the UPL value. Rounded to 2 significant figures, this limit is 5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg rubber (110 lb/ Mton). These calculations are detailed in the memorandum titled Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry found in the docket for this rule. You may choose to comply with the fPM emission limit (or the total metal HAP alternative) for each rubber processing mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an alternative facility-wide average of fPM (or total metal HAP) emissions for all mixers is discussed in section A.3.d. b. New Source Standard The fPM and the total metal HAP alternative MACT emission limits for new sources are based on the emission limitation achieved by the best controlled similar source. However, as stated above the MACT floor limit is set at the value of the 3xRDL for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value is higher than the combined UPL. Because the MACT floor limit is set at the 3xRDL value for both fPM and the total metal alternative measurements, it is not feasible to establish a lower limit. Therefore, the final MACT standard for new and existing mixers is the MACT floor limit and is 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton) rubber processed for fPM and 5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 rubber (110 lb/Mton) for total metal HAP. You may choose to comply with the fPM emission limit (or the total metal HAP alternative) for each rubber processing mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an alternative facility-wide average of fPM (or total metal HAP) emissions for all mixers is discussed in section A.3.d. c. Beyond the Floor Analysis In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, the EPA must examine more stringent ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ regulatory options when establishing the applicable MACT emission limitation. Unlike the MACT floor minimum stringency requirements, when considering beyond-the-floor options, the CAA provides that the EPA must consider various impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining whether beyond-the-floor measures should be included in a final MACT emission standard. If the EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory options are not reasonable, then the EPA selects the MACT floor as the final applicable MACT standard. However, if the EPA concludes that the beyond-the-floor levels of control are reasonable considering the additional emissions reductions that would be achieved, the EPA selects those levels as MACT.9 As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we identify control options or techniques that could achieve emission reductions beyond the MACT floor level of control. The EPA did not identify any control options or techniques other than what is currently used. The existing source MACT floor limit is set at the value of the 3xRDL for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value is higher than the average UPL of the 2 lowest emitting sources for fPM and the UPL of the single lowest emitting source for total metal HAP. For both fPM and total metal HAP, the existing source MACT floor limit is set at the 3xRDL value, which represents the lowest concentration that can be measured. As such, we did not identify additional controls for reducing emissions further because no further reductions can be achieved that are measurable. The final MACT standard for existing mixers is the MACT floor limit and is set at the 3×RDL value. 9 As discussed in supra section III.A.2.b., EPA evaluates whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate under CAA section 112(d)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 d. Alternative fPM Standard: FacilityWide Averaging In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received public comment regarding the potential for a facility-wide standard. Upon review, the EPA agrees with the commenters, and is establishing an alternative standard based on facility-wide averaging. For additional information on EPA’s decision to include facility-wide averaging, see the Response to Comments document available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0392). This standard is based on averaging the individual emissions of every mixer at a facility and can be applied to either the fPM or total metal HAP standard. For an individual mixer, the fPM emission limit for both new and existing sources is 3.0 g/Mg rubber produced (5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg for the total metal HAP alternative). Averaging this limit across all mixers at a facility results in an identical emission limit for the facilitywide alternative. Because the facilitywide average emission limit is identical to the limit for individual mixers, the EPA does not anticipate a difference in the achieved emissions reduction. As stated above, this approach is consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2)–(3), because the total quantity of HAP that may be emitted by the regulated source is not greater than if each mixer complied separately with the applicable standard. B. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? We are updating the electronic reporting requirements found in 40 CFR 63.6009(k) and in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) and (h) to reflect new procedures for reporting CBI. The update provides an email address to which source owners and operators can electronically mail CBI to the OAQPS CBI Office when submitting compliance reports. C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? Amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP finalized in this rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides that there shall be compliance ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard,’’ subject to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.10 In determining what 10 Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s 3-year maximum compliance period applies PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94893 compliance period is as ‘‘expeditious as practicable,’’ we consider the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects, as well as any time necessary to implement changes in operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA projects that some existing sources may be required to install addon controls to comply with the emission limits, including new RTOs and new or upgraded baghouses. These sources would require time to design, construct, conduct performance testing, and implement monitoring to comply with the revised provisions. Sources would also be required to install a THC continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) and conduct performance testing. Therefore, the final rule allows 3 years for existing sources to comply with the new emission standards. All affected facilities must continue meeting the current provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. This final action does not meet the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated by this action are effective on November 29, 2024 as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For all affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or before November 16, 2023, the final rule provides 3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to comply with the provisions of this action. For all affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after November 16, 2023, owners and operators must comply with the provisions by the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later). IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated under [section 112]’’ (brackets in original). E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94894 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket. A. Emission Standards for Unregulated Organic HAP Emissions From the Rubber Processing Subcategory khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? In the proposed rule, published on November 16, 2023, we proposed emission limits for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. Separate limits were proposed for mixing silica-containing and non-silica-containing rubber compounds, including different emission limits for new and existing sources. The proposed emission limits were based on the EPA’s determination of the MACT floor after options more stringent than the MACT floor were determined to not be feasible or costeffective. The format of the proposed limits was in grams of THC emitted per megagram of rubber produced over a 15day period. The proposed limits for existing sources were based on the average emission rate of the top 2 best performing sources, and the limits for new sources were based on the lowest emitting source. 2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? In the final rule, the EPA is promulgating THC emission limits as a surrogate for organic HAP for rubber processing but has made several changes since proposal. First, the EPA had proposed separate THC emission limits based on the mixing of silicacontaining or non-silica-containing compounds because the EPA believed the presence of silica compounds impacted the emission profiles. However, for the final rule the EPA is not promulgating separate standards for mixing silica-containing and non-silicacontaining rubber compounds. Second, the final THC emission limits for both new and existing sources are based on the 3xRDL value for THC because that value is higher than the calculated UPL of the 2 best performing sources for THC. Additionally, in response to comments, the EPA is not using data from mixers that tested and reported emissions prior to a control device such as an RTO. At proposal the EPA applied a DRE to the data from mixers that then routed emissions to an RTO, since those streams were combined with other mixers not being tested at that time. Since the EPA does not have true outlet VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 data (outlet of control device) from those mixers, we determined it is inappropriate to use such data to set MACT standards. Finally, the EPA is allowing facilities to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limit by averaging emissions across mixers at the same facility. 3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses? Comment: One commenter argued that emissions of organic HAP and THC vary too widely between mixers and even at different times at the same mixer to be practicably measured as the basis for an emission standard. The commenter noted that data already available to the EPA show that emission rates and species of organic HAP can vary depending on the tire component for which the rubber is being mixed, the different raw materials added, and the mixing conditions. The commenter stated that different organic HAP emissions are produced during rubber mixing from small amounts of organic HAP that are contained as impurities in the raw materials and are also generated by the mixing process when natural and synthetic rubbers are mixed at elevated temperatures. The commenter added that each product formulation may include different raw materials and ingredients because the unique combination of the different raw materials and ingredients imparts in a tire compound a specific combination of certain desired tire properties, such as traction, fuel efficiency, noise, vibration, robustness, etc. Thus, according to the commenter, the organic HAP and THC emission profile will differ from tire component to tire component and within the same tire component, between one product formulation and another. The same commenter added that different passes through the mixer within the rubber mixing process will also impact the levels of organic HAP and THC emissions from rubber mixers with the 3 major passes (initial, middle, and final) being different in terms of the raw materials and ingredients added, heating temperature, and duration. The commenter also noted that each pass specification is different from company to company and sometimes from plant to plant, and the passes that need to be run are different from tire component to tire component. As a result, according to the commenter, each pass will yield significantly different organic HAP and THC emissions, and the same pass at a different tire plant may produce significantly different organic HAP and PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 THC emissions. The commenter stated that these differences in emissions were demonstrated by past industry testing, the testing in response to the EPA’s ICR, and by the supplemental testing results submitted with the public comments. The commenter argued that attempting to determine an appropriate emission limitation using an average of 15 days or longer does not mean that the resulting limitation would be representative of the actual performance of the particular mixers tested for the ICR, let alone the entire range of operations and designs of the nearly 100 mixers at major source tire manufacturing plants. The commenter stated that, depending on when 15 days of sampling were conducted, or which tire component a mixer happened to be processing entirely or primarily during emissions testing, the average THC concentration emitted could be far higher or lower than what would be measured during a different 15-day interval. The commenter added that what each mixer will produce or run, however, is entirely dependent on each tire plant’s production quota that it must meet, and it is nearly impossible to forecast more than a couple of weeks in advance what each mixer will produce or run, such that the results of a short-term testing at a mixer that was running a certain combination of product formulation and pass may not be representative or indicative of its emission levels at other times. The commenter stated that impracticably lengthy and wide-ranging testing would be required both to ensure that emission measurement at such mixers can be used to set an emissions standard that the mixer can meet at other times and to demonstrate compliance with such an emissions standard. Finally, the commenter noted that THC emissions are so variable that the agency proposes in its RTR rule to not only require each mixer to be equipped with a CEMS, but also use a dual-range calibration system to capture the range of different emission levels. The commenter stated that the need to install, operate, and maintain a THC CEMS device at each mixer carries a heavy financial burden which underlines the impracticability of measuring THC emissions at rubber mixers. The commenter estimated that based on EPA’s 2007 Cost Tool for CEMS, adjusted with current vendor costs for continuous monitoring systems and updated costs for labor, installing continuous THC monitors for all mixers would impose a capital cost of millions of dollars per facility, with annualized capital and operating costs of around $180,000 to $1.8 million per plant. The E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations commenter estimated that the cost may be as much as $9 million annually for the rubber tire manufacturing industry to monitor THC emissions. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that emissions of THC vary too widely to be practicably measured. While the EPA acknowledges that manufacturing rubber tires, like many other manufacturing processes, exhibits variable emissions. However, in phase I of the 114 information collection request, data received showed all known mixers within this source category have stacks where emissions can be measured; as such, emissions measured at these point sources may be used to set a numerical emission standard. The EPA collected from the industry and then processed data that demonstrate this source variability; the EPA obtained from industry test results from a variety of mixers at different facilities that run different types of passes. Data were gathered for 30 days per mixer to account for emissions variability and show representative data during normal operation. Additionally, the EPA set emission limits based on a 15-day average, and the UPL for the mixers, which is an approach used by the EPA in this and other standards, calculated from all 15-day averages in the data from each mixer to account for variability in emissions. Facilities may need to install and operate control devices, such as an RTO or similar control technology, to account for variability while ensuring the emission limit is met. The Agency agrees with the commenter’s assertions that THC CEMS are necessary due to variability, as stressed by the commenter, but disagrees that dual-range calibration systems are required, and further disagrees that industry would be required to pay annualized costs of between $180,000 to $1.8 million per plant. As mentioned earlier, given the potential disparity between and among individual mixer emissions, coupled with the lack of THC data from source owners or operators, the EPA’s ICR obtained at least 30 days of continuous THC data per mixer. Source owners or operators may not have known their mixers’ THC emissions or potential emission limit during ICR testing; however, now that the THC emission limit is known, source owners need not choose a dual-range THC CEMS; rather they can select an instrument with a range appropriate for the emission limit. Of course, should source owners or operators believe additional calibrated ranges beyond the emission limit are necessary, they are able to select and use multiple ranges—but those VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 additional range choices represent voluntary selection and are not imposed by this rule. The EPA agrees that THC CEMS have the ability to properly measure a wide range of emissions and that they also provide those data continuously, which allows for ongoing compliance demonstration, unlike the sporadic compliance demonstration offered by periodic testing. As an aside, most THC CEMS include a built-in variety of ranges, including sitedeveloped and selected ranges, so source owners or operators should have little trouble narrowing their instruments’ focus on a range appropriate to the THC emission limit. EPA’s Monitoring and Cost Analysis Tool shows the initial cost of a THC CEMS is less than $145,000 and the annualized cost would be less than $50,000. Finally, the EPA estimated the cost for installing and operating a THC CEMS for each individual mixer.11 However, it is likely that facilities will choose to share THC CEMS given that one THC CEMS should be able to serve 3 mixers—and perhaps more. Comment: One commenter argued the EPA should establish work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) instead of numerical emission limits. The commenter stated that the unique characteristics of mixing operations at tire manufacturing facilities imply that not even multiple days of stack testing a single mixer would be sufficient to produce organic HAP or THC emission rates that even that mixer would have a high probability of not exceeding during other periods of operation. The commenter cited Continental’s 2019 engineering test at Mixer 22, to argue that when processing a single worst-case rubber formulation or compound most likely to generate highest emissions of ethanol, the resulting THC emissions may be almost 2 times higher than during any other time. The commenter continued by saying if this single worstcase rubber formulation were processed 15 days in a row at Mixer 22, it would generate THC emissions at rates nearly 7 times higher than the EPA’s proposed THC emission limit for silica-containing category for existing sources, even after RTO control—despite the fact that the EPA identified Continental Mixer 22 as the best performing mixer among those mixers for which the EPA has test data. The commenter stated that it would be prohibitively costly and timeconsuming to conduct enough stack testing on individual mixers, performed 11 For calculations of the THC CEMS cost, see the memorandum Final Rule—Rubber Processing Control Costs Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness, available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94895 on enough mixers, to determine emission rates representative of the ranges of operations of mixers at tire plants, which would be needed to support establishment of emissions limitations that all mixers would have to meet at all times. The commenter added that even if stack testing could reasonably be accomplished to support emission limitations, modifying dozens of mixers to allow compliance testing, and then conducting enough stack tests on each of those mixers to be assured that measured emissions fall below the emissions limitations, would itself be impracticable. The commenter argued that mixers, therefore, present a clear example of a type of source for which the measurement of emissions is not practicable due to technological or economic factors, and so work practice standards are authorized and appropriate under CAA section 112(h). The commenter argues that the impracticability of measuring (for purposes of establishing emission limitations, or for purposes of determining compliance) emissions that vary widely over time and over the variety of products manufactured is precisely the kind of situation in which the EPA can and should use work practice standards. As an example, the commenter refers to the EPA rulemaking setting MACT standards for periodic [batch] brick kilns, where the EPA concluded that work standards were appropriate due to the wide variety in emissions over time and products manufactured. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that the EPA should recognize that conditions at rubber mixers warrant the establishment of work practice standards in lieu of numerical emissions limits. CAA section 112(h) provides, in pertinent part, that the EPA may establish a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard if it is ‘‘not feasible’’ for EPA to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) further clarifies that the phrase ‘‘not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard’’ includes situations in which ‘‘a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant . . .’’ The EPA acknowledges that, like many other regulated source categories, rubber processing is a ‘‘batch’’ process. However, as stated in the 2020 RTR (85 FR 44752), rubber processing is a continuous batch operation which generates more consistent emissions than other batch processes. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 94896 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Additionally, a 15-day average inherently reduces the effect of emissions variability and allows owners and operators to determine whether it is necessary to install and operate a control device, such as an RTO, to ensure that the emission limit is met at all times. As verified in the responses to phase I of the ICR, all mixers route to stacks which can and should be used for testing and for emissions measurements to establish appropriate emission limits for the rubber processing subcategory. As such, since rubber processing operations emissions are, or are capable of being, routed to stacks, these operations do not satisfy the requirement described in CAA section 112(h)(2)(A). The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the test results at Continental mixers 12 and 22 in 2019 support the need for a work practice standard. The test results cited by commenters were obtained over relatively short test runs of only 3 hours per test condition. The EPA acknowledges that individual mixers will exhibit variable emissions, depending on the material being mixed and the pass of the material through the mixer, and this was also shown in the phase II emissions testing conducted to support this rulemaking. However, the EPA has specifically addressed the issue of emissions variability by establishing the standards based on a 15-day average THC emission rate, rather than on shortterm testing. The EPA also disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that rubber processing is comparable to periodic [batch] brick kilns. Unlike the process of rubber tire production, brick kilns are truly batch processes that may take from between several days to nearly a week (or more) to complete, whereas rubber processing is a continuous batch process where each batch takes only a few minutes, then another batch is mixed allowing for more steady emissions. Therefore, the type of scenario described by commentors (whereby they claim that the process with the highest emissions could result in exceeding the limit seven-fold) is not expected to occur during normal business operations. In addition, the HAP of concern (and their potential surrogates) for periodic brick kilns cannot be easily measured on a continuous basis, whereas THC can be monitored continuously with a CEMS. Therefore, the situations are not comparable. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s decision to regulate organic HAP through the use of THC as a surrogate instead of developing a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard under CAA section 112(h) because measurement of organic HAP emissions from mixing is infeasible. The commenter argued that the EPA ignored process information and emissions testing, provided by USTMA members, that showed THC is not an appropriate surrogate because it is affected primarily by emissions of pollutants that are not classified as HAPs. The commenter stated that organic HAP testing required by the EPA through the ICR, as well as additional testing conducted at numerous USTMA member mixers, demonstrated that organic HAP emissions are not correlated with THC emissions and that HAP emissions are affected by different factors. The commenter argued that, unlike the instances in which the EPA’s use of surrogate emission limitations has been upheld by the court, in the Rubber Processing affected source subcategory, even the ‘‘MACT floor’’ best performer mixers sometimes do not have emission control technologies in place that reduce either organic HAPs or THC, nor is there some aspect of the mixing process that can be controlled that affects THC and organic HAPs similarly, such as how controlling incomplete combustion in a boiler affects both carbon monoxide and organic HAP emissions. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that THC is not a viable surrogate for organic HAP. We have long recognized that regulation by surrogate is appropriate, so long as controlling emissions of the surrogate achieves the Act’s requirement to limit emissions of corresponding HAPs. See Sierra Club v EPA, 863 F.3d at 838 (D.C. Cir. 2017); U.S. Sugar v EPA, 830 F.3d at 628 (D.C. Cir. 2016). EPA acknowledges the commenter provided additional data relevant to a relationship between THC and volatile organic HAP. However, data provided by the commenter only shows limited data, whereas historical testing (e.g., HAP data collected by a predecessor rubber tire manufacturing trade organization to support the development of AP–42 emission factors) shows over 40 organic HAP emitted from a bench scale mixing operation. Additionally, upon further review the data submitted relevant to the PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 relationship between THC and volatile organic HAP was done in short 3 run tests, unlike the 30 days of continuous THC data collected as part of ICR. As the commenter has stated throughout their comment document, emissions are variable, thus a simple 3 run test for THC is not likely to take variability into account, unlike the 30-day continuous THC data used to set the MACT floor. Additionally, the ICR required concurrent testing for both semi-volatile organic compounds and THC; however, the data supplied by the commenter were not collected concurrently, greatly reducing, if not eliminating, their suitability for showing a correlation between the datasets due to differing operation conditions during data collection. Finally, the data collected by the commenter were not certified according to the requirements of the ICR. For these reasons, the EPA is unable to assess the usefulness or suitability of the data collected and submitted by the commenter regarding the relationship between THC and organic HAP. The commenter is expecting a single shared correlation to exist across all sources; however, the EPA believes each source will have its own individual relationship between organic HAP and THC. The figure below provides an example, showing the relationship between the concurrently-collected organic HAP and THC data obtained from the best-performing THC source (Continental Mt. Vernon Mixer 22). These data were collected, certified, and submitted by that source.12 Note that THC increases as organic HAP increases and that the relationship has an Rsquared value of 0.959, which indicates a very high correlation between the THC and organic HAP measurements.13 Although the EPA only has concurrent organic HAP and THC data from the best performing source, we expect, based on the data before us, that the better performing sources would exhibit similarly high correlations. 12 See test reports for Continental Mixer 22, Goodyear Lawson Mixer 1, Goodyear Fayetteville Mixer 8, Goodyear Danville Mixer 7, Michelin Mixer 81, and Cooper Mixer 9. Note that Goodyear Fayetteville Mixer 8 and Goodyear Lawson Mixer 1 data are separated according to Belt, Tread, and Mixer categories. 13 R-squared values shows the relationship between two variable (THC and organic HAP). Generally, R-squared values range from 0 to 1. A value of 0 implies that there is no relationship, while a value of 1indicates a direct relationship. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 Figure 1. Relationship between Organic HAP and THC for the best performing source. 14 In this case THC encompasses all relevant organic HAP emitted. Additionally, by using a control device such as an RTO, which is currently operated in the source category and which meets minimum temperature, loading, and retention times, one can reasonably conclude that the associated organic HAP is also being controlled. VOC destruction (which includes organic HAP) efficiencies range from 95 to 99 percent, according to EPA’s Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet.15 Although combustion is a complex process that can produce some HAP, it is well documented that the use of an RTO is an effective way to reduce organic HAP.16 While the use of RTOs does have secondary impacts,17 the EPA expects few HAP emissions created as a result of combustion in an RTO: the EPA’s experience for any such created HAP is that they are below current detection levels. 14 THC vs Organic HAP tables are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 15 See EPA’s Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA–452/F–03–021, available at https:// nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1008OH5.PDF. 16 See EPA’s Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA– 452/F–03–022, availabe at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2020/11/documents/ thermal.pdf. 17 See the memorandum Final Rule—Rubber Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 As a result, the EPA believes THC is both a reasonable and viable surrogate to represent organic HAP emitted from rubber processing. Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA cannot subcategorize an industry category based on factors that are unrelated to HAP emissions, including whether silica is an ingredient in the rubber compound being mixed, whether the mixer has high emissions of a non-HAP (THC), or whether the mixer already has a particular type of control technology. The commenter stated that USTMA’s supplemental testing shows that high emissions of THC are not correlated with high emissions of organic HAPs, and thus the EPA should not subcategorize mixers or set different limitations for mixers where silica is used in the compound being mixed based on the perception that this leads to higher THC emissions. The commenter added that even if subcategorizing were appropriate because of higher THC emissions associated with the silanization reaction when mixing high-silica tread compounds and silane coupling agents under certain operating conditions, the limits should apply only when silane coupling agents are being introduced under such operating conditions. The commenter argued subcategories should not be based solely on the presence of silica as an ingredient, because the presence of silica as an ingredient on its own (without silane coupling agents) is not expected to contribute to higher THC or organic HAP emissions, and this PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94897 was confirmed by the emissions data the EPA collected through the ICR testing and supplemental emission testing at USTMA member facilities. The commenter argued that the EPA’s derivation of MACT floor emission limitations for THC fails to meet the statutory directive because the EPA ignored ‘‘emissions information’’ that CAA section 112(d)(3) requires it to consider, which shows that less than 12 percent of existing mixers achieve an emission limitation reflective of RTO controls, because only 4 percent of mixers are routed continuously to an RTO. The commenter asserted that while additional mixers are controlled intermittently with an RTO, RTO control does not represent an ‘‘emission limitation achieved’’ by those additional mixers, since an emission limitation, by statutory definition and as interpreted by the Court and by the EPA, is only a level of control that is achieved on a continuous basis. Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter’s statement that an increase in THC emissions is attributed to the addition of both silica and the silane coupling agent (forms bonds between organic and inorganic materials). Upon further evaluation, the EPA agrees there are factors other than just the addition of silica, such as the inclusion of a silane coupling agent, variations in raw materials used, and type of rubber being processed, that create different emission profiles. In response, the EPA decided to set a single standard for THC emissions from mixers for the final rule. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 ER29NO24.000</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 94898 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that the EPA selected separate standards based on what processes were currently controlled. As stated in the proposal, the EPA determined it was appropriate to set separate standards for silicacontaining batches and non-silicacontaining batches due to expected different emission profiles between the 2 processes that use different raw materials, because the addition of silica leads to chemical reactions producing additional organics. The expected increase in organics for silica-containing batches is represented by higher levels of THC emissions compared to nonsilica batches. Furthermore, the standard based on the application of RTOs as a control technology satisfies the CAA’s requirement that an emission limitation or standard apply continuously. Commenters misstate the statutory requirements, suggesting that a control technology must be used continuously for an emission standard to be valid. This is incorrect; commenter’s position conflates the requirement that a standard apply continuously with the notion that a control technology, or tool used to achieve that standard, apply, or be operated continuously. In this MACT Final Rule, the EPA determined that one standard will apply to all units. The requirement to meet this standard is ‘‘continuous,’’ in that regulated parties must demonstrate compliance with the emission rate standards at all times (i.e., there are no exceptions for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction). However, a regulated party need not operate an RTO, if the regulated party can demonstrate compliance with the emission rate standard. This is consistent with other emission standards, in that a regulated party is generally not required to conform to any specific control technology, provided they demonstrate compliance with the emission standard at all times. The EPA disagrees that our MACT floor emissions limitation for THC failed to meet the statutory directive. The CAA provides specific guidance for setting MACT standards for source categories which include setting the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information). For this source category, the EPA only received emissions data from 17 mixers, and data from only 12 mixers represented actual THC emissions after the application of any controls (THC data from five mixers were collected before an RTO and EPA was unable to accurately estimate values VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 for their emissions after being controlled by an RTO); therefore, the EPA set the MACT standard for THC using the actual THC emissions data from the 12 mixers that were made available to the Administrator as the CAA requires. Comment: One commenter stated that tire plants typically have a number of mixers, which may be used for different purposes on different days or even different portions of a day, and tire plants must have the flexibility with the mixers to produce the rubber needed for various processes within the Tire Production affected source, in the quantities involved and on the time schedule involved. The commenter argued that the proposed rule treats the mixers as if each one operated entirely independently of other mixers at the plant and would not recognize the interplay among mixer exhaust points, requiring each mixer exhaust to demonstrate compliance with an identical emission limitation. The commenter recommended that instead, numerical emission limitations for THC should be expressed as the overall average of pounds of THC emissions per ton of rubber processed for all mixers at the plant. The commenter suggested this would recognize that mixers are used in an interrelated way, and it would allow tire plants to more cost-effectively optimize controls to prevent excessive emissions across the entire facility. The commenter noted that the EPA has taken this approach for numerous other source categories and averaged emissions would still reflect MACT. The commenter added that expressing a THC numerical emission limitation as an overall average for all mixers at a plant would allow plants to optimize their investments by installing controls on units where lower emissions can be most cost effective, facilitate pollution prevention innovations, and facilitate tire plants developing measures that reduce organic HAP emissions by taking advantage of the interconnectedness of mixers in ways that might, for example, affect emissions only from particular compounds or particular passes. Finally, the commenter noted that emissions averaging may also allow for control options that benefit the environment by minimizing energy use. Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that a facility wide-average emission limit for mixers is an appropriate approach to account for variability in emissions among mixers and to provide flexibility in demonstrating compliance. In response to the comment, the EPA has added an alternative compliance option for THC PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 that allows facilities to average their emissions at all mixers at an individual facility to meet the emission limit. (The EPA has allowed a similar option for demonstrating compliance with the limits for fPM described below in section IV.B. of this preamble.) 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule? For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in section IV.A.3. of this preamble, we are finalizing the emission limits for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP from rubber processing as proposed, but with several changes since proposal. First, we are establishing a single emission limit for THC without separate emission limits for subcategories for mixing silicacontaining and non-silica-containing compounds to reflect the fact that variables other than silica affect emissions, such as the inclusion of a silane coupling agent, variations in raw materials used, and type of rubber being processed. Therefore, the EPA determined it was not appropriate to separate emission limits by silica and non-silica. Additionally, by setting a single emission limit instead of two separate emission limits, the compliance demonstration for facilities that mix multiple compounds in the same mixer at different times will be significantly simplified. Second, upon additional review of the data and new knowledge of emission range that contributes to the calculation of 3xRDL, we are revising the THC emission limit for new and existing rubber processing affected sources so that it is equal to the 3xRDL value for THC emission measurements calculated from the available testing data. The same 3xRDL value will apply to both new and existing rubber processing affected sources, and the 3xRDL value in the final rule is higher than the proposed THC emission limits for new and existing sources for both silicacontaining and non-silica-containing batches. Third, in response to comments, we are allowing owners and operators to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limit by using facility-wide averaging among mixers within a single facility. For each 15-day compliance period, the owner or operator would demonstrate compliance using averaging by summing the mass of emissions from the mixers included in the average over that period and dividing that sum by the sum of the rubber produced from the same mixers over the same period. This change results in reducing reporting burden and E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations accounts for additional variability across the source category. B. Emission Standards for Unregulated Metal HAP Emissions From the Rubber Processing Subcategory khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, the EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data from 5 of the mixers. The EPA had no reason to assume a difference in fPM and metal HAP emissions based on the mixing of silica-containing or non-silicacontaining compounds, as silica was expected to cause an increase in organic emissions, which does not impact PM. Thus, a single emission standard was proposed for mixing of all rubber compounds. For each mixer, the EPA calculated the 99 percent UPL for both fPM and the sum of the metal HAP that were measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorus, and selenium). The CAA requires the EPA to determine the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has information) when establishing the MACT floor level of control. There are an estimated 97 mixers in the source category, and the MACT floor is calculated using data from the top performing 12 percent of mixers for which we have data. At proposal, the EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data for 5 of the mixers. The EPA calculated 12 percent of 7 mixers (fPM) and 12 percent of 5 mixers (metal HAP) which results in 0.84 and 0.6, respectively. When determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we rounded the fractional amounts to the next whole number of mixers. In this instance, we rounded up to one mixer for purposes of determining the existing source MACT floors for both the fPM and metal HAP emission limits. When setting new source MACT floors, the emission limit is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. As a result, the MACT floors for both new and existing sources are based on the best performing existing source. Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, all mixers in this subcategory are controlled by a baghouse or similar control devices which control PM emissions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 To account for variability in the rubber processing operations and resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the PM MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. We calculated the MACT floor UPL emission rate for fPM as 1.7 g/Mg (3,410 pounds per million tons (lb/Mton)) rubber produced, and a total metal HAP UPL emission rate of 0.037 g/Mg (74.1 lb/Mton) rubber produced. The lowest fPM emission rate and the lowest metal HAP emission rate were measured at the same mixer, and the fPM and metal HAP emissions were measured simultaneously. Because metal HAP are emitted as fPM, the EPA proposed an emission limit for fPM as a surrogate for metal HAP, and also an alternative emission limit for total metal HAP itself. The baghouses that are used to capture fPM will also reliably capture metal HAP, and the fPM emission limit accounts for variability in individual metal HAP emission rates among different batches of rubber compound being mixed. Because the proposed standards for new and existing sources are based on the best performing mixer, which is already controlled by a baghouse, and no more effective controls than a baghouse for PM or metal HAP are in use or were identified, we did not identify any beyond-the-floor options to evaluate for either existing or new mixers. 2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? Since proposal, the EPA has received additional fPM data for 3 mixers (bringing the total to 10) and has recalculated the MACT floor to include the additional data and has also recalculated the 3xRDL values for fPM and metal HAP. (The EPA also received fPM data for a fourth additional mixer in the public comments, but those data did not include the production data needed to calculate emissions per mass of rubber processed, so the fourth mixer could not be included in the final rule MACT analysis.) The final rule limits for fPM and metal HAP have been increased since proposal. The existing source MACT floor UPL has been recalculated using the combined data from the 2 lowest emitting mixers because they represent 12 percent of the 10 mixers for which the Administrator now has fPM data. The EPA has also recalculated the 3xRDL value to reflect the higher number of sources for which the Administrator has data. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94899 The final rule limits for fPM and metal HAP also include the option of facility-wide averaging among mixers to demonstrate compliance. 3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses? Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should find that HAP metals emissions from mixers are already controlled and are incidental to the very efficient dust control measures that are an integral part of mixing operations for materials recovery purposes and safety reasons, and therefore there is no ‘‘gap’’ that is ‘‘necessary’’ for the EPA to fill under CAA section 112(d)(6), as the EPA effectively already recognized in the 2020 RTR rulemaking. The commenter asserted it is inappropriate to impose additional costs for essentially no benefit, since metals emissions from mixing are already low, often below detection limits, and the EPA has already determined the residual risk from metals emissions from all processes at tire plants is acceptable. However, the commenter agreed that if the EPA nevertheless imposes new limits on HAP metal emissions from mixing, then total fPM is an appropriate surrogate, and establishing alternative emission limitations for HAP metals as the EPA proposed is permissible under the CAA. The commenter also argued that the EPA should base the MACT floor for fPM on more than just a single mixer and supplied additional particulate test data from which the EPA could calculate a fPM emission limitation substantially higher than what the EPA proposed. Response: The EPA disagrees that there is no ‘‘gap’’ in the standards for metal HAPs. While mixers operate baghouses to control nuisance PM, the current MACT standard does not specifically regulate emissions of metal HAP or the fPM surrogate from mixers. Metal HAPs emitted during rubber processing include, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorus, and selenium. The court in National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633– 34 (D.C. Cir. 2000), found that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA to set emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted from each listed major source category (or subcategory). The court in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 878 (D.C. Cir. 2007) confirmed the prior holding in National Lime Association that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 94900 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations to set emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted from each listed major source category (or subcategory). Additionally, the LEAN decision requires that when the EPA undertakes a 112(d)(6) technology review, it must set a MACT standard for previously unregulated pollutants, even if there is a prior risk assessment that identifies the risk from those pollutants as ‘‘low.’’ 18 This requirement, that the EPA address all enumerated air toxic pollutants, is applicable to the EPA regardless of any findings that the EPA has made regarding the risk posed by the expected emission levels from those currently unregulated pollutants, or other cited considerations from commenters. The CAA does not authorize the EPA to decline to set the emission limits required by 112(d)(1) because a risk assessment under 112(f)(2) finds that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety. It is clear that Congress intended the EPA to set technologybased standards that address all emitted HAP, and the EPA does not agree that the absence of such limits in an existing NESHAP justifies a decision at this point not to address all emitted HAP from a major source. Additionally, the CAA provides specific guidance for setting MACT standards for source categories, which includes setting the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information). For this source category the EPA received fPM emissions data from 7 mixers before proposal and from 3 more mixers since proposal that could be used to calculate UPL values for each mixer. Therefore, for the proposed rule, the EPA set the MACT standard using the top 12 percent of the 7 mixers data (i.e., the best performing mixer) that was made available to the administrator at proposal, as the act requires. However, after proposal the EPA received additional fPM data representing 4 more mixers, including 3 mixers with enough data to calculate a UPL value. (The data for one mixer included only 2 runs.) For the final rule, the EPA has recalculated the MACT floor for existing sources using the data from the 2 best performing mixers, but the MACT floor for new sources is still equal to the best performing source. The MACT floor fPM UPL emission limit for existing sources from the combined data for the 2 lowest 18 See LEAN, 955 F.3d 1088 at 109 (‘‘We hold that . . . EPA’s section 112(d)(6) review of a source category’s emission standard must address all listed air toxics the source category emits.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 emitters is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 × 103 lb/Mton). However, the recalculated 3xRDL from the same 2 mixers is equal to 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 × 103 lb/Mton). The EPA acknowledges the commenter agrees with the EPA that fPM is an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals, noting that fPM contains HAP metals and that fPM control devices such as baghouses also collect HAP metals, just as THC emissions contain organic HAP and that THC control devices such as thermal oxidizers also control organic HAP emissions. This rule correctly applies statutory requirements, consistent with past Agency practice, to select the best performing source and to calculate appropriate emission limits. In keeping with regulatory requirements and past Agency practice, this rule applies techniques to ensure source owners or operators can determine compliance with the rule on a continuous basis. While use of PM CEMS could provide this information, the rule allows the use of bag leak detection system (BLDS) parameter measurement to supply data upon which compliance can be determined. The commenter’s assertion that mixer emissions are too variable and should escape regulation appears to disregard the use of a 15-day averaging period, which, as described earlier, smooths out production and emissions spikes and dips. Contrary to the commenter’s view, BLDS parameters provide a better description of ongoing baghouse operation than the typical baghouse continuous parameters of pressure drop and flow rate, which typically only show catastrophic failure. Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA must base the fPM emission limitations on stack tests conducted while mixing nonproductive rubber. The commenter stated that the EPA has long recognized that the majority of emissions from rubber mixing occur during nonproductive passes, such as in the documentation supporting the AP–42 emission factors for rubber tire manufacturing. The commenter noted that most of the raw materials are added during the nonproductive passes, so one would expect that fPM emissions during nonproductive passes are greater than during mixing of productive rubber. The commenter noted that the available fPM emissions data from both the ICR testing and the additional fPM stack testing data submitted by the commenter show that fPM emissions were higher when mixing non-productive passes: over twice as high on a concentration basis and over 5 times higher on a mass of PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 fPM per mass of rubber processed basis.19 The commenter asserted that MACT floor emissions must represent an emissions rate that the best performers can achieve under the worst-case conditions,20 and an fPM emission limitation based on what the best performers achieve during productive passes would not reflect what those mixers can achieve during nonproductive passes. The commenter stated that a majority of mixers at majorsource tire plants either are presently used or could be used for nonproductive passes, and non-productive mixing is essential for processing rubber for rubber tire components. The commenter added that the EPA would have to conduct additional fPM emissions testing and data collection and re-propose if the EPA wanted to create 2 subcategories of mixers for productive and non-productive rubber fPM emission limitations. Thus, according to the commenter, the EPA must establish fPM surrogate emissions limitations based only on testing that occurred while mixing non-productive rubber. Response: The EPA disagrees that the final rule limit cannot be achieved by sources during the mixing of nonproductive rubber passes. The emission standard was developed based on data submitted to EPA by regulated parties, and the emission standard is therefore ‘‘achieved in practice’’ by the best controlled similar source. See CAA section 112(d)(3). In the data provided by USTMA in Attachment 6 to their comments, Goodyear Mt. Vernon Mixer #14 achieved an average emission rate of 2.3 g/Mg while mixing nonproductive rubber on all 3 passes. As explained above in the response to comments in this same section, the EPA has revised the fPM limit in the final rule to 3.0 g/Mg and added facility wide averaging allowing for increased flexibility to account for variability in emissions. Therefore, the final rule emission limits are achievable during the mixing of non-productive rubber on 19 The commenter cited the data presented on pages 4–6 of Attachment 4 of docket item EPA&HQ–OAR–19–0132. 20 The commenter cited, e.g., National Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v . EPA, F.3d 1115, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘[A]s we explained in Sierra Club, it is reasonable to expect that the incinerator on which the MACT floors are based should be able to ‘in practice,’ which it could not do unless ‘achieved in practice’ meant ‘achieved under the worst forseeable circumstancfes,’ ’’) (internal citations omitted); Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (‘‘[E]ven the best performing sources occasionally have spikes, and under the standard, each facility must meet the 400 ppm standard every day and under all operating conditions.’’ E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations all passes.. For a detailed discussion of the EPA stance on worst-case performance, see section IV.c. of the Response to Comments document found in the docket for this rule. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule? For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in section IV.B.3. of this preamble, we are promulgating emission limits for fPM from rubber processing with several changes since proposal. First, we are revising the emission limit for both fPM and metal HAP. For fPM, we are basing the existing source MACT floor on the average performance of the 2 lowest emitting sources instead of the single lowest emitting source because we have more fPM data than at proposal. We have fPM data for 10 mixers and 12 percent of 10 is 1.2, which is rounded up to 2 mixers. The UPL calculated for the combined data for the 2 lowest emitting mixers is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 × 103 lb/Mton) rubber produced. We have also recalculated the 3xRDL value to reflect the higher number of mixers for which the Administrator has data. The 3xRDL value recalculated for the final rule is 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 × 103 lb/ Mton) rubber produced. Because this value is higher than the revised UPL value(s) for new and existing sources, the final rule is based on the 3xRDL values for fPM. C. Emission Testing and Compliance Demonstrations khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? The EPA proposed that facilities demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limits by monitoring the emissions from each mixer with a CEMS and also monitoring production and calculating the emission rate in grams THC per megagram rubber produced (g/ Mg) on a 15-day rolling average. The EPA proposed that compliance would be demonstrated for each mixer separately. The EPA also proposed that THC emissions would be measured at the outlet for each RTO on a 5-year interval and during the testing operating limits would be established for each RTO. The EPA proposed that facilities could choose to comply with either the emission limit for fPM or the alternative emission limit for total metal HAP and, accordingly, measure fPM emissions using EPA Method 5 or the metal HAP VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 emissions using EPA Method 29. The fPM or metal HAP measurements would be required every 5 years. For each baghouse, owners and operators would need to install and operate a bag leak detection system. 2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category? The final rule will allow facilities to average among mixers to demonstrate compliance with both the THC and fPM or metal HAP emission limits. The final rule does not include the requirement to perform a THC compliance test every 5 years and does not require the facility to establish and comply with operating limits for the RTO, but instead requires the use of THC CEMS. The other proposed emission testing and monitoring compliance requirements have been retained in the final rule. 3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses? Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should not require multiple THC CEMS at each mixer exhaust point instead of allowing for measurement of THC emissions at the actual point at which they exhaust to the atmosphere. The commenter suggested that this approach would reduce the number of THC CEMS required and also eliminate the need for continuous monitoring of RTO combustion temperature and a 5year repeat performance test using Method 25A. The commenter added that if the EPA requires use of CEMS for compliance, then parameter monitoring, and a 5-year repeat performance test are not needed. Response: The EPA recognizes that because sources will be operating THC CEMS that will continuously record the THC concentration in the emissions at the stack, there is no need to require operating limits for the RTOs (e.g., operating temperature) if an RTO is being used for compliance and there is similarly no need for a periodic (e.g., every 5 years) performance test of the RTO. Therefore, the operating limits for RTOs and the periodic THC testing requirement have been removed from the final rule. In addition, as explained above in section IV.A., the final rule will allow for demonstrating compliance with facility-wide emission limits for THC, which will also allow for use of a single THC CEMS at the exhaust point for combined mixer exhausts and reduce the number of THC CEMS needed. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94901 Comment: One commenter disagreed with the proposal to require BLDS as the continuous compliance demonstration method for the proposed PM emission limit for rubber processing because they were not justified by the current fPM and metal HAP from particulate controls on mixers and the EPA has not justified them as a beyond-the-floor technology. The commenter reported that no BLDS are currently installed at rubber processing facilities, and over 100 BLDS will need to be installed as a result of the proposed requirement, resulting in additional capital costs not only for the monitors and data acquisition and handling system, but also for stack/duct modifications to accommodate a monitor. The commenter noted that the EPA has estimated that the proposed standards will result in a reduction of only 318 lb of metal HAP per year and asserted that installation of a complicated monitoring system that is not currently in use in the industry is not reasonable for the expected HAP reduction. The commenter stated that facilities currently employ pressure drop and/or visible emissions observations along with a program of regular internal and external inspections and maintenance of the duct work and baghouse to ensure compliance with PM limits in their air permits. The commenter recommended that the EPA should replace the requirement for BLDS with the use of baghouse pressure drop or twice daily visible emissions monitoring to ensure baghouses are operating properly as the continuous compliance determination method. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion to rely on continuous parameter monitoring other than that associated with BLDS; those other parameters—including visible emissions, flow rate, or pressure drop— do not provide relevant information quickly enough to correct problems before emission limits may be compromised. For example, the commenter mentions twice daily visible emission checks; such an approach is not continuous and detection with the human eye is only possible at 5 percent opacity and above. As a result, lower opacities may yield fPM values that exceed the emission limits but would occur undetected by visible emission checks. As mentioned earlier, flow rate and pressure drop across baghouses can indicate catastrophic failures, but not provide information to preclude baghouse problems before exceedances occur. Of course, owners or operators could use PM CEMS in lieu of BLDS; PM CEMS would provide direct, continuous measurement of the E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94902 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations pollutant of concern and would enable source owners or operators to forgo any type of fPM control device parameter monitoring. Using the process in the NESHAP general provisions, mentioned earlier, owners or operators could request—and expect to receive— approval from the EPA for use of PM CEMS for rule compliance purposes. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule? For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in section IV.C.3. of this preamble, we are finalizing emission testing and compliance demonstration requirements as proposed, but with several changes since proposal. First, the EPA has removed the requirement for a periodic THC compliance test and compliance with THC operating limits and monitoring (e.g., RTO operating temperature) because THC emissions will be continuously monitored by a THC CEMS. The final rule will also allow for demonstrating compliance with facilitywide emission limits for THC, which will also allow for use of a single THC CEMS at the exhaust point for combined mixer exhausts and reduce the number of THC CEMS needed. Second, the EPA believes requiring BLDS will provide significantly more accurate and continuous feedback on the operation of a baghouse and can provide an earlier indication of potential bag leaks compared to the requested visible emission inspections. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? As listed in CFR 63.5982 (b)(4), the rubber processing affected source is the collection of all rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys and associated drop mills) that either mix compounds or warm a rubber compound before the compound is processed into components of rubber tires. The mixed rubber compound itself is also included in the rubber processing affected source. Among the 15 major sources that are subject to the NESHAP, 12 facilities perform rubber processing, while 3 facilities do not perform rubber processing and use rubber that is processed at other facilities. B. What are the air quality impacts? This action proposes first-time MACT floor-based emission standards for THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP), metal HAP, and fPM from rubber processing. These first-time MACT standards will limit HAP emissions and require, in some cases, the installation of additional controls at rubber tire manufacturing plants that are major sources of HAP. We estimate that the rubber tire manufacturing industry will comply with the final standards for THC, metal HAP, and fPM through the installation and operation of control devices. For THC, we estimate that the installation of RTOs or similar control devices will achieve annual reductions of THC of 94 Mg (104 tons) across the source category. For fPM and metal HAP, we estimate that the replacement or upgrade of baghouses will achieve annual reductions of fPM of 61 Mg (67 tons) or 0.073 Mg (160 lb) of total metal HAP (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorous, and selenium) across the source category. Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased energy usage associated with the operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts are due to use of natural gas needed to operate control devices and other equipment. We conclude that the secondary impacts of this action are minimal, resulting from the operation of the control device, and would comprise CO2 and methane (CH4) emissions from the combustion of the natural gas required to operate an RTO. For purposes of assessing the projected disbenefits, we estimate that the monetized disbenefits would be no greater than $8.1 million in any year, with estimates ranging from $2.7 million to $8.1 million per year depending on the discount rate assumption.21 For the final rule, we estimate that 8 new RTOs would be needed and each RTO would consume about 29,800 thousand standard feet (mscf) per year of natural gas and 1.33 million kilowatt hours per year of electricity. For all 8 new RTOs, the indirect greenhouse gas emissions of CO2 and CH4 from the combustion of the natural gas and the generation of electricity would be equivalent to 19,330 tons (17,536 Mg) of CO2 emissions. C. What are the cost impacts? This action proposes MACT floorbased emission limits for new and existing sources in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, specifically the rubber processing subcategory. Although the action contains requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years and we are not aware of any new additional mixers to existing facilities. Consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. We estimate the total annualized cost of the final rule to existing sources in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category to be $13.3 million per year. The costs are a combination of the annualized capital and annual operating costs for installing and operating RTOs or similar control devices to control THC and organic HAP; baghouses and associated BLDSs to control fPM and metal HAP; and THC CEMS to monitor THC emissions. The capital and annual costs are summarized in table 2. TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS Total capital investments (million) khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 Cost element RTOs (8 new) ...................................................................................................................................................... 21This range of disbenefit estimates is presented in 2022 dollars and was calculating by multiplying the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) by 17,536 metric tons of CO2e reductions for each year in the timeframe of 2027 to 2036. We applied near-term VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 Ramsey discount rates of 2.5 percent, 2.0 percent, and 1.5 percent,and found that the largest disbenefit estimate was 2036 when using a 1.5 percent nearterm Ramsey discount rate. Additional information on the social cost of carbon and an EPA workbook PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 $25.0 Annualized equipment and operation and maintenance costs (million) $4.9 for applying SC-CO2 estimates is found here: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/ scghg. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94903 TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS—Continued Total capital investments (million) Cost element THC CEMS (97 CEMS) ....................................................................................................................................... 14.0 4.2 Total Annual RTO and CEMS Costs ........................................................................................................... New Baghouses (46 mixers) ............................................................................................................................... Retrofitted Baghouses (new bags; 34 mixers) .................................................................................................... BLDS and PM Testing (114 BLDS) ..................................................................................................................... Total Annual Baghouse, BLDS, and PM Testing Costs .............................................................................. ........................ 19.6 ........................ 2.54 ........................ 9.1 2.0 0.5 1.7 4.2 Totals ............................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 13.3 The estimated annual costs are based on operation and maintenance of the added control systems. A memorandum titled Final Rule Rubber Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, And Cost Effectiveness, includes details of our cost assessment, and is included in the docket for this action (Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). D. What are the economic impacts? khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 Annualized equipment and operation and maintenance costs (million) The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for the final rule in the report titled Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments, Final, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0392). The economic impacts of the final rule are calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent owners compared to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by this final rule will incur total annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the industry impacted by the final rule, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. We lack the information necessary to independently assess the downtime loss of production due to capital improvements or deferred maintenance that would be associated with these controls for each affected facility. The costs of the final rule 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 E. What are the benefits? The benefits of this rule include any benefits relating to the reduction of emissions of organic HAP and fPM. The rule is projected to reduce emissions of THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP, and fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP, through the installation and operation of control devices. The reduction in fPM can also result in associated reduction in PM-related mortality and morbidity. The EPA is currently unable to monetize most benefits associated with HAP reductions. The potential benefits from reducing THC were not monetized and are therefore not reflected in the benefit estimates associated with this rulemaking. However, we estimate that the final rule amendments would reduce THC emissions by 104 tons/yr and metal HAP emissions by 160 lb/yr and thus lower risk of serious adverse health effects from exposure to certain HAPs in communities near rubber tire manufacturing plants. It is reasonable to expect that emissions reductions from this rule will improve air quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions from rubber tire manufacturing facilities. Due to methodology and data limitations, we could not monetize the health benefits of HAP reductions for this final rulemaking. Although we are unable to quantify the benefits of reducing HAPs from this rulemaking, we are providing a qualitative assessment of the benefits of reducing both organic and metal HAPs. This is detailed in section 4 of Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments, Final, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). These HAPs include, but are not limited to, the following: organic HAPs such as 2butanone, acetophenone, cumene, hexane, isooctane, methylene chloride, PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 phenol, toluene, and xylene, and metal HAPs such as antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorus, and selenium. The control measures are expected to reduce fPM by 66.7 tons/yr for the source category. Any monetization of PM-related health benefits would require the EPA to assume the percentage of fPM that is PM2.5. As the percentage of the fPM reductions that is PM2.5 is unknown, it is too uncertain to estimate the PM-related benefit impacts of this rule. For purposes of assessing the economic significance of these benefits, we can determine that if all of the fPM were PM2.5, the annual benefits would be estimated to be no greater than $24 million, occurring in 2028.22 Therefore, this action is not economically significant based on benefit impacts. This rule is expected to limit emissions of directly emitted PM2.5, which may will in turn reduce ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and in turn benefit public health. Though EPA neither quantified nor monetized these benefits, we anticipate reducing PM2.5 concentrations will reduce the incidence or premature death, non-fatal heart attacks, cases of aggravated asthma, lost days of work and school and other adverse effects (U.S. EPA, 2022).23 This rule is also expected to 22 This estimate is based on the use of a ‘‘benefitper-ton’’ (BPT) approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking assuming that all fPM2.5 These BPT estimates provide the estimated monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature mobidity) of reducing one tone of the PM2.5 from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates from the ‘‘Synthetic Organic Chemicals’’ sector by the corresponding emission reductions. The method used to derive these estimates is described in the BPT Technical Support Document on Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5 23 U.S. EPA, 2022. Estimating PM - and Ozone2.5 Attributable Health Benefits. Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94904 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 reduce emissions of Hg. Methylmercury (MeHg), which is formed by microbial action in the top layers of sediment and soils, after mercury has precipitated from the air and deposited into waterbodies or land, can cause a number of adverse effects when impacting fishes associated with recreational or commercial consumption and present at sufficiently elevated levels. Though not quantified here, these effects include IQ loss measured by performance on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on tests of attention, fine motor-function, language, and visual spatial ability. F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,’’ which provides recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory action may involve potential environmental justice concerns if it could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns through this action under development. The EPA’s EJ technical guidance states that ‘‘[t]he analysis of potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared to the baseline?’’ 24 The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of providing the public with as full as possible an 24 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis’’, U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 3–Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. https:// www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical/ guidance/assessing-environmental/justice/ regulatory/analysis. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 understanding of the potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory factors the EPA is required to consider under this section. We did not conduct any new demographic analyses for this final rule. There were no known changes to the population of Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities nor any known changes to our estimates of HAP emissions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities since proposal. Therefore, the EPA relied on the demographic analysis performed for the 2020 proposal for this final rulemaking. In the 2020 proposal, we conducted a baseline proximity analysis and baseline risk-based analysis (i.e., before implementation of any controls promulgated by this action). The baseline proximity demographic analysis is an assessment of individual demographic groups in the total population living within 5 kilometers (km) (approximately 3.1 miles) and 50 km (approximately 31 miles) of the facilities. The baseline risk-based demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups in the population living within 5 km and 50 km of the facilities prior to the implementation of any controls promulgated by this action. The results of the proximity demographic analysis and the risk-based demographic analysis for populations living within 5 km and 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392–0069). The results of the proximity analysis conducted for the 2020 proposal indicated that a total of approximately 516,000 people live within 5 km of the 21 Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities. The percent of the population that is Black (24 percent, 124.000 people) is double the national average (12 percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level (21 percent, 108,000 people) and the percent of people over the age of 25 without a high school diploma (16 percent, 83,000 people) are higher than the national averages (14 percent and 14 percent, respectively). The results of the baseline proximity analysis indicate that the proportion of other demographic groups living within 5 km of Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities is similar to or below the national average. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The baseline risk-based demographic analysis conducted for the 2020 proposal, indicated that emissions from the source category, prior to the controls we are proposing, expose approximately 4,500 people living near 21 facilities to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million (maximum individual risk is 4-in-1 million) and expose no people to a chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) greater than 1 (maximum noncancer HI is 0.2). The percent of the baseline population with estimated cancer risks great than or equal to 1-in-1 million that are Black (25 percent, 1,000 people) is more than 2 times the average percentage of the national population (12 percent). The percent of the population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category emissions prior to the proposed controls that is Below the Poverty Level (21 percent, 1,000 people) is above the national average (14 percent). As indicated in section V.B. of this preamble, this final action is projected to reduce HAP emissions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities by setting first time emission limits on the mixing operation. As a result, we expect risk for all exposed individuals and communities will also be reduced. See section V.B. of this preamble for more details. G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? In the July 24, 2020, final Rubber Tire Manufacturing RTR rule (85 FR 44752), the EPA conducted a residual risk assessment and determined that risk from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category was acceptable, and the standards provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health (see Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0392–0013). There are no known changes that would increase risk, thus the EPA relied on the 2020 demographic analysis for this rulemaking. In addition, this action promulgates firsttime emissions standards for THC and fPM and metal HAP, including mercury and lead which are known to cause particular impacts to children’s health and/or from early life exposure, for the rubber processing subcategory, which will further reduce emissions. Specifically, we estimate that the new emission limits will reduce THC and fPM emissions by 94 Mg/yr and 61 Mg/ yr, respectively. This action’s health and risk assessments are protective of the most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we determine exposure and through the health E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations benchmarks that we use. Specifically, the risk assessments we perform assume a lifetime of exposure, in which populations are conservatively presumed to be exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24 hours per day for a 70year lifetime, including childhood. With regards to children’s potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the assessments rely on the EPA’s (or comparable) hazard identification and dose-response values that have been developed to be protective for all subgroups of the general population, including children. For further details on the health and risk assessments can be found in the document ‘‘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 (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). VI. 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. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review This action is a ‘‘ significant regulatory action’’ as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis is briefly summarized in section V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted. This analysis, ‘‘ Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments, Final’’ (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392), is also available in the docket. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1982.06. You can find a VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The final rule ICR describes changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP associated with the incorporation of reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the new and existing source MACT standards for THC, fPM, and metal HAP. Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of rubber tire manufacturing facilities conducting rubber processing operations that are major sources. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX). Estimated number of respondents: 12. Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, annually. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over the next 3 years from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 1,162 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is estimated to be $2.12 million per year. This includes labor costs of $149,000 per year and non-labor capital and operations and maintenance costs of $1.97 million per year for monitoring systems for the final rubber processing amendments when they are fully implemented. 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. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. C. 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. The Agency has determined that none of the 4 ultimate parent companies owning the potentially affected facilities are small entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Details of this analysis PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94905 are presented in ‘‘ Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments, Final,’’ which is located in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. E. 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. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any rubber tire manufacturing facilities owned or operated by Indian Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. 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 a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094), and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category were found to be acceptable for all populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer risks less than or equal to 4-in-1 million for all populations and non-cancer hazard indexes are less than 1). The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are included 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 (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). The first- E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94906 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations time emission standards for THC and fPM (or metal HAP) promulgated by this action, will further reduce emissions and thereby protect children’s health. However, EPA’s Policy on Children’s Health applies to this action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available under ‘‘What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct’’ in section V.G. of this preamble. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In this final action, the EPA is setting emission standards for two previously unregulated pollutants. This does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 25A, 29, SW–846, M0010, SW–846 M3542, SW–846, M8270E, M204, PS 8A, and QA Procedure 2. During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to that of the EPA’s referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for any particular VCS. Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for this final rule. The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Part 10 of Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is an VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B (the manual portion only and not the instrumental portion). The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6784–16— Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) D6784–16 was revised and approved in 2016 to include better quality control than the earlier 2008 version. It is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 101A and Method 29 (portion for particulate mercury only) as a method for measuring mercury. [Note: this acceptability applies to concentrations between approximately 0.5 and 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter (mg/Nm3)]. The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981– Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ a method for quantitatively determining the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion and includes a description of the apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. The manual method segment of the oxygen determination is performed through the absorption of oxygen. This VCS may be obtained from Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990; phone: (800) 843–2763; email: CustomerCare@ asme.org; website: https:// www.asme.org. The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (particulate portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring mercury concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 to 100 mg/Nm3. This test method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784–16 allows for additional flexibility in the sampling and analytical procedures for the earlier version of the same standard VCS ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008). The EPA is also incorporating by reference EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This document provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures. The document is reasonably available and can be viewed or downloaded at https://nepis.epa.gov/ Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF. Detailed information on the VCS search and determination can be found in the memorandum, ‘‘Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments,’’ which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0329). The two VCS may be obtained from https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428– 2959. The standards are available to everyone at a cost determined by ASTM. The costs of obtaining these methods are not a significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns. The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category were found to be acceptable for all populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer risks less than or equal to 4-in-1 million for all populations and non-cancer hazard indexes are less than 1). The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are included 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 (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. We expect this final rule to achieve reductions in HAP emissions. This final rule will provide additional E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations benefits to all populations, including these demographic groups that have a greater representation in the 50 km radius of modeled facilities, by establishing new emission limits for rubber processing. The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained in section V.F. of this preamble. K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action does not meet the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Michael S. Regan, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 63 as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES Subpart XXXX—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: 3. Amend § 63.5981 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: ■ ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. § 63.5981 Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Amend § 63.14 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (i)(105), and (o)(4) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 * * * * * (f) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981; §§ 63.116(c) and (h); 63.128(a); 63.145(i); 63.309(k); 63.365(b); 63.457(k); 63.490(g); 63.772(e) and (h); 63.865(b); 63.997(e); 63.1282(d) and (g); 63.1450(a), (b), (d), (e), (g); 63.1625(b); table 5 to subpart EEEE; §§ 63.3166(a); 63.3360(e); 63.3545(a); 63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 63.4766(a); 63.4965(a); 63.5160(d); table 4 to subpart UUUU; tables 5, 16, and 17 to subpart XXXX; table 3 to subpart YYYY; table 4 to subpart AAAAA; § 63.7322(b); table 5 to subpart DDDDD; §§ 63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b); 63.8000(d); table 4 to subpart JJJJJ; table 4 to subpart KKKKK; §§ 63.9307(c); 63.9323(a); 63.9621(b) and (c);table 4 to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 subpart SSSSS; tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU; table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ; §§ 63.11148(e); 63.11155(e); 63.11162(f); 63.11163(g); table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ; §§ 63.11410(j); 63.11551(a); 63.11646(a); 63.11945. * * * * * (i) * * * (105) ASTM D6784–16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR approved for §§ 63.1450(d); 63.9621; table 5 to subpart AAAAA; table 17 to subpart XXXX; table 5 to subpart UUUUU; appendix A to subpart UUUUU. * * * * * (o) * * * (4) EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997; IBR approved for §§ 63.548(e); 63.864(e); 63.6012(c); 63.7525(j); 63.8450(e); 63.8600(e); 63.9632(a); 63.9804(f); 63.11224(f); 63.11423(e). (Available at: https:// nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf). * * * * * Am I subject to this subpart? (a) * * * (1) Rubber tire manufacturing includes rubber processing, the production of rubber tires and/or the production of components integral to rubber tires, the production of tire cord, and the application of puncture sealant. 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. * * * * * ■ 4. Amend § 63.5982 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), and (c) to read as follows: § 63.5982 What parts of my facility does this subpart cover? * * * * * (b) * * * (1) The tire production affected source is the collection of all processes that use or process cements and solvents as defined in § 63.6022, located at any PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94907 rubber tire manufacturing facility. It includes, but is not limited to: Storage and mixing vessels and the transfer equipment containing cements and/or solvents; wastewater handling and treatment operations; tread and cement operations; tire painting operations; ink and finish operations; undertread cement operations; process equipment cleaning materials; bead cementing operations; tire building operations; green tire spray operations; extruding, to the extent cements and solvents are used; cement house operations; marking operations; calendar operations, to the extent solvents are used; tire striping operations; tire repair operations; slab dip operations; other tire building operations, to the extent that cements and solvents are used; and balance pad operations. * * * * * (4) The rubber processing affected source is the collection of all rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys and associated drop mills) that either mix compounds or warm rubber compound before the compound is processed into components of rubber tires. The mixed rubber compound itself is also included in the rubber processing affected source. On and before November 29, 2024, there are no emission limitations or other requirements for the rubber processing affected source. The emission limitations for the rubber processing affected source are effective after November 29, 2024. (c) An affected source that is not a rubber processing affected source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source commenced after October 18, 2000, and it met the applicability criteria of § 63.5981 at the time construction commenced. An affected source that is a rubber processing affected source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source commenced after November 16, 2023, and it met the applicability criteria of § 63.5981 at the time construction commenced. * * * * * ■ 5. Amend § 63.5983 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows: § 63.5983 When do I have to comply with this subpart? * * * * * (b) If you own or operate an existing affected source that is not a rubber processing affected source, you must comply with the emission limitations for existing sources no later than July 11, 2005. If you own or operate a rubber processing affected sources that began construction or reconstruction before E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94908 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations November 16, 2023, you must comply with the emission limitations for existing rubber processing existing sources no later than November 29, 2027. * * * * * (d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.6016 according to the schedule in § 63.6016 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the date you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. 6. Amend § 63.5990 by revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 § 63.5990 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) Before January 21, 2021, 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 January 20, 2021, you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations specified in tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at all times. After November 29, 2024, you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations for rubber processing specified in tables 15 and 16 to this subpart at all times according to the compliance dates in § 63.5983. * * * * * (f) * * * (2) Before January 21, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d). After January 20, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d)(1) and (2). 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 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 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). * * * * * ■ 7. Revise § 63.5992 to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 § 63.5992 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 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. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to the measurement of THC emissions that are monitored with a continuous emission monitoring system for demonstrating compliance with the THC emission limitations for rubber processing in § 63.6009. When complying with the emission limits for rubber processing in § 63.6009 for fPM or metal HAP based on averaging to comply with the facilitywide average alternatives, the subsequent performance tests must begin no later than 5 years after the first test of the averaged mixers is performed. ■ 8. Revise and republish § 63.5993 to read as follows: § 63.5993 What performance tests and other procedures must I use? (a) If you use a control system to meet the emission limitations, you must conduct each performance test in table 5 to this subpart that applies to you, except that for the rubber processing affected source, you must conduct performance tests according to table 17 instead of table 5. (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the specific conditions specified in table 5 to this subpart, except that for the rubber processing affected source, you must conduct performance tests according to table 17 instead of table 5. (c) Before January 21, 2021, you may not conduct performance tests during periods startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1). After January 20, 2021, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the entire range of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum production. 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 January 21, 2021, 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 January 20, 2021, you must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless otherwise specified in the test method. Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (e) If you are complying with the emission limitations using a control system, you must also conduct performance tests according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section as they apply to you. The provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section do not apply to the rubber processing subcategory. (1) Determining capture efficiency of permanent or temporary total enclosure. Determine the capture efficiency of a capture system by using one of the procedures in Table 5 to this subpart. (2) Determining capture efficiency of an alternative method. As an alternative to constructing a permanent or temporary total enclosure, you may determine the capture efficiency using any capture efficiency protocol and test methods if the data satisfy the criteria of either the Data Quality Objective or the Lower Confidence Limit approach in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. (3) Determining efficiency of an addon control device. Use Table 5 to this subpart to select the test methods for determining the efficiency of an add-on control device. 9. Amend § 63.5996 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ § 63.5996 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for tire production affected sources? * * * * * (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6016(e). 10. Amend § 63.5999 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations § 63.5999 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for tire cord production affected sources? * * * * * (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6016(e). ■ 11. Amend § 63.6002 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.6002 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for puncture sealant application affected sources? * * * * * (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6016(e). ■ 12. Amend § 63.6004 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.6004 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for tire production affected sources? * * * * * (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an emission limit in table 1 to this subpart. You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable requirements in table 10 to this subpart. These instances are deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in § 63.6017(e). * * * * * ■ 13. Amend § 63.6006 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.6006 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for tire cord production affected sources? khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 * * * * * (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an applicable emission limit in table 2 to this subpart. You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable requirements in table 12 to this subpart. These instances are deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in § 63.6017(e). ■ 14. Amend § 63.6008 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.6008 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations for puncture sealant application affected sources? * * * * * (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an applicable VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 emission limit in table 3 to this subpart. You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable requirements in table 14 to this subpart. These instances are deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in § 63.6017(e). 15. Add undesignated center heading ‘‘Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources’’ immediately following § 63.6008. ■ 16. Redesignate §§ 63.6013 through 63.6015 as §§ 63.6020 through 63.6022 and transfer undesignated center ‘‘Other Requirements and Information’’ to immediately before newly redesignated § 63.6020. ■ 17. Redesignate §§ 63.6009 through 63.6012 as §§ 63.6016 through 63.6019 and transfer undesignated center heading ‘‘Notifications, Reports, and Records’’ to immediately before newly redesignated § 63.6016. ■ 18. Add new §§ 63.6009 through 63.6015, undesignated center heading ‘‘Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources’’ before new §§ 63.6009, undesignated center heading ‘‘Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected Sources’’ immediately following new § 63.6010, and undesignated center heading ‘‘Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected Sources’’ immediately following new § 63.6013 to read as follows: ■ Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources § 63.6009 What emission limits must I meet for rubber processing affected sources? § 63.6010 What are my alternatives for meeting the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected Sources § 63.6011 How do I conduct tests and procedures for rubber processing affected sources? § 63.6012 What are my rubber processing monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? § 63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected Sources § 63.6014 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? § 63.6015 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94909 Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources § 63.6009 What emission limits must I meet for rubber processing affected sources? (a) You must meet the emission limit for total hydrocarbons (THC) and either total metal HAP or the alternative emission limit for filterable particulate matter (fPM) in table 15 to this subpart that applies to you. You may choose to comply with each emission limit for each rubber processing mixer separately or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, or with an alternative for all mixers combined based on a facility-wide average. (b) You must also meet each operating limit in table 16 to this subpart that applies to you. § 63.6010 What are my alternatives for meeting the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? (a) You must comply with the applicable emission limit for THC in table 15 of this subpart for each rubber processing mixer or a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device, or you must demonstrate compliance by averaging among all mixers and comply with the limit as a facility-wide emission limit. (b) You must demonstrate compliance with either the emission limit for fPM or the alternative emission limit for total metal HAP in table 15 of this subpart; if you demonstrate compliance with the alternative fPM emission limit, you do not have to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for metal HAP. You must comply with the applicable emission limit for fPM or metal HAP in table 15 of this subpart for each rubber processing mixer or group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device, or you must demonstrate compliance by averaging among all mixers and comply with the limit as a facility-wide emission limit. (c) For each rubber processing mixer, you must show that the control device and capture system meet the operating limits in table 16 to this subpart. Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected Sources § 63.6011 How do I conduct tests and procedures for rubber processing affected sources? (a) Conduct any required compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.5993 (b), (c), and (d). (b) You must use the methods in table 17 of this subpart and according to E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations (2) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the first 15 mixer operating days after the applicable compliance date for each mixer. All THC values must be used as they are recorded by the THC CEMS, except that negative values equal to or greater than to ¥5 should be treated as zeros, and values less than (i.e., more negative than) ¥5 cannot be used as valid compliance data in the calculations. (3) To convert the THC concentration measurements to mass emission rates, you must measure the volumetric flow rate in the same duct or stack in which the THC concentration is monitored no less frequently than once every 5 years. You may use the same flow rate measurements that are completed for demonstrating compliance with the emission limits for fPM or total metal HAP according to table 17 of this subpart. If you change operations in a way that would likely result in a change to volumetric flow rate, you must conduct an additional measurement of the new volumetric flow rate. (c) You must monitor mixed rubber compound processed in each mixer in Mg per day during the testing for THC. During the testing for fPM or total metal HAP, you must monitor the mixed rubber compound processed in each Where: E15 days = Emission rate of the THC emitted per total mass of mixed rubber compounds processed per 15-day period, grams THC per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed. THCi = Daily THC emissions for each day during the 15-day compliance period, grams/day, using the methods in paragraph (b) of this section. These THC emission values are calculated for each rubber mixer separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer separately, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average alternative. If you are demonstrating compliance for two or more mixers routed to the same control device or stack, then these THC emission values are calculated using the data for the combined mixer emissions at the common stack. RPi = Daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for each day i during the 15day compliance period, megagrams/day. These rubber mass processed values are calculated for each rubber mixer separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer separately, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide emission average alternative. If you are demonstrating Where: THCi = Daily THC emissions from rubber processing, grams/day for each rubber mixer emission stack. THCj = Daily average THC concentration, parts per million by volume, for each day during the 15-day compliance period for rubber processing for each rubber mixer emission stack, as measured by the THC CEMS. Q = Average volumetric flow rate of gas, dry standard cubic feet per minute, dscfm, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 mixer in Mg for the same periods that fPM or total metal HAP testing runs are performed, excluding the mass of rubber processed during the time between fPM or metal HAP sampling runs. (d) You must use the methods in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section to calculate the THC emission rate for the 15-day initial compliance period to demonstrate initial compliance. You must use the average THC emission rate obtained during the first 15 mixer operating days after the applicable compliance date to determine initial compliance for each mixer, group of mixers routed to the same control device or stack, or all mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average alternative. (1) Use Equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1) of this section to calculate the 15-day average THC emission rate in grams THC per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed. This emission rate is calculated for each rubber mixer separately, group of mixers routed to the same control device or stack, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average alternative. Equation 1 to Paragraph (d)(1) compliance for two or more mixers that are routed to the same control device or stack, then these rubber mass values are calculated for the combined mass processed for the mixers that share the common stack. (2) Use Equation 2 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section to calculate the THC emission rate in grams per day THC as propane for each day i in the 15-day initial compliance period for rubber processing for each rubber mixer emission stack. Equation 2 to Paragraph (d)(2) for each rubber mixer emission stack from the most recent available emissions test. H = Hours per day that rubber processing is performed in at least one of the mixers vented to the rubber mixer emission E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 ER29NO24.002</GPH> paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section to measure emissions and stack gas flow rates and characteristics to determine THC and fPM or metal HAP mass emission rates in grams per day. (1) You must operate a THC CEMS in accordance with the requirements in § 63.6012 and Performance Specification 8A in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. Owners or operators are responsible for ensuring their instruments provide appropriate data continuously. If a THC monitor will be used for an emission stream that could have a wide variability in THC concentrations because of mixing both high-emitting and low-emitting compounds at different times, then a dual-span monitor should be considered for use. If the THC monitor is used for emissions that are relatively constant, then a dualspan monitor may not be needed, but it remains the responsibility of source owners or operators to make that determination. Owners and operators cannot discard from the compliance determination THC concentration data that exceed the calibration range of the monitor. ER29NO24.001</GPH> khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 94910 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations (e) You must use Equation 3 to this paragraph to calculate the fPM emission rate in grams per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed or use Equation 4 to of this paragraph to calculate the metal HAP emission rate Where: EfPM = Emission rate of the fPM emitted in grams of fPM per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed. fPMi = Total grams of fPM emitted during the performance test, measured using EPA method 5. These fPM emission values are calculated for each rubber mixer i separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer separately, and it is summed for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average alternative. RPj = Total megagrams of mixed rubber compound mass processed rate recorded during the fPM (Eq. 3A) or total metal HAP emissions test (Eq. 3B). EMHAP = Emission rate of the total metal HAP in grams of metal HAP per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed. MHAPi = Total grams of total metal HAP emitted during the performance test, measured using the methods specified in table 17 to this subpart. These total metal HAP emission values are calculated for each rubber mixer separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer separately, and it is summed for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average alternative. N = Number of mixers included if complying with the facility-wide average alternative. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 § 63.6012 What are my rubber processing monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? (a) You must install and operate a THC continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) according to § 63.8 (b) and (c) and comply with the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). (1) On each stack used to exhaust emissions from a rubber processing mixer to the atmosphere, you must install, operate, and maintain a THC CEMS in accordance with Performance VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 in grams per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed to demonstrate initial compliance. The rubber mass processed at each mixer must be recorded for the exact same period of time as the fPM or metal HAP emissions are measured at each mixer. If you are demonstrating compliance with the facility-wide emission average alternative, the relevant measurement of fPM or metal HAP, as appropriate, at each mixer does not need to be done simultaneously for all mixers, but all tests of mixers to be averaged must be done within the same 3-month period. Specification 8A of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and comply with all of the requirements for CEMS found in the general provisions, subpart A of this part. The THC CEMS must be installed downstream of any organic vapor control device (such as a thermal oxidizer), if present. A single THC CEMS may be used to monitor the combined emissions from multiple rubber mixers. (2) You must operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. Where a dual range analyzer is used, the daily calibration drift check must be performed for each operating range. For THC CEMS certified under Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, conduct the relative accuracy test audits required under Procedure 1 in accordance with Performance Specification 8, sections 8 and 11 using Method 25A in appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 as the reference method; the relative accuracy must meet the criteria of Performance Specification 8, section 13.2. (b) Parameter monitoring requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section by the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.5983. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data. (2) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that the mixer is operating. (3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded readings. (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (c) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any applicable requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this section. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). (1) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting fPM emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter or less. (2) The sensor on the BLDS must provide output of relative fPM emissions. (3) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (4) The BLDS must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative fPM emissions greater than a preset level. (5) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel will be able to hear it. (6) For a positive-pressure fabric filter baghouse, each compartment or cell must have a bag leak detector (BLD). For a negative-pressure or induced-air fabric filter baghouse, the BLD must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. If multiple BLD are required (for either type of fabric filter baghouse), the detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm. (7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA–454/R– 98–015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Equations 3 and 4 to Paragraph (e) E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 ER29NO24.003</GPH> stack for which emissions are being calculated. 94911 94912 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained according to the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). (8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii), according to section 5.0 of the EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14): (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device. (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time. (9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified in the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period, unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). You must record each adjustment. (10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (d) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, you must inspect each capture/ collection and closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system vents captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter. You must record the results of each inspection. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 § 63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limit that applies to you according to table 17 to this subpart. (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6016(e). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected Sources § 63.6014 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? (a) You must monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources as specified in table 18 to this subpart. (b) You must monitor and collect data according to the requirements in § 63.6012. § 63.6015 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected sources? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each applicable emission limit in table 15 and each operating limit in table 16 to this subpart using the methods specified in table 18 to this subpart. (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an applicable emission limit in table 15 or operating limit in table 16 to this subpart. You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable requirements in table 18 to this subpart. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in § 63.6017(e). ■ 19. Amend newly redesignated § 63.6016 by revising paragraphs (e) and (k) to read as follows: § 63.6016 What notifications must I submit and when? * * * * * (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in tables 5 through 8 and table 17 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). The Notification must contain the information listed in table 20 to this subpart for compliance reports. The Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted according to the following schedules, as appropriate: (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 and table 17 to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. (2) Before January 21, 2021, for each initial compliance demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 and table PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 17 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 January 20, 2021, 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 63.6017(h)(1) through (3). * * * * * (k) You must submit to the Administrator notification reports of the following recorded information. Beginning on January 21, 2021, or once the reporting form has been available on the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (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 paragraphs (d) through (i) of this section to the EPA via the 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/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. The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. Although we E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI, 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 CEDRI as described earlier in this paragraph. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. Where applicable, you may assert a claim of the EPA system outage, in accordance with § 63.6017(i), or force majeure, in accordance with § 63.6017(j), for failure to timely comply with this requirement. ■ 20. Amend newly redesignated § 63.6017 by:z ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (c) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(11); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(2), (g), and (h) introductory text; and ■ d. Adding paragraph (k). The revisions and additions read as follows: khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 § 63.6017 when? What reports must I submit and (a) You must submit each applicable report in table 20 to this subpart. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in table 20 to this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. * * * * * (c) The compliance report must contain information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section. * * * * * (11) For each rubber processing affected source, whether you are complying with the particulate matter or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 total metal HAP emission limit alternative in table 15 to this subpart. (d) Before January 21, 2021, for each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CPMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, 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 January 20, 2021, for each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CPMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, 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 of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment when the affected source is operating. * * * * * (2) Before January 20, 2021, information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable) and the corrective action taken. After January 20, 2021, for each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), affected sources or equipment, whether the failure occurred during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 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. * * * * * (g) Before July 24, 2021, 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 July 24, 2021, or once the reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever date is later, you must submit compliance reports required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section, 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/cedri) for this subpart. The date on which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 94913 website. If the reporting form for the 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. The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI, 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 CEDRI as described earlier in this paragraph. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. (h) After January 20, 2021, 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. The provisions of this E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94914 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations paragraph (h) and (h)(1) and (h)(3) do not apply to control devices and capture systems to control THC emissions from rubber processing when monitored by a THC CEMS. * * * * * (k) For each THC CEMS, within 60 days after the reporting period ends, you must report all of the calculated 15-day rolling average values derived from the THC CEMS for THC emissions in grams of THC per megagram (g/Mg) of rubber processed, either for each mixer individually, or for all mixers that use a single control device or stack, or that are averaged to comply on the basis of the facility-wide average alternative. 21. Amend newly redesignated § 63.6018 by redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 63.6018 What records must I keep? * * * * * (e) For each rubber processing affected source, you must keep the records specified in table 19 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limit that applies to you. * * * * * 22. Revise newly redesignated § 63.6020 to read as follows: ■ § 63.6020 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 22 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. ■ 23. Amend newly redesignated § 63.6021 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 63.6021 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * * * * * (c) * * * (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in §§ 63.5981 through 63.5984, 63.5986, 63.5988, and 63.6009. * * * * * ■ 24. Amend newly redesignated § 63.6022 by adding the definitions ‘‘Bag leak detector system (BLDS)’’ and ‘‘Particulate matter (PM) detector’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 63.6022 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Bag leak detector system (BLDS) is a type of PM detector used on fabric filters to identify an increase in PM For each . . . emissions resulting from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sound an alarm. * * * * * Particulate matter (PM) detector means a system that is continuously capable of monitoring PM loading in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag leaks, upset conditions, or control device malfunctions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. A PM detector system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effects to continuously monitor relative particulate loadings. A BLDS is a type of PM detector. * * * * * 25. Revise tables 1 through 3 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as follows: ■ Table 1 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Emission Limits for Tire Production Affected Sources As stated in § 63.5984, you must comply with the emission limits for each new, reconstructed, or existing tire production affected source in the following table: You must meet the following emission limits 1. Option 1—HAP constituent option. 2. Option 2—production-based option. a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21 to this subpart 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 b. Emissions of each HAP not in table 21 to this subpart 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. 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. cord production affected sources in the following table: Table 2 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Emission Limits for Tire Cord Production Affected Sources As stated in § 63.5986, you must comply with the emission limits for tire For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 1. Option 1.a (production-based option)—Existing tire cord production affected source. 2. Option 1.b (production-based option)—New or reconstructed tire cord production affected source. 3. Option 2 (HAP constituent option)—Existing, new or reconstructed tire cord production affected source. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Emissions must not exceed 280 grams HAP per megagram (0.56 pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source. Emissions must not exceed 220 grams HAP per megagram (0.43 pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source. a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21 to this subpart 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 b. Emissions of each HAP not in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source. Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Table 3 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Emission Limits for Puncture Sealant Application Affected Sources 94915 puncture sealant application affected sources in the following table: As stated in § 63.5988(a), you must comply with the emission limits for For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits 1. Option 1.a (percent reduction option)—Existing puncture sealant application spray booth. 2. Option 1.b (percent reduction option)—New or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booth. 3. Option 2 (HAP constituent option) Existing, new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booth. Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic compounds (VOC)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight. Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as VOC) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight. a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21 to this subpart 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 b. Emissions of each HAP not in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected source. 26. Revise table 5 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as follows: khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 ■ Table 5 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Requirements for Performance Tests As stated in § 63.5993, you must comply with the requirements for performance tests in the following table: If you are using . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. A thermal oxidizer a. Measure total HAP emissions, determine destruction efficiency of the control device, and establish a site-specific firebox secondary chamber temperature limit at which the emission limit that applies to the affected source is achieved. i. Method 25 or 25A performance test and data from the temperature monitoring system. 2. A carbon adsorber (regenerative). a. Measure total organic HAP emissions, establish the total regeneration mass or volumetric flow, and establish the temperature of the carbon bed within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycles. The total regeneration mass, volumetric flow, and carbon bed temperature must be those at which the emission limit that applies to the affected source is achieved. i. Method 25 or Method 25A performance test and data from the carbon bed temperature monitoring device. (1). Measure total HAP emissions and determine the destruction efficiency of the control device using Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). You may use Method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7) if: an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 parts per million (ppmv) or less is required to comply with the standard; the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the required level of control are such that exhaust volatile organic matter concentrations are 50 ppmv or less; or because of the high efficiency of the control device exhaust, is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration. (2). Collect firebox secondary chamber temperature data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the initial 3-hour performance test, and determine the average firebox temperature over the 3hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15minute reading. (1). Measure total HAP emissions using Method 25. You may use Method 25A, if an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less; or because of the high efficiency of the control device, exhaust is 50 ppmv or less is required to comply with the standard; the volatile organic matter concentration (VOMC) at the inlet to the control system and the required level of control are such that exhaust VOMCs are 50 ppmv or less; or because of the high efficiency of the control device, exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration. (2). Collect carbon bed total regeneration mass or volumetric flow for each carbon bed regeneration cycle during the performance test. 3. Any control device other than a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorber. 4. All control devices VerDate Sep<11>2014 Determine control device efficiency and establish operating parameter limits with which you will demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit that applies to the affected source. a. Select sampling ports’ location and the number of traverse ports. 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 EPA-approved methods and data from the continuous parameter monitoring system. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (3). Record the maximum carbon bed temperature data for each carbon bed regeneration cycle during the performance test. (4). Record the carbon bed temperature within 15 minutes of each cooling cycle during the performance test. (5). Determine the average total regeneration mass or the volumetric flow over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the readings. (6). Determine the average maximum carbon bed temperature over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the readings. (7). Determine the average carbon bed temperature within 15 minutes of the cooling cycle over the 3-hour performance test. Conduct the performance test according to the site-specific plan submitted according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i). Locate sampling sites at the inlet and outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94916 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations If you are using . . . 5. A permanent total enclosure (PTE). 6. Temporary total enclosure (TTE). You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. c. Conduct gas analysis ............... Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60 appendix A; as an alternative to the manual portion of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 204 of CFR part 51, appendix M. Capture efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent if the criteria are met d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Measure the face velocity across natural draft openings and document the design features of the enclosure. Construct a temporarily installed enclosure that allows you to determine the efficiency of your capture system and establish operating parameter limits. Table 8 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Initial Compliance With the Emission Limits for Puncture Sealant Application Affected Sources 27. Revise the heading of table 8 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as set forth above. ■ Method 204 and the appropriate combination of Methods 204A– 204F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. 28. Redesignate tables 15 through 17 to subpart XXXX of part 63 as tables 20 through 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63. Table 15 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources 29. Add new tables 15 through 17 and tables 18 and 19 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as follows: As stated in § 63.6009(a), you must comply with the emission limits for each new, reconstructed, or existing rubber processing affected source in the following table: ■ ■ For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits 1. Existing rubber processing affected sources. a. THC emissions, measured as propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, based on a 15-day rolling average. b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, or metal HAP emissions must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed. a. THC emissions, measured as propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, based on a 15-day rolling average. b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, or metal HAP emissions must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed. 2. New or reconstructed rubber processing affected sources. Table 16 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Operating Limits for Rubber Processing Control Devices rubber processing affected sources in the following table: As stated in § 63.6009(b) you must comply with the operating limits for For each . . . You must . . . 1. For each rubber processing mixer. a. Inspect each emission capture system or enclosure and closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system or enclosure vents captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter. You must record the results of each inspection. a. Maintain and operate the fabric filter such that the BLDS detector alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month period; and comply with the requirements in § 63.6012(c). Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 2. Each mixer equipped with a fabric filter. Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Initial Compliance With the Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources limits for the rubber processing affected source and conduct performance tests according to the following table: As stated in § 63.6011, you must show initial compliance with the emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94917 For the following emission limit . . . You must do the following . . . 1. The applicable THC emission limit in table 15 to this subpart. a. Continuously measure THC emissions using a THC CEMS and mass of mixed rubber compounds processed over a period of not less than 15 days. b. Use the applicable methods in item 2 in this table to measure exhaust flow rate in dry standard cubic feet per minute to determine THC mass emissions in grams per day using the equations and procedures in § 63.6011. c. Demonstrate that you have achieved the applicable THC emission limits in table 15 to this subpart according to the applicable procedures in § 63.6011. a. Conduct the performance test according to the site-specific plan submitted according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i). b. Measure fPM and the mass of mixed rubber compound processed for at least 3 runs lasting at least 1 hour per run. c. Use Method 5 in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60 to measure fPM emissions. d. Select sampling ports’ location and the number of traverse ports according to Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. e. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate according to Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. f. Conduct the gas analysis according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2; as an alternative to the manual portion of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). g. Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. h. Demonstrate that you have achieved the applicable fPM emission limit in table 15 to this subpart according to the applicable procedures in § 63.6011. i. Install, operate, and maintain the BLDS according to the requirements in § 63.6012(c) at the time of the initial compliance test. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). a. Conduct the performance test according to the site-specific plan submitted according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i). b. Measure metal HAP emissions and mass of mixed rubber compound processed for at least 3 runs lasting at least 1 hour per run. c. Use Method 29 in appendix A–8 to 40 CFR part 60 to measure metal HAP emissions. As an alternative to Method 29 for mercury only, you may use the particulate mercury portion of ASTM D6784–16 to measure particulate mercury emissions (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). d. Select sampling ports’ location and the number of traverse ports according to Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. e. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate according to Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. f. Conduct the gas analysis according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2; as an alternative to the manual portion of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). g. Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. h. Demonstrate that you have achieved the applicable metal HAP emission limit in table 15 to this subpart according to the applicable procedures in § 63.6011. i. Install, operate, and maintain the BLDS according to the requirements in § 63.6012(c) at the time of the initial compliance test. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). 2. The applicable fPM emission limit in table 15 to this subpart. 3. The applicable metal HAP alternative emission limit in table 15 to this subpart. Table 18 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Continuous Compliance With the Emission Limitations for Rubber Processing Affected Sources emission limitations for rubber processing affected sources according to the following table: khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 As stated in § 63.6014(a), you must show continuous compliance with the For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Each THC continuous emissions monitoring system installed in a rubber processing mixer affected source. 2. Each rubber processing affected source. 3. Each rubber processing affected source fabric filter. a. Continuously monitoring and record the THC concentration and calculate the daily THC emissions in grams per day. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 a. Continuously monitor the daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for each mixer in megagrams per day. a. Maintain and operate the fabric filter so that the alarm on the BLDS is not activated and an alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6-month reporting period; and continuously recording the output from the BLDS detection system; and b. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted (if the owner or operator takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions); if inspection of the fabric filter system demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted. Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94918 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Table 19 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Minimum Data for Continuous Compliance With the Emission Limitations for Rubber Processing Affected Sources continuous compliance with the emission limitations for rubber processing affected sources according to the following table: As stated in § 63.6018(e), you must maintain minimum data to show For . . . You must maintain . . . 1. Rubber processing affected sources using an emission capture system or enclosure to capture emissions and performing the inspections specified in table 16 to this subpart. 2. Rubber processing affected sources using a continuous emissions monitoring system to comply with the THC limits in table 15 to this subpart. 3. Rubber processing affected sources subject to the THC emission limit in table 15 to this subpart. 4. Rubber processing affected sources subject to the fPM or metal HAP emission limits in table 15 to this subpart. a. Records of the annual inspections of the enclosure and closed vent system specified in table 16 to this subpart. a. Records of each THC concentration measurement and each inspection, calibration, and validation check. b. Records of each flow rate measurement. a. Records of daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for each mixer, in megagrams per day. b. Records of each calculated 15-day rolling average THC emission rate, in grams THC per Mg rubber processed for each mixer separately or for all mixers combined and complying with the facility-wide emission limit. a. Records of applicable periodic fPM or metal HAP performance tests. b. Records of mass of mixed rubber compound processed during the periodic fPM or metal HAP performance test. c. Records of the calculated fPM or metal HAP emission rate, in grams fPM or metal HAP per Mg rubber processed for each mixer separately or for all mixers combined and complying with the facility-wide emission limit. d. Records of each inspection, calibration, and validation check of the bag leak detection system. e. Records of each bag leak detection system alarm, the amount of time taken to initiate corrective action after the alarm, and the response and corrective action taken. 30. Revise newly redesignated table 20 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as follows: ■ You must submit a(n) khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 1. Compliance report .................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 Table 20 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Requirements for Reports As stated in § 63.6017, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table. The report must contain . . . You must submit the 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 January 21, 2021, If you had a startup, shutdown, and 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 January 20, 2021, this information is no longer required. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6017(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6017(f) for the tire production affected source only. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6017(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6017(f) for the tire production affected source only. Before January 21, 2021, semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6017(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6017(f). After January 20, 2021, this information is no longer required. E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 94919 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations You must submit a(n) 2. Before January 21, 2021, immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, and malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. After January 20, 2021, this report is no longer required. 3. Performance Test Report ....................... The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . a. Before January 21, 2021, actions taken for the event. After January 20, 2021, this report is no longer required. Before January 21, 2021, by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. After January 20, 2021, this report is no longer required. b. Before January 21, 2021, the information in (§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). After January 20, 2021, this report is no longer required. Before January 21, 2021, 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 January 20, 2021, 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. If you use a control system (add-on control device and capture system) to meet the emission limitations. 31. Amend newly redesignated table 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63 by: ■ a. Revising the introductory text to the first table (that applies before January 21, 2021); and ■ b. Revising the second table (that applies after January 20, 2021). The revisions read as follows: ■ Table 22 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to This Subpart XXXX Before January 21, 2021, as stated in § 63.6020, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to the following table: * * * * * After January 20, 2021, as stated in § 63.6020, 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 ........................... Yes ........................................ Yes. § 63.2 ..................... § 63.3 ..................... § 63.4 ..................... Definitions ............................. Units and Abbreviations ....... Prohibited Activities .............. Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.5 ..................... § 63.6(a) ................ Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ........................... Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes. § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ...... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Notification ............................ 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 CAA section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. 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. .............................................................................................. No. See § 63.5990(a) ........... 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 ........................................ No. See § 63.5990(a). Yes. No ......................................... No. .............................................................................................. No. See § 63.5990(a) ........... No. Compliance based on performance test; operation and maintenance plans; records; inspection. Procedures for getting an alternative standard ................... Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. § 63.6(b)(5) ............ § 63.6(b)(6) ............ § 63.6(b)(7) ............ § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ...... khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ...... § 63.6(c)(5) ............ [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources that Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. § 63.6(d) ................ § 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ... [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources that Become Major. [Reserved]. Operations and Maintenance § 63.6(e)(1)(iii)–(2) Operation and Maintenance § 63.6(e)(3) ............ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemption. Methods for Determining Compliance. Alternative Standard ............. § 63.6(f)(1) ............. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ....... § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ...... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Not using a control device 94920 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Applicable to subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.6(h) ................ Opacity/Visible Emissions (VE) Standards. Compliance Extension .......... .............................................................................................. No ......................................... No. 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 ............... Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. No ......................................... Yes ........................................ No. No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ No. See § 63.5993(c) ............ No. No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ No. Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ No. Yes. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes, if using a CEMS ........... Yes, if using a CEMS. .............................................................................................. 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. No ......................................... Yes ........................................ No. Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). § 63.6(i) .................. § 63.6(j) .................. § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ...... § 63.7(a)(3) ............ § 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) ................ § 63.8(a)(1) ............ § 63.8(a)(2) ............ Waiver of Tests .................... 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. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ......... Routine and Predictable Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction not in Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ........ § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ....... khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Dates ...... CAA section 114 Authority ... 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 startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Must conduct according to rule and the 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 ............. .............................................................................................. No ......................................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). No. .............................................................................................. No ......................................... No. How the 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. .............................................................................................. No ......................................... No. Yes ........................................ Yes. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). No. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ...... Monitoring System Installation. § 63.8(c)(4) ............ CMS Requirements .............. § 63.8(c)(5) ............ .............................................................................................. No ......................................... § 63.8(c)(6) ............ Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements .............. .............................................................................................. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e). § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ...... CMS Requirements .............. Out-of-control periods, including reporting .......................... Yes ........................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 Not using a control device PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e). Yes. 94921 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Applicable to subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ...... CMS Quality Control ............. .............................................................................................. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). § 63.8(d)(3) ............ Written Procedures for CMS .............................................................................................. No. See § 63.5990(f)(2). ....... § 63.8(e) ................ Performance evaluation of continuous monitoring systems Yes ........................................ Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Requesting an alternative to the relative accuracy test for a CEMS. How to reduce CMS data .................................................... Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. § 63.8(g) ................ CMS Performance Evaluation. Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction ..................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(e) and (f). No. See § 63.5990(f)(2). Yes. Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). § 63.9(a) ................ § 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ...... Notification Requirements .... Initial Notifications ................. Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ § 63.9(c) ................. Request for Compliance Extension. Yes ........................................ Yes. § 63.9(d) ................ Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status. 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 ....................................... Applies as modified by § 63.5990(f). Yes. Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ No. .............................................................................................. No ......................................... No. Additional notification requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems. 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 ...................... Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Electronic reporting procedures ........................................... Yes, as specified in § 63.9(j) 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, as specified in § 63.9(j). Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. No ......................................... No. No. See 63.6017 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time, cause, and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, whether the failure occurred during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard and the method used to estimate the emissions; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes. No ......................................... No. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ....... § 63.8(f)(6) ............. § 63.9(e) ................ § 63.9(f) ................. § 63.9(g) ................ § 63.9(h) ................ § 63.9(i) .................. § 63.9(k) ................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information. Notification ............................ § 63.10(a) .............. 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). § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)– (ix). CMS Records ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ... Records ................................ Records ................................ § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ... Records ................................ § 63.10(b)(3) .......... § 63.10(c)(1)–(14) .. Records ................................ Records ................................ § 63.10(c)(15) ........ Use of SSM plan .................. khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 § 63.9(j) .................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Records ................................ 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 .............................................................................................. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control; calibration checks; adjustments, maintenance. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emission limitations; performance test, performance evaluation, and VE observation results; and measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Records when under waiver ................................................ Emission levels relative to the criterion for obtaining permission to use an alternative to the relative accuracy test. All documentation supporting Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status. Applicability determinations ................................................. Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems. .............................................................................................. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Using a control device E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Not using a control device 94922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Applicable to subpart XXXX? Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections Using a control device § 63.10(d)(1) .......... General Reporting Requirements. Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Progress Reports .................. Requirement to report .......................................................... Yes ........................................ Yes. When to submit to Federal or State authority ..................... Yes ........................................ No. .............................................................................................. No ......................................... No. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. See § 63.6017(d) for malfunction reporting requirements ... Yes ........................................ Yes. No ......................................... No. Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes. No ......................................... Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ No. Yes. Yes. Yes ........................................ Yes ........................................ Yes. Yes. § 63.10(d)(2) .......... § 63.10(d)(3) .......... § 63.10(d)(4) .......... § 63.10(d)(5) .......... § 63.10(e) .............. § 63.10(f) ............... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Additional CMS Reports ....... § 63.11 ................... § 63.12 ................... § 63.13 ................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Flares .................................... Delegation ............................. Addresses ............................. § 63.14 ................... § 63.15 ................... Incorporation by Reference .. Availability of Information ..... Additional reporting requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems. 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 ...................................... [FR Doc. 2024–26895 Filed 11–27–24; 8:45 am] khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2 Not using a control device

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 94886-94922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26895]



[[Page 94885]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 230

November 29, 2024

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 94886]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392; FRL-5949.1-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV70


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Rubber Tire Manufacturing, as required by the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure that all emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) from sources in the source category are regulated, the 
EPA is promulgating emissions standards for the rubber processing 
subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, which is the 
only unregulated subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 29, 2024. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 
29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. 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 as pdf versions that can 
only be accessed on the EPA computers in the docket office reading 
room. Certain databases and physical items cannot be downloaded from 
the docket but may be requested by contacting the docket office at 202-
566-1744. The docket office has up to 10 business days to respond to 
these requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available 
docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, 
RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2416; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. 
Throughout this document the use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
intended to refer to the EPA. 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:

3xRDL three times the representative detection level
BDL below detection limit
BLDS bag leak detection system
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DLL detection level limited
DRE destruction and removal efficiency
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
fPM filterable particulate matter
g gram
g/Mg grams per megagram
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
lb pound
lb/Mton pounds per million tons
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
Mg megagram
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
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
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RDL representative detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
the court United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
[mu]g/Nm3 microgram per normal cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound

    Background information. On November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP (88 FR 78692), 
specifically standards for the rubber processing subcategory of the 
rubber tire manufacturing industry, to ensure that all emissions of HAP 
from sources in the source category are regulated. In this action, we 
are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some 
of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the 
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of 
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to 
those comments is available in Comment Summary and Response Document 
for Proposed NESHAP for Rubber Processing in the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Industry, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392. A ``track 
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    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?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
source category in our November 16, 2023, proposal?
    D. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    B. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    A. Emission Standards for Unregulated Organic HAP Emissions from 
the Rubber Processing Subcategory
    B. Emission Standards for Unregulated Metal HAP Emissions from 
the Rubber Processing Subcategory
    C. Emission Testing and Compliance Demonstrations
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?

[[Page 94887]]

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 
and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.

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

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) by 
January 28, 2025. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    On November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed revisions to the NESHAP for 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing.\1\ The EPA is finalizing in this action 
amendments to the NESHAP to ensure that all emissions of HAP from 
sources in the source category are regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR78962, November 16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) 
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA has an 
obligation to address unregulated emissions from a major source 
category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review.\2\ In 
setting standards for major source categories under CAA 112(d), EPA has 
the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA 112((b).\3\ The 
amendments in this rulemaking address currently unregulated emissions 
of HAP from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, specifically 
from the rubber processing subcategory. Available data indicate the 
following unregulated pollutants are emitted from the source category: 
organic HAP compounds and metallic HAP compounds. Therefore, the EPA is 
finalizing standards that reflect maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) for these pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to 
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Additionally, in accordance with CAA, 
costs are not considered when setting these initial MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``LEAN'').
    \3\ See Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F3d 524, 
527 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (``[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of 
section 112(d) to require the regulations of all HAPs listed in 
section 112(b)(1)'' citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and how does 
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the initial Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP on 
July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45598). The standards are codified in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. The Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing source category consists of facilities that produce 
rubber tire components including but not limited to rubber compounds, 
sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord, and liners. The source 
category covered by the NESHAP currently includes 15 major source 
facilities.Since first established, the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
source category has been split into 4 subcategories for different 
phases of rubber tire manufacturing. These subcategories include rubber 
processing, tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant 
application. In the original Rubber Tire Manufactuing NESHAP, emission 
limits were established for tire production, tire cord production and 
puncture sealant

[[Page 94888]]

application but no standards were established for rubber processing.
    The 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category 
(67 FR 45598) established emission limits on a subcategory basis as 
follows.
1. Rubber Processing
    There are currently no emission limits for the rubber processing 
subcategory. The EPA proposed emission limits for the rubber processing 
subcategory on November 16, 2023, and the EPA is finalizing emission 
limits for this subcategory with this action.
2. Tire Production
    There are 2 equivalent standards for the tire production 
subcategory, and sources can comply with either standard. The first 
standard, is based on HAP materials purchased and used in the process. 
This standard considers that the quantity of HAP material purchased 
will represent the amount of HAP emitted for uncontrolled processes. 
The emission limit requires that emissions of each HAP in table 21 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire production 
process not exceed 1,000 grams (g) HAP per megagram (Mg) (2 pounds per 
ton (lb/ton)) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production 
affected source, and requires that the amount of each HAP not in table 
21 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire production 
process not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of total cements and 
solvents used at the tire production affected source.
    The second standard is a production-based emission-limit option. A 
production-based standard sets a quantity of emissions allowed per unit 
of production (i.e., amount of HAP emitted per ton of rubber produced). 
For this option, emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per 
megagram (g/Mg), (0.00005 lb/ton) of rubber processed at the tire 
production affected source.
3. Tire Cord Production
    There are 3 standards for the tire cord production subcategory, and 
sources can choose which standard to comply with within this 
subcategory, depending, in part, on whether the source is an existing 
or new source. The first standard is a production-based emission-limit 
option for existing tire cord production affected sources. As part of 
this standard, emissions must not exceed 280 g HAP per Mg (0.56 lb/ton) 
of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source for the 
monthly average.
    The second standard is a production-based emission-limit option for 
new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of 
this standard, emissions must not exceed 220 g HAP per Mg (0.43 lb/ton) 
of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source.
    The third standard is a HAP constituent emission-limit option 
available to both existing and new or reconstructed tire cord 
production affected sources. A HAP constituent standard requires that 
no material be purchased and used at an affected facility that contains 
HAP in amounts above a specific composition limit. To comply with this 
standard, emissions of each HAP in table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
XXXX, that is used in the tire cord production process must not exceed 
1,000 g HAP per Mg (2 lb/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, that is used in the tire cord 
production process must not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of 
total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source.
4. Puncture Sealant Application
    There are 3 equivalent standards for the puncture sealant 
application subcategory, and sources can choose which standard to 
comply with within this subcategory depending, in part, on whether the 
source is an existing or new source. The first standard is a percent 
reduction emission-limit option for existing puncture sealant 
application spray booths. As part of this standard, facilities are 
required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight.
    The second standard is a percent reduction emission-limit option 
for new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As 
part of this standard, facilities are required to reduce spray booth 
HAP (measured as VOCs) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight.
    The third standard is a HAP constituent emission-limit option for 
both existing and new or reconstructed puncture sealant application 
spray booths. As part of this standard, emissions of each HAP in table 
16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 g HAP per Mg 
(2 lb/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 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) 
of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected 
source.
5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission Limits
    Compliance alternatives are available for the 3 subcategories 
currently subject to emission limits (tire production, tire cord 
production, and puncture sealant application) to meet the emission 
limits mentioned earlier in section II.B. of this preamble. For more 
information on these compliance alternatives, a detailed breakdown of 
the compliance alternatives for these subcategories may be found at 40 
CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR 63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989, for tire production, 
tire cord production, and puncture sealant application, respectively. 
These alternatives are also summarized here.
    For tire production, alternatives for showing compliance are 
available for both emission standards. For the standard option based on 
the materials purchased and used the alternatives are to use only 
cements and solvents that as purchased contain no more HAP than allowed 
by the specified emission limitations; use cements and solvents such 
that the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission 
limitations; or use control devices to reduce HAP emissions such that 
the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission 
limitations. For the production-based standard option the alternatives 
are to use cements and solvents such that the monthly average HAP 
emissions meet the specified emissions limitations; or use control 
devices to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP 
emissions meet the specified emission limitations.
    For tire cord production there are two alternative compliance 
options: use coating solutions such that the monthly average HAP 
emissions do not exceed the applicable emission limit; or use a control 
device to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP 
emissions do not exceed the applicable emission limitation.
    For puncture sealant application, there are two alternative 
compliance options: use an emissions capture system and control device 
and demonstrate that the application booth emissions meet the specified 
emission limitations and operating limits; or use a permanent total 
enclosure that satisfies the Method 204 criteria in 40 CFR part 51 and 
demonstrate that the control device meets the specified operating 
limits and reduces at least 86 percent of emissions for existing 
sources and 95 percent of emissions for new sources.

[[Page 94889]]

6. Recent Actions Relating to the NESHAP for the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Source Category
    In the 2020 Risk and Technology Review (RTR) (85 FR 44752), the EPA 
found that the risk associated with air emissions from rubber tire 
manufacturing was acceptable considering all the health information and 
factors evaluated, and risk estimation uncertainty. The EPA found that 
the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA 
determined that there were no developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies that warranted revisions to the MACT standards 
under CAA section 112(d)(6). Based on the analysis conducted as part of 
the RTR, no revisions to the numerical emission limits were made for 
any of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing subcategories. The 2020 RTR 
addressed periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by 
clarifying that emissions during SSM operations are subject to the 
NESHAP. In addition, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring 
electronic reporting of performance test results and reports, 
compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports.

C. What changes did we propose for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 
category in our November 16, 2023, proposal?

    In response to the LEAN decision requiring the EPA to ensure that 
missing emission standards are promulgated when the EPA undertakes a 
112(d)(6) technology review, on November 16, 2023, the EPA published a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that took into consideration the 
MACT analyses for the rubber processing subcategory. In the proposed 
rule, the EPA proposed numerical emissions limits for the rubber 
processing subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, which 
is the only unregulated subcategory within the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category with unregulated HAP.
    Additionally, EPA solicited comment on several aspects of the 
proposed rulemaking. EPA solicited comment on the use of THC as a 
surrogate for organic HAP, as well as on the EPA's approach to testing 
for THC, as opposed to testing for individual speciated organic HAP. 
EPA solicited comment on the use of THC as a surrogate in place of 
setting emission limits for PAHs, specifically. EPA solicited comment 
on our approach regarding the 30-day THC data. EPA solicited comment on 
the proposed approach to addressing negative THC values. EPA solicited 
comment on the proposed compliance periods, and specifically requested 
submission of information from sources in this source category 
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply 
with the proposed amended provisions and the time needed to make the 
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised provisions.
    The EPA proposed to establish MACT standards for the rubber 
processing subcategory for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for 
organic HAP. For these MACT standards, we proposed a THC emission limit 
for mixers processing silica containing compounds and a THC emission 
limit for mixers processing non-silica containing compounds. Both 
limits were based on a 15-day rolling average.
    The EPA also proposed MACT standards for filterable particulate 
matter (fPM) and metal HAP. The emission limits proposed for new and 
existing sources were an emissions limit for fPM, as a surrogate for 
metal HAP, with an emission limit for total metal HAP as an 
alternative.

D. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal?

    Following publication of the proposed rule, the EPA offered the 
opportunity for a public hearing, but none was requested. However, the 
USTMA did request a meeting with the EPA, and the EPA and USTMA met in 
May 2024 and USTMA discussed supplemental testing performed by USTMA 
and the use of THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. A summary of that 
meeting is in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the MACT 
provisions of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing source category and sets emission limitations for the 
rubber tire processing subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
NESHAP based on those determinations.

A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?

    We are establishing MACT standards for the rubber processing 
subcategory in the rubber tire manufacturing source category, as 
required by the CAA. To satisfy the requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3), we are revising the NESHAP to include emissions 
limitations for the previously unregulated rubber processing 
subcategory including limitations for THC, as a surrogate for organic 
HAP emissions; fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP; and an alternative 
limit for metal HAP. The standards in this final rule are similar in 
format to those in the proposed rule, but with updates to the standards 
based on public comments and additional data received and analyzed for 
the final rule. In the proposal, the EPA included separate THC 
standards for silica-containing and non-silica-containing processed 
rubber. Based on comments and data received during the comment period, 
the EPA is establishing a single MACT standard, instead of setting 
separate standards for the mixing of silica-containing and non-silica 
containing compounds, as proposed. The same THC standard is being 
established for both new and existing facilities and is based on 3 
times the representative detection level (3xRDL) since this value is 
larger than the calculated Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) for THC.\4\ 
Also based on the public comments, the final rule is allowing facility-
wide averaging of the individual emissions from each mixer to 
demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It is the practice of the EPA to use the higher of the 
calculated UPL and 3xRDL value when setting an emission limit, as 
describedin the memorandum, Data and Procedure for Handling Below 
Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions 
Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule is also setting standards for fPM, as a surrogate 
for metal HAP, and an alternative standard for metal HAP, with the same 
standards applying for new and existing facilities. The final standards 
for fPM and metal HAP are also based on the 3xRDL value for fPM and 
metal HAP, since this value is larger than the calculated UPL. Also 
based on the public comments, the final rule is allowing facility-wide 
averaging of the individual emissions from each mixer to demonstrate 
compliance with the fPM emission limits.
1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
    The EPA received data from 5 facilities for polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions. The PAH compounds measured were aniline, 
dibenzofuran, hydroquinone, naphthalene, and o-toluidine. The PAH 
emissions were collected using U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 0010, extracted

[[Page 94890]]

using Method 3542, and analyzed using Method 8270E.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw/846/compendium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the measured emissions for the PAH compounds were below the 
detection limit (BDL) of the approved testing method, and others were 
detection level limited (DLL). Results are considered BDL when every 
measured result for a compound in a test run is less than the 
laboratory's reported detection level.\6\ Data is considered DLL when 
only some results in a given test run are less than the laboratory's 
reported detection level for that compound. The Agency's practice in 
establishing emission limits for pollutants with DLL values is to use 
the DLL value to calculate the UPL and then to compare the calculated 
UPL to a value that is 3 times the pollutant's RDL (3xRDL value). 
Consistent with our practice described in the aforementioned memo,\7\ 
the larger of the UPL calculation or the 3xRDL value becomes the 
emission limit. Reported levels of 2 PAH compounds--dibenzofuran and 
hydroquinone--are BDL at each facility; therefore, the EPA did not 
propose and is not promulgating emission limits for dibenzofuran or 
hydroquinone. The EPA has no data indicating the presence of 
polychlorinated dioxins or polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and measured 
unpolychlorinated dibenzofuran values are BDL, therefore, the EPA did 
not propose and is not promulgating separate emission limits for 
dioxin-like compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In keeping with the EPA's practice, when all pollutant 
values fall below BDL, no emission limit should be established for 
that pollutant.
    \7\ See the memorandum Data and Procedure for Handling Below 
Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions 
Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test results for the remaining PAH species--aniline, 
naphthalene, and o-toluidine--were DLL. However, these PAH species are 
also organic HAP and hydrocarbons and will be accounted for in THC 
measurements. As such, setting both a separate PAH standard in addition 
to a THC standard would be redundant and doubly regulate PAH emissions. 
In order to prevent this redundance, the EPA did not propose and is not 
promulgating a separate emission limit for PAHs and instead proposed 
and is promulgating a limit for THC emissions, which will encompass 
PAHs. The THC results include the effect of PAH, other organic HAP, and 
VOC contained in exhaust streams and are well suited to serve as 
surrogates for these compounds.
    A detailed description of the analysis of the PAH data is included 
in the memorandum, Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing Industry, located in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
2. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
a. THC Existing Source Standard
    The EPA determined the existing source MACT floor THC emission 
limit based on the top 2 performing mixers. There are 97 mixers; for a 
source category of this size, the CAA requires the EPA to use the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 
information) when establishing the MACT floor level of control. The EPA 
has THC data measured for 12 mixers, and 12 percent of 12 mixers is 
1.44 mixers, which we rounded up to 2 mixers for purposes of 
determining the existing source MACT floor. The EPA received THC data 
from an additional 5 mixers as a result of the ICR, but these data 
represented the uncontrolled emissions from units that were collected 
prior to the emission stream entering a regenerative thermal oxidizer 
(RTO) and the EPA did not have data for the controlled emissions, which 
would be collected after the exhaust stream has passed through the RTO. 
In response to comments, the EPA determined the destruction and removal 
efficiency (DRE) of an RTO can vary depending on the THC inlet 
concentration, thus a reported DRE measured at one THC concentration 
may not be applicable to the THC concentrations observed for these 
mixers. As such, without specifically measuring DRE values for each THC 
concentration, accurate controlled emissions could not be determined 
for these 5 mixers by applying the reported DRE to emissions prior to 
the control device. While it is expected that emissions from these 
controlled mixers would be low, the EPA does not have post-control 
emission data from these mixers. As a result, the EPA is not including 
these 5 mixers in the MACT analysis.
    When determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources 
for the MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole 
number to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer 
than the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this 
instance, we rounded up to 2 mixers for determining the existing source 
MACT floor. The EPA is promulgating the MACT floor THC emission limit 
for existing sources based on the average 15-day emission rate achieved 
by the 2 best performing (i.e. lowest emitting) mixers. From the data 
available, the 2 best performing mixers are Continental Mt. Vernon 
mixer #22, which is controlled by an RTO, and Goodyear Fayetteville 
mixer #4, which has no control device for THC. For these 2 best 
performing mixers, the EPA included each mixer's daily average THC 
emission rate in a list and then calculated 15-day rolling averages 
from the combined daily averages. The 15-day rolling averages were then 
used to calculate the 15-day UPL THC emission rate in g/Mg rubber 
produced, which was 24 g/Mg.
    The EPA-calculated THC emission limits for existing mixers are 
based on the calculated 99 percent UPL or 3xRDL, whichever is higher, 
calculated from the 15-day rolling averages of the data combined from 
the 2 mixers.
    The 3xRDL for THC for the 2 combined mixers is 63.1 g/Mg rubber 
produced. Because the 3xRDL value is higher than the calculated UPL 
value from the 2 combined mixers, and because the EPA rounds up when 
simplifying to 2 significant figures, the existing source THC limit in 
the final rule is 64 g/Mg rubber produced. You may choose to comply 
with the THC emission limit for each rubber processing mixer 
separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the 
same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber 
processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an 
alternative facility-wide average for THC emissions for all mixers is 
discussed in section A.2.d.
    The maximum THC parts per million (ppm) value (from minute-to-
minute analysis provided during the information collection request 
(ICR)) from the 2 best performers is 25 ppm, so an appropriate 
instrument range is 0 to 50 ppm, which leads to an RDL value of 3.082 
ppm and a 3xRDL value of 9.25 ppm. For additional information on how 
the EPA calculated these RDL values please see the memorandum titled 
Measurement Detection Capabilities for EPA for Instrumental Test 
Methods located in the docket for this rule. When this 3xRDL value is 
combined with the average flow rate, and production of the best 
performers, the result is 63.1 g/Mg rubber produced. Since the 3xRDL 
value is higher than the UPL value of 24 g/Mg rubber produced, the 
3xRDL value (63.1 g/Mg) is the basis for the existing source MACT floor 
for all rubber processing, which is then set to 64 g/Mg.

[[Page 94891]]

    Of the 12 mixers for which the EPA has measured emissions, 4 mixers 
(33 percent) have emissions (based on their calculated UPL) that are 
estimated to be greater than the final rule THC limit of 64 g/Mg rubber 
produced (rounded to 2 significant figures) and thus would need to 
install a control device. Therefore, we estimate that 33 percent of the 
97 mixers (33 mixers) located at major sources would need to be 
controlled (e.g., by an RTO) to meet the final rule limit.
    Based on data received in response to the CAA section 114 
information request, which shows on average currently installed RTOs 
are shared by 3 co-located mixers, EPA estimates, on average, one RTO 
will be shared by 3 mixers for any new RTOs installed as a result of 
this rulemaking. Accounting for the current number of mixers and RTOs 
at each major source facility, the EPA estimates that a total of 17 
RTOs (corresponding to a total of 35 mixers) would likely be needed to 
comply with this final rule. Given that 9 RTOs already exist at the 
regulated facilities at issue, the EPA expects that the cumulative 
impact to industry would be the installation of 8 new RTOs. EPA 
acknowledges it is possible some facilities may choose to comply with 
the rule through a variety of technology pathways including the 
installation of boilers instead of RTOs or a different ratio of RTOs to 
mixers than assumed in this analysis. However, EPA has no way of 
accurately knowing how facilities will choose to comply thus we are 
unable to determine exactly what business decisions firms will make. 
For additional information on how EPA calculated the amount of RTOs 
likely to be installed for this rulemaking see the memo ``Rubber 
Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness'' 
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392).
b. THC Beyond-The-Floor Existing Source Standard
    In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, as a 
second step in the standard-setting process, the EPA must also examine 
whether to adopt additional, and more stringent, ``beyond-the-floor'' 
regulatory options. The first step, as discussed in the preceding 
section, requires the establishment of an emission floor--developed 
under CAA section 112(d)(3). The second step requires consideration of 
whether additional reductions are achievable, taking into account the 
factors listed in section 112(d)(2) (i.e., cost, non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements). If additional 
reductions are determined to be achievable, taking these factors into 
account, the resulting emissions standards are referred to as ``beyond-
the-floor'' MACT standards.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CAA section 112(d)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that 
emissions standards promulgated under section 112 ``shall require 
the maximum degree of reduction in emisions of the hazardous air 
pollutants,'' after taking into consideration ``the cost of 
achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts and energy requirements,'' which EPA 
``determines is achievable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the MACT floor, which represents the minimum stringency 
requirement, the EPA must consider various impacts of more stringent 
regulatory options when considering beyond-the-floor options. If the 
EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory options are not 
reasonable, then EPA selects the MACT floor as the final MACT standard. 
However, if the EPA concludes that the beyond-the-floor levels of 
control are reasonable, when considering additional emissions 
reductions that would be achieved, then those beyond-the-floor measures 
represent the applicable MACT standard.
    As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we identify control 
options or techniques that could achieve emission reductions beyond the 
MACT floor level of control. The EPA did not identify any control 
options or techniques other than what is currently used (i.e., an RTO) 
that could serve as a basis for establishing a limit beyond the MACT 
floor.
    In addition to the lack of additional control options, the MACT 
floor limit for the existing source category already reflects the 
lowest concentration that can be reliably measured. Following the EPA's 
well-established approach to determining MACT floor limits, the EPA is 
finalizing a MACT floor limit for the existing source category that is 
based on the 3xRDL value. This is because--for the measurement method 
and data--the value of 3xRDL is higher than the combined calculated UPL 
for the 2 best performing sources. This MACT floor limit based on 3xRDL 
reflects the detection limit of the measurement method and represents 
the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured. Because no 
further measurable reductions can be achieved from these sources, EPA 
is unable to adopt a beyond-the-floor limit in this action.
c. THC New Source Standard
    The THC MACT emission limits for new sources are based on the 
emission limitation achieved by the single best performing similar 
source. However, as stated above the MACT floor limit is based on the 
3xRDL value for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value 
is higher than the combined UPL, and thus represents the lowest level 
at which THC can be reliably detected. Because the MACT floor limit is 
based on the 3xRDL value for the THC measurements, it is not feasible 
to establish a lower limit. Therefore, the final MACT standard for new 
and existing mixers is the MACT floor limit and is 64 g/Mg. You may 
choose to comply with the THC emission limit for each rubber processing 
mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to 
the same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber 
processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an 
alternative facility-wide average for THC emissions for all mixers is 
discussed in section A.2.d.
d. Alternative THC Standard: Facility-Wide Averaging
    In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received public comment 
regarding the potential for a facility-wide standard. Upon review, the 
EPA is establishing an alternative standard based on facility-wide 
averaging. Averaging across rubber mixers is appropriate, and 
consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3), because the total quantity 
of HAP that may be emitted by the regulated source is not greater than 
if each mixer complied separately with the applicable standard. For 
additional information on EPA's decision to include facility-wide 
averaging, see the Response to Comments document available in the 
docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). This 
standard is based on averaging the individual emissions of each mixer 
at a facility. For an individual mixer, the THC emission limit for both 
new and existing sources is 64 g/Mg (1.3 x 10\5\ lb/Mton) of rubber 
processed; thus, the average for all mixers across a facility is also 
64 g/Mg. Because the THC emission limit is already set at the 3xRDL 
level, no emissions discount is applied for setting the standard for 
facility-wide averaging. To comply based on averaging, the facility 
would sum the emissions from all mixers at the facility over a 15-day 
period and divide the sum of the emissions by the sum of the rubber 
processed in all of the mixers at the facility over the same 15-day 
period.
3. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP
a. Existing Source Standard
    Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, the

[[Page 94892]]

EPA has fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data is available 
from 5 of the mixers. The EPA had no reason to assume a difference in 
fPM and metal HAP emissions based on the mixing of silica-containing or 
non-silica-containing compounds. Thus, a single emission standard was 
calculated for mixing all classes of rubber compounds. For each mixer, 
the EPA calculated the 99 percent UPL for both fPM and the sum of the 
metal HAP that were measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 
chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorous, and 
selenium).
    Detailed data by individual run and for each metal HAP, as well as 
total metal HAP and fPM, were provided and are summarized in the 
memorandum, Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Industry, included in the docket for this rulemaking. In 
the metal HAP measurements for Continental, Mt. Vernon, the phosphorous 
data were unreliable because of a contaminated reagent and are not 
included in the table and in the total metals. The PM data provided 
from USTMA before proposal for Danville mixers #5 and #7 were the only 
data containing fPM and corresponding rubber production data. The metal 
HAP data provided for Danville mixers #5 and #7 by USTMA before 
proposal were not in the format needed to calculate production-based 
emission rates.
    After proposal, the EPA also received additional fPM data from 
USTMA for 4 mixers as part of their public comments, and these data are 
also summarized in Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber 
Tire Manufacturing Industry memorandum, available in the docket for 
this rule (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). The data for 3 mixers 
consisted of at least 3 runs, which is consistent with the fPM testing 
that the EPA requested in the ICR, and the data for the fourth mixer 
consisted of only 2 runs, which is fewer than the minimum number of 
runs requested in the ICR and the number needed to calculate a UPL 
value.
    There are 97 mixers; for a source category of this size, the CAA 
requires the EPA to determine the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which 
the Administrator has information).
    The EPA has metal HAP data from 5 mixers. The EPA calculated 12 
percent of 5 mixers for metal HAP, which results in 0.6. When 
determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for the 
MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole number 
to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than 
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this instance, 
we rounded the value of 0.6 up to one mixer for purposes of determining 
the existing source MACT floor for metal HAP.
    Since the EPA has fPM emissions data from a total of 10 mixers for 
which UPL values could be calculated, the MACT floor final rule limit 
for fPM is based on 12 percent of 10 mixers, which is 1.2. This 
includes the 7 tests from the EPA ICR, and 3 of the tests from USTMA 
for which a UPL value could be calculated. When determining the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we 
round fractional amounts to the next whole number to ensure that the 
MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than the best performing 
12 percent of existing sources. In this instance, we rounded the fPM of 
1.2 up to 2 and the metal HAP value of 0.6 to one mixer for purposes of 
determining the existing source MACT. Because metal HAP are emitted as 
fPM, the EPA is using fPM as a surrogate for metal HAP. Additionally, 
the EPA is finalizing an alternative emission limit for total metal 
HAP. Data gathered from the CAA section 114 information request 
identified that the primary control devices utilized for metal HAP 
emissions on rubber tire mixers are baghouses and capture of fPM will 
reliably indicate capture of metal HAP. It is also practical to use fPM 
as a surrogate for metal HAP because the fPM emission limit accounts 
for variability in individual metal HAP emission rates among different 
batches of rubber compound being mixed.
    The EPA calculated the UPL for fPM as 2.5 g/Mg (4900 lb/Mton) of 
rubber produced and total metal HAP emission rate of 3.7 x 
10^-\2\ g/Mg (74 lb/Mton) rubber produced. The lowest fPM UPL 
emission rate and the lowest metal HAP emission rate were measured at 
the same mixer, and the fPM and metal HAP emissions were measured 
simultaneously.
    The EPA calculated the 3xRDL for fPM using the average flow rate of 
the top 2 mixers. The average flow rate was 9,622 dry standard cubic 
feet per minute (dscfm) and average production rate was 17.98 tons per 
hour (ton/hr) for Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1 and Goodyear Danville Mixer 
#7 as representative values. The calculations also used a fPM RDL of 2 
mg and 3xRDL of 6 mg in a sample volume of 2 dscm, or 3 mg/dscm. These 
values would provide a fPM 3xRDL value of 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton) 
rubber processed. These calculations are detailed in the MACT memo for 
the final rule. Because the 3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the 
final rule fPM emission limit is based on the 3xRDLvalue instead of the 
99-percent UPL value. Rounded to 2 significant figures, this limit is 
3.0 g/Mg (6.0 x 10\3\ lb/Mton).
    The EPA also used the flow and production data from Goodyear Lawton 
Mixer #1 (top performer) to calculate the 3xRDL value for total metal 
HAP. The calculations used the RDL values for each metal HAP in a 
sample volume of 2 dscf. The total metal HAP 3xRDL value is 109.7 
[micro]g in a sample volume of 2 dscm, or a value of 5.4 x 
10^-\2\ g/Mg rubber (110 lb/Mton) rubber processed using the 
flow and production data for Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1. Because the 
3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the final rule total metal 
alternative emission limit is based on the 3xRDL value instead of the 
UPL value. Rounded to 2 significant figures, this limit is 5.4 x 
10^-\2\ g/Mg rubber (110 lb/Mton). These calculations are 
detailed in the memorandum titled Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry found in the docket for this rule.
    You may choose to comply with the fPM emission limit (or the total 
metal HAP alternative) for each rubber processing mixer separately, or 
for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control 
device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber processed for the 
connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an alternative 
facility-wide average of fPM (or total metal HAP) emissions for all 
mixers is discussed in section A.3.d.
b. New Source Standard
    The fPM and the total metal HAP alternative MACT emission limits 
for new sources are based on the emission limitation achieved by the 
best controlled similar source. However, as stated above the MACT floor 
limit is set at the value of the 3xRDL for the measurement method and 
data because the 3xRDL value is higher than the combined UPL. Because 
the MACT floor limit is set at the 3xRDL value for both fPM and the 
total metal alternative measurements, it is not feasible to establish a 
lower limit. Therefore, the final MACT standard for new and existing 
mixers is the MACT floor limit and is 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton) rubber 
processed for fPM and 5.4 x 10^-\2\ g/Mg

[[Page 94893]]

rubber (110 lb/Mton) for total metal HAP. You may choose to comply with 
the fPM emission limit (or the total metal HAP alternative) for each 
rubber processing mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing 
mixers routed to the same control device or stack, the emissions and 
amount of rubber processed for the connected mixers can be combined. 
Additionally, an alternative facility-wide average of fPM (or total 
metal HAP) emissions for all mixers is discussed in section A.3.d.
c. Beyond the Floor Analysis
    In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, the EPA 
must examine more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options 
when establishing the applicable MACT emission limitation. Unlike the 
MACT floor minimum stringency requirements, when considering beyond-
the-floor options, the CAA provides that the EPA must consider various 
impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining whether 
beyond-the-floor measures should be included in a final MACT emission 
standard. If the EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory 
options are not reasonable, then the EPA selects the MACT floor as the 
final applicable MACT standard. However, if the EPA concludes that the 
beyond-the-floor levels of control are reasonable considering the 
additional emissions reductions that would be achieved, the EPA selects 
those levels as MACT.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in supra section III.A.2.b., EPA evaluates 
whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate under CAA 
section 112(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we identify control 
options or techniques that could achieve emission reductions beyond the 
MACT floor level of control. The EPA did not identify any control 
options or techniques other than what is currently used.
    The existing source MACT floor limit is set at the value of the 
3xRDL for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value is 
higher than the average UPL of the 2 lowest emitting sources for fPM 
and the UPL of the single lowest emitting source for total metal HAP. 
For both fPM and total metal HAP, the existing source MACT floor limit 
is set at the 3xRDL value, which represents the lowest concentration 
that can be measured. As such, we did not identify additional controls 
for reducing emissions further because no further reductions can be 
achieved that are measurable. The final MACT standard for existing 
mixers is the MACT floor limit and is set at the 3xRDL value.
d. Alternative fPM Standard: Facility-Wide Averaging
    In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received public comment 
regarding the potential for a facility-wide standard. Upon review, the 
EPA agrees with the commenters, and is establishing an alternative 
standard based on facility-wide averaging. For additional information 
on EPA's decision to include facility-wide averaging, see the Response 
to Comments document available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). This standard is based on averaging the 
individual emissions of every mixer at a facility and can be applied to 
either the fPM or total metal HAP standard. For an individual mixer, 
the fPM emission limit for both new and existing sources is 3.0 g/Mg 
rubber produced (5.4 x 10^-\2\ g/Mg for the total metal HAP 
alternative). Averaging this limit across all mixers at a facility 
results in an identical emission limit for the facility-wide 
alternative. Because the facility-wide average emission limit is 
identical to the limit for individual mixers, the EPA does not 
anticipate a difference in the achieved emissions reduction. As stated 
above, this approach is consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3), 
because the total quantity of HAP that may be emitted by the regulated 
source is not greater than if each mixer complied separately with the 
applicable standard.
B. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    We are updating the electronic reporting requirements found in 40 
CFR 63.6009(k) and in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) and (h) to reflect new 
procedures for reporting CBI. The update provides an email address to 
which source owners and operators can electronically mail CBI to the 
OAQPS CBI Office when submitting compliance reports.
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    Amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP finalized in 
this rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are 
subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 
112(i). For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides that there 
shall be compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event 
later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard,'' subject 
to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\10\ In 
determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as 
practicable,'' we consider the amount of time needed to plan and 
construct projects, as well as any time necessary to implement changes 
in operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new 
affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective 
date of the final amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP or 
upon startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA 716 F.3d 667, 672 
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance 
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated 
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA projects that some existing sources may be required to 
install add-on controls to comply with the emission limits, including 
new RTOs and new or upgraded baghouses. These sources would require 
time to design, construct, conduct performance testing, and implement 
monitoring to comply with the revised provisions. Sources would also be 
required to install a THC continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) 
and conduct performance testing. Therefore, the final rule allows 3 
years for existing sources to comply with the new emission standards. 
All affected facilities must continue meeting the current provisions of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until the applicable compliance date of 
the amended rule. This final action does not meet the criteria under 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), so the revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated 
by this action are effective on November 29, 2024 as specified in CAA 
section 112(d)(10).
    For all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before November 16, 2023, the final rule provides 
3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, 
whichever is later) for owners and operators to comply with the 
provisions of this action. For all affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after November 16, 2023, owners and 
operators must comply with the provisions by the effective date of the 
final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later).

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the

[[Page 94894]]

EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket.

A. Emission Standards for Unregulated Organic HAP Emissions From the 
Rubber Processing Subcategory

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    In the proposed rule, published on November 16, 2023, we proposed 
emission limits for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. Separate limits 
were proposed for mixing silica-containing and non-silica-containing 
rubber compounds, including different emission limits for new and 
existing sources. The proposed emission limits were based on the EPA's 
determination of the MACT floor after options more stringent than the 
MACT floor were determined to not be feasible or cost-effective. The 
format of the proposed limits was in grams of THC emitted per megagram 
of rubber produced over a 15-day period. The proposed limits for 
existing sources were based on the average emission rate of the top 2 
best performing sources, and the limits for new sources were based on 
the lowest emitting source.
2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    In the final rule, the EPA is promulgating THC emission limits as a 
surrogate for organic HAP for rubber processing but has made several 
changes since proposal. First, the EPA had proposed separate THC 
emission limits based on the mixing of silica-containing or non-silica-
containing compounds because the EPA believed the presence of silica 
compounds impacted the emission profiles. However, for the final rule 
the EPA is not promulgating separate standards for mixing silica-
containing and non-silica-containing rubber compounds. Second, the 
final THC emission limits for both new and existing sources are based 
on the 3xRDL value for THC because that value is higher than the 
calculated UPL of the 2 best performing sources for THC. Additionally, 
in response to comments, the EPA is not using data from mixers that 
tested and reported emissions prior to a control device such as an RTO. 
At proposal the EPA applied a DRE to the data from mixers that then 
routed emissions to an RTO, since those streams were combined with 
other mixers not being tested at that time. Since the EPA does not have 
true outlet data (outlet of control device) from those mixers, we 
determined it is inappropriate to use such data to set MACT standards. 
Finally, the EPA is allowing facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
the THC emission limit by averaging emissions across mixers at the same 
facility.
3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter argued that emissions of organic HAP and THC 
vary too widely between mixers and even at different times at the same 
mixer to be practicably measured as the basis for an emission standard. 
The commenter noted that data already available to the EPA show that 
emission rates and species of organic HAP can vary depending on the 
tire component for which the rubber is being mixed, the different raw 
materials added, and the mixing conditions. The commenter stated that 
different organic HAP emissions are produced during rubber mixing from 
small amounts of organic HAP that are contained as impurities in the 
raw materials and are also generated by the mixing process when natural 
and synthetic rubbers are mixed at elevated temperatures. The commenter 
added that each product formulation may include different raw materials 
and ingredients because the unique combination of the different raw 
materials and ingredients imparts in a tire compound a specific 
combination of certain desired tire properties, such as traction, fuel 
efficiency, noise, vibration, robustness, etc. Thus, according to the 
commenter, the organic HAP and THC emission profile will differ from 
tire component to tire component and within the same tire component, 
between one product formulation and another.
    The same commenter added that different passes through the mixer 
within the rubber mixing process will also impact the levels of organic 
HAP and THC emissions from rubber mixers with the 3 major passes 
(initial, middle, and final) being different in terms of the raw 
materials and ingredients added, heating temperature, and duration. The 
commenter also noted that each pass specification is different from 
company to company and sometimes from plant to plant, and the passes 
that need to be run are different from tire component to tire 
component. As a result, according to the commenter, each pass will 
yield significantly different organic HAP and THC emissions, and the 
same pass at a different tire plant may produce significantly different 
organic HAP and THC emissions. The commenter stated that these 
differences in emissions were demonstrated by past industry testing, 
the testing in response to the EPA's ICR, and by the supplemental 
testing results submitted with the public comments.
    The commenter argued that attempting to determine an appropriate 
emission limitation using an average of 15 days or longer does not mean 
that the resulting limitation would be representative of the actual 
performance of the particular mixers tested for the ICR, let alone the 
entire range of operations and designs of the nearly 100 mixers at 
major source tire manufacturing plants. The commenter stated that, 
depending on when 15 days of sampling were conducted, or which tire 
component a mixer happened to be processing entirely or primarily 
during emissions testing, the average THC concentration emitted could 
be far higher or lower than what would be measured during a different 
15-day interval. The commenter added that what each mixer will produce 
or run, however, is entirely dependent on each tire plant's production 
quota that it must meet, and it is nearly impossible to forecast more 
than a couple of weeks in advance what each mixer will produce or run, 
such that the results of a short-term testing at a mixer that was 
running a certain combination of product formulation and pass may not 
be representative or indicative of its emission levels at other times. 
The commenter stated that impracticably lengthy and wide-ranging 
testing would be required both to ensure that emission measurement at 
such mixers can be used to set an emissions standard that the mixer can 
meet at other times and to demonstrate compliance with such an 
emissions standard.
    Finally, the commenter noted that THC emissions are so variable 
that the agency proposes in its RTR rule to not only require each mixer 
to be equipped with a CEMS, but also use a dual-range calibration 
system to capture the range of different emission levels. The commenter 
stated that the need to install, operate, and maintain a THC CEMS 
device at each mixer carries a heavy financial burden which underlines 
the impracticability of measuring THC emissions at rubber mixers. The 
commenter estimated that based on EPA's 2007 Cost Tool for CEMS, 
adjusted with current vendor costs for continuous monitoring systems 
and updated costs for labor, installing continuous THC monitors for all 
mixers would impose a capital cost of millions of dollars per facility, 
with annualized capital and operating costs of around $180,000 to $1.8 
million per plant. The

[[Page 94895]]

commenter estimated that the cost may be as much as $9 million annually 
for the rubber tire manufacturing industry to monitor THC emissions.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that 
emissions of THC vary too widely to be practicably measured. While the 
EPA acknowledges that manufacturing rubber tires, like many other 
manufacturing processes, exhibits variable emissions. However, in phase 
I of the 114 information collection request, data received showed all 
known mixers within this source category have stacks where emissions 
can be measured; as such, emissions measured at these point sources may 
be used to set a numerical emission standard. The EPA collected from 
the industry and then processed data that demonstrate this source 
variability; the EPA obtained from industry test results from a variety 
of mixers at different facilities that run different types of passes. 
Data were gathered for 30 days per mixer to account for emissions 
variability and show representative data during normal operation. 
Additionally, the EPA set emission limits based on a 15-day average, 
and the UPL for the mixers, which is an approach used by the EPA in 
this and other standards, calculated from all 15-day averages in the 
data from each mixer to account for variability in emissions. 
Facilities may need to install and operate control devices, such as an 
RTO or similar control technology, to account for variability while 
ensuring the emission limit is met.
    The Agency agrees with the commenter's assertions that THC CEMS are 
necessary due to variability, as stressed by the commenter, but 
disagrees that dual-range calibration systems are required, and further 
disagrees that industry would be required to pay annualized costs of 
between $180,000 to $1.8 million per plant. As mentioned earlier, given 
the potential disparity between and among individual mixer emissions, 
coupled with the lack of THC data from source owners or operators, the 
EPA's ICR obtained at least 30 days of continuous THC data per mixer. 
Source owners or operators may not have known their mixers' THC 
emissions or potential emission limit during ICR testing; however, now 
that the THC emission limit is known, source owners need not choose a 
dual-range THC CEMS; rather they can select an instrument with a range 
appropriate for the emission limit. Of course, should source owners or 
operators believe additional calibrated ranges beyond the emission 
limit are necessary, they are able to select and use multiple ranges--
but those additional range choices represent voluntary selection and 
are not imposed by this rule. The EPA agrees that THC CEMS have the 
ability to properly measure a wide range of emissions and that they 
also provide those data continuously, which allows for ongoing 
compliance demonstration, unlike the sporadic compliance demonstration 
offered by periodic testing. As an aside, most THC CEMS include a 
built-in variety of ranges, including site-developed and selected 
ranges, so source owners or operators should have little trouble 
narrowing their instruments' focus on a range appropriate to the THC 
emission limit. EPA's Monitoring and Cost Analysis Tool shows the 
initial cost of a THC CEMS is less than $145,000 and the annualized 
cost would be less than $50,000. Finally, the EPA estimated the cost 
for installing and operating a THC CEMS for each individual mixer.\11\ 
However, it is likely that facilities will choose to share THC CEMS 
given that one THC CEMS should be able to serve 3 mixers--and perhaps 
more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For calculations of the THC CEMS cost, see the memorandum 
Final Rule--Rubber Processing Control Costs Emission Reductions, and 
Cost Effectiveness, available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter argued the EPA should establish work 
practice standards under CAA section 112(h) instead of numerical 
emission limits. The commenter stated that the unique characteristics 
of mixing operations at tire manufacturing facilities imply that not 
even multiple days of stack testing a single mixer would be sufficient 
to produce organic HAP or THC emission rates that even that mixer would 
have a high probability of not exceeding during other periods of 
operation. The commenter cited Continental's 2019 engineering test at 
Mixer 22, to argue that when processing a single worst-case rubber 
formulation or compound most likely to generate highest emissions of 
ethanol, the resulting THC emissions may be almost 2 times higher than 
during any other time. The commenter continued by saying if this single 
worst-case rubber formulation were processed 15 days in a row at Mixer 
22, it would generate THC emissions at rates nearly 7 times higher than 
the EPA's proposed THC emission limit for silica-containing category 
for existing sources, even after RTO control--despite the fact that the 
EPA identified Continental Mixer 22 as the best performing mixer among 
those mixers for which the EPA has test data.
    The commenter stated that it would be prohibitively costly and 
time-consuming to conduct enough stack testing on individual mixers, 
performed on enough mixers, to determine emission rates representative 
of the ranges of operations of mixers at tire plants, which would be 
needed to support establishment of emissions limitations that all 
mixers would have to meet at all times. The commenter added that even 
if stack testing could reasonably be accomplished to support emission 
limitations, modifying dozens of mixers to allow compliance testing, 
and then conducting enough stack tests on each of those mixers to be 
assured that measured emissions fall below the emissions limitations, 
would itself be impracticable.
    The commenter argued that mixers, therefore, present a clear 
example of a type of source for which the measurement of emissions is 
not practicable due to technological or economic factors, and so work 
practice standards are authorized and appropriate under CAA section 
112(h). The commenter argues that the impracticability of measuring 
(for purposes of establishing emission limitations, or for purposes of 
determining compliance) emissions that vary widely over time and over 
the variety of products manufactured is precisely the kind of situation 
in which the EPA can and should use work practice standards. As an 
example, the commenter refers to the EPA rulemaking setting MACT 
standards for periodic [batch] brick kilns, where the EPA concluded 
that work standards were appropriate due to the wide variety in 
emissions over time and products manufactured.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the 
EPA should recognize that conditions at rubber mixers warrant the 
establishment of work practice standards in lieu of numerical emissions 
limits. CAA section 112(h) provides, in pertinent part, that the EPA 
may establish a design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standard if it is ``not feasible'' for EPA to prescribe or enforce an 
emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) further clarifies that the 
phrase ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' 
includes situations in which ``a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants 
cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit 
or capture such pollutant . . .''
    The EPA acknowledges that, like many other regulated source 
categories, rubber processing is a ``batch'' process. However, as 
stated in the 2020 RTR (85 FR 44752), rubber processing is a continuous 
batch operation which generates more consistent emissions than other 
batch processes.

[[Page 94896]]

Additionally, a 15-day average inherently reduces the effect of 
emissions variability and allows owners and operators to determine 
whether it is necessary to install and operate a control device, such 
as an RTO, to ensure that the emission limit is met at all times. As 
verified in the responses to phase I of the ICR, all mixers route to 
stacks which can and should be used for testing and for emissions 
measurements to establish appropriate emission limits for the rubber 
processing subcategory. As such, since rubber processing operations 
emissions are, or are capable of being, routed to stacks, these 
operations do not satisfy the requirement described in CAA section 
112(h)(2)(A).
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the test results at 
Continental mixers 12 and 22 in 2019 support the need for a work 
practice standard. The test results cited by commenters were obtained 
over relatively short test runs of only 3 hours per test condition. The 
EPA acknowledges that individual mixers will exhibit variable 
emissions, depending on the material being mixed and the pass of the 
material through the mixer, and this was also shown in the phase II 
emissions testing conducted to support this rulemaking. However, the 
EPA has specifically addressed the issue of emissions variability by 
establishing the standards based on a 15-day average THC emission rate, 
rather than on short-term testing.
    The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that rubber 
processing is comparable to periodic [batch] brick kilns. Unlike the 
process of rubber tire production, brick kilns are truly batch 
processes that may take from between several days to nearly a week (or 
more) to complete, whereas rubber processing is a continuous batch 
process where each batch takes only a few minutes, then another batch 
is mixed allowing for more steady emissions. Therefore, the type of 
scenario described by commentors (whereby they claim that the process 
with the highest emissions could result in exceeding the limit seven-
fold) is not expected to occur during normal business operations. In 
addition, the HAP of concern (and their potential surrogates) for 
periodic brick kilns cannot be easily measured on a continuous basis, 
whereas THC can be monitored continuously with a CEMS. Therefore, the 
situations are not comparable.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's decision to 
regulate organic HAP through the use of THC as a surrogate instead of 
developing a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard 
under CAA section 112(h) because measurement of organic HAP emissions 
from mixing is infeasible. The commenter argued that the EPA ignored 
process information and emissions testing, provided by USTMA members, 
that showed THC is not an appropriate surrogate because it is affected 
primarily by emissions of pollutants that are not classified as HAPs. 
The commenter stated that organic HAP testing required by the EPA 
through the ICR, as well as additional testing conducted at numerous 
USTMA member mixers, demonstrated that organic HAP emissions are not 
correlated with THC emissions and that HAP emissions are affected by 
different factors. The commenter argued that, unlike the instances in 
which the EPA's use of surrogate emission limitations has been upheld 
by the court, in the Rubber Processing affected source subcategory, 
even the ``MACT floor'' best performer mixers sometimes do not have 
emission control technologies in place that reduce either organic HAPs 
or THC, nor is there some aspect of the mixing process that can be 
controlled that affects THC and organic HAPs similarly, such as how 
controlling incomplete combustion in a boiler affects both carbon 
monoxide and organic HAP emissions.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that THC 
is not a viable surrogate for organic HAP. We have long recognized that 
regulation by surrogate is appropriate, so long as controlling 
emissions of the surrogate achieves the Act's requirement to limit 
emissions of corresponding HAPs. See Sierra Club v EPA, 863 F.3d at 838 
(D.C. Cir. 2017); U.S. Sugar v EPA, 830 F.3d at 628 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
    EPA acknowledges the commenter provided additional data relevant to 
a relationship between THC and volatile organic HAP. However, data 
provided by the commenter only shows limited data, whereas historical 
testing (e.g., HAP data collected by a predecessor rubber tire 
manufacturing trade organization to support the development of AP-42 
emission factors) shows over 40 organic HAP emitted from a bench scale 
mixing operation.
    Additionally, upon further review the data submitted relevant to 
the relationship between THC and volatile organic HAP was done in short 
3 run tests, unlike the 30 days of continuous THC data collected as 
part of ICR. As the commenter has stated throughout their comment 
document, emissions are variable, thus a simple 3 run test for THC is 
not likely to take variability into account, unlike the 30-day 
continuous THC data used to set the MACT floor. Additionally, the ICR 
required concurrent testing for both semi-volatile organic compounds 
and THC; however, the data supplied by the commenter were not collected 
concurrently, greatly reducing, if not eliminating, their suitability 
for showing a correlation between the datasets due to differing 
operation conditions during data collection. Finally, the data 
collected by the commenter were not certified according to the 
requirements of the ICR. For these reasons, the EPA is unable to assess 
the usefulness or suitability of the data collected and submitted by 
the commenter regarding the relationship between THC and organic HAP.
    The commenter is expecting a single shared correlation to exist 
across all sources; however, the EPA believes each source will have its 
own individual relationship between organic HAP and THC. The figure 
below provides an example, showing the relationship between the 
concurrently-collected organic HAP and THC data obtained from the best-
performing THC source (Continental Mt. Vernon Mixer 22). These data 
were collected, certified, and submitted by that source.\12\ Note that 
THC increases as organic HAP increases and that the relationship has an 
R-squared value of 0.959, which indicates a very high correlation 
between the THC and organic HAP measurements.\13\ Although the EPA only 
has concurrent organic HAP and THC data from the best performing 
source, we expect, based on the data before us, that the better 
performing sources would exhibit similarly high correlations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See test reports for Continental Mixer 22, Goodyear Lawson 
Mixer 1, Goodyear Fayetteville Mixer 8, Goodyear Danville Mixer 7, 
Michelin Mixer 81, and Cooper Mixer 9. Note that Goodyear 
Fayetteville Mixer 8 and Goodyear Lawson Mixer 1 data are separated 
according to Belt, Tread, and Mixer categories.
    \13\ R-squared values shows the relationship between two 
variable (THC and organic HAP). Generally, R-squared values range 
from 0 to 1. A value of 0 implies that there is no relationship, 
while a value of 1indicates a direct relationship.

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

[[Page 94897]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.000

    Figure 1. Relationship between Organic HAP and THC for the best 
performing source.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ THC vs Organic HAP tables are available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case THC encompasses all relevant organic HAP emitted. 
Additionally, by using a control device such as an RTO, which is 
currently operated in the source category and which meets minimum 
temperature, loading, and retention times, one can reasonably conclude 
that the associated organic HAP is also being controlled. VOC 
destruction (which includes organic HAP) efficiencies range from 95 to 
99 percent, according to EPA's Air Pollution Control Technology Fact 
Sheet.\15\ Although combustion is a complex process that can produce 
some HAP, it is well documented that the use of an RTO is an effective 
way to reduce organic HAP.\16\ While the use of RTOs does have 
secondary impacts,\17\ the EPA expects few HAP emissions created as a 
result of combustion in an RTO: the EPA's experience for any such 
created HAP is that they are below current detection levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See EPA's Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA-452/
F-03-021, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1008OH5.PDF.
    \16\ See EPA's Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA-452/F-03-022, 
availabe at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020/11/documents/thermal.pdf.
    \17\ See the memorandum Final Rule--Rubber Processing Control 
Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness available in the 
docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the EPA believes THC is both a reasonable and viable 
surrogate to represent organic HAP emitted from rubber processing.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA cannot subcategorize an 
industry category based on factors that are unrelated to HAP emissions, 
including whether silica is an ingredient in the rubber compound being 
mixed, whether the mixer has high emissions of a non-HAP (THC), or 
whether the mixer already has a particular type of control technology. 
The commenter stated that USTMA's supplemental testing shows that high 
emissions of THC are not correlated with high emissions of organic 
HAPs, and thus the EPA should not subcategorize mixers or set different 
limitations for mixers where silica is used in the compound being mixed 
based on the perception that this leads to higher THC emissions. The 
commenter added that even if subcategorizing were appropriate because 
of higher THC emissions associated with the silanization reaction when 
mixing high-silica tread compounds and silane coupling agents under 
certain operating conditions, the limits should apply only when silane 
coupling agents are being introduced under such operating conditions. 
The commenter argued subcategories should not be based solely on the 
presence of silica as an ingredient, because the presence of silica as 
an ingredient on its own (without silane coupling agents) is not 
expected to contribute to higher THC or organic HAP emissions, and this 
was confirmed by the emissions data the EPA collected through the ICR 
testing and supplemental emission testing at USTMA member facilities.
    The commenter argued that the EPA's derivation of MACT floor 
emission limitations for THC fails to meet the statutory directive 
because the EPA ignored ``emissions information'' that CAA section 
112(d)(3) requires it to consider, which shows that less than 12 
percent of existing mixers achieve an emission limitation reflective of 
RTO controls, because only 4 percent of mixers are routed continuously 
to an RTO. The commenter asserted that while additional mixers are 
controlled intermittently with an RTO, RTO control does not represent 
an ``emission limitation achieved'' by those additional mixers, since 
an emission limitation, by statutory definition and as interpreted by 
the Court and by the EPA, is only a level of control that is achieved 
on a continuous basis.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's statement that an 
increase in THC emissions is attributed to the addition of both silica 
and the silane coupling agent (forms bonds between organic and 
inorganic materials). Upon further evaluation, the EPA agrees there are 
factors other than just the addition of silica, such as the inclusion 
of a silane coupling agent, variations in raw materials used, and type 
of rubber being processed, that create different emission profiles. In 
response, the EPA decided to set a single standard for THC emissions 
from mixers for the final rule.

[[Page 94898]]

    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the EPA 
selected separate standards based on what processes were currently 
controlled. As stated in the proposal, the EPA determined it was 
appropriate to set separate standards for silica-containing batches and 
non-silica-containing batches due to expected different emission 
profiles between the 2 processes that use different raw materials, 
because the addition of silica leads to chemical reactions producing 
additional organics. The expected increase in organics for silica-
containing batches is represented by higher levels of THC emissions 
compared to non-silica batches.
    Furthermore, the standard based on the application of RTOs as a 
control technology satisfies the CAA's requirement that an emission 
limitation or standard apply continuously. Commenters misstate the 
statutory requirements, suggesting that a control technology must be 
used continuously for an emission standard to be valid. This is 
incorrect; commenter's position conflates the requirement that a 
standard apply continuously with the notion that a control technology, 
or tool used to achieve that standard, apply, or be operated 
continuously. In this MACT Final Rule, the EPA determined that one 
standard will apply to all units. The requirement to meet this standard 
is ``continuous,'' in that regulated parties must demonstrate 
compliance with the emission rate standards at all times (i.e., there 
are no exceptions for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction). 
However, a regulated party need not operate an RTO, if the regulated 
party can demonstrate compliance with the emission rate standard. This 
is consistent with other emission standards, in that a regulated party 
is generally not required to conform to any specific control 
technology, provided they demonstrate compliance with the emission 
standard at all times.
    The EPA disagrees that our MACT floor emissions limitation for THC 
failed to meet the statutory directive. The CAA provides specific 
guidance for setting MACT standards for source categories which include 
setting the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 
12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has 
emissions information). For this source category, the EPA only received 
emissions data from 17 mixers, and data from only 12 mixers represented 
actual THC emissions after the application of any controls (THC data 
from five mixers were collected before an RTO and EPA was unable to 
accurately estimate values for their emissions after being controlled 
by an RTO); therefore, the EPA set the MACT standard for THC using the 
actual THC emissions data from the 12 mixers that were made available 
to the Administrator as the CAA requires.
    Comment: One commenter stated that tire plants typically have a 
number of mixers, which may be used for different purposes on different 
days or even different portions of a day, and tire plants must have the 
flexibility with the mixers to produce the rubber needed for various 
processes within the Tire Production affected source, in the quantities 
involved and on the time schedule involved.
    The commenter argued that the proposed rule treats the mixers as if 
each one operated entirely independently of other mixers at the plant 
and would not recognize the interplay among mixer exhaust points, 
requiring each mixer exhaust to demonstrate compliance with an 
identical emission limitation.
    The commenter recommended that instead, numerical emission 
limitations for THC should be expressed as the overall average of 
pounds of THC emissions per ton of rubber processed for all mixers at 
the plant. The commenter suggested this would recognize that mixers are 
used in an interrelated way, and it would allow tire plants to more 
cost-effectively optimize controls to prevent excessive emissions 
across the entire facility. The commenter noted that the EPA has taken 
this approach for numerous other source categories and averaged 
emissions would still reflect MACT.
    The commenter added that expressing a THC numerical emission 
limitation as an overall average for all mixers at a plant would allow 
plants to optimize their investments by installing controls on units 
where lower emissions can be most cost effective, facilitate pollution 
prevention innovations, and facilitate tire plants developing measures 
that reduce organic HAP emissions by taking advantage of the 
interconnectedness of mixers in ways that might, for example, affect 
emissions only from particular compounds or particular passes. Finally, 
the commenter noted that emissions averaging may also allow for control 
options that benefit the environment by minimizing energy use.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that a facility wide-
average emission limit for mixers is an appropriate approach to account 
for variability in emissions among mixers and to provide flexibility in 
demonstrating compliance. In response to the comment, the EPA has added 
an alternative compliance option for THC that allows facilities to 
average their emissions at all mixers at an individual facility to meet 
the emission limit. (The EPA has allowed a similar option for 
demonstrating compliance with the limits for fPM described below in 
section IV.B. of this preamble.)
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 
FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in 
section IV.A.3. of this preamble, we are finalizing the emission limits 
for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP from rubber processing as 
proposed, but with several changes since proposal. First, we are 
establishing a single emission limit for THC without separate emission 
limits for subcategories for mixing silica-containing and non-silica-
containing compounds to reflect the fact that variables other than 
silica affect emissions, such as the inclusion of a silane coupling 
agent, variations in raw materials used, and type of rubber being 
processed. Therefore, the EPA determined it was not appropriate to 
separate emission limits by silica and non-silica. Additionally, by 
setting a single emission limit instead of two separate emission 
limits, the compliance demonstration for facilities that mix multiple 
compounds in the same mixer at different times will be significantly 
simplified. Second, upon additional review of the data and new 
knowledge of emission range that contributes to the calculation of 
3xRDL, we are revising the THC emission limit for new and existing 
rubber processing affected sources so that it is equal to the 3xRDL 
value for THC emission measurements calculated from the available 
testing data. The same 3xRDL value will apply to both new and existing 
rubber processing affected sources, and the 3xRDL value in the final 
rule is higher than the proposed THC emission limits for new and 
existing sources for both silica-containing and non-silica-containing 
batches. Third, in response to comments, we are allowing owners and 
operators to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limit by 
using facility-wide averaging among mixers within a single facility. 
For each 15-day compliance period, the owner or operator would 
demonstrate compliance using averaging by summing the mass of emissions 
from the mixers included in the average over that period and dividing 
that sum by the sum of the rubber produced from the same mixers over 
the same period. This change results in reducing reporting burden and

[[Page 94899]]

accounts for additional variability across the source category.

B. Emission Standards for Unregulated Metal HAP Emissions From the 
Rubber Processing Subcategory

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, the 
EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data from 5 of 
the mixers. The EPA had no reason to assume a difference in fPM and 
metal HAP emissions based on the mixing of silica-containing or non-
silica-containing compounds, as silica was expected to cause an 
increase in organic emissions, which does not impact PM. Thus, a single 
emission standard was proposed for mixing of all rubber compounds. For 
each mixer, the EPA calculated the 99 percent UPL for both fPM and the 
sum of the metal HAP that were measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
phosphorus, and selenium). The CAA requires the EPA to determine the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has information) 
when establishing the MACT floor level of control. There are an 
estimated 97 mixers in the source category, and the MACT floor is 
calculated using data from the top performing 12 percent of mixers for 
which we have data. At proposal, the EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and 
of those metal HAP data for 5 of the mixers. The EPA calculated 12 
percent of 7 mixers (fPM) and 12 percent of 5 mixers (metal HAP) which 
results in 0.84 and 0.6, respectively. When determining the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we 
rounded the fractional amounts to the next whole number of mixers. In 
this instance, we rounded up to one mixer for purposes of determining 
the existing source MACT floors for both the fPM and metal HAP emission 
limits.
    When setting new source MACT floors, the emission limit is achieved 
in practice by the best controlled similar source. As a result, the 
MACT floors for both new and existing sources are based on the best 
performing existing source. Based on responses to the CAA section 114 
information request, all mixers in this subcategory are controlled by a 
baghouse or similar control devices which control PM emissions.
    To account for variability in the rubber processing operations and 
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the PM 
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL.
    We calculated the MACT floor UPL emission rate for fPM as 1.7 g/Mg 
(3,410 pounds per million tons (lb/Mton)) rubber produced, and a total 
metal HAP UPL emission rate of 0.037 g/Mg (74.1 lb/Mton) rubber 
produced. The lowest fPM emission rate and the lowest metal HAP 
emission rate were measured at the same mixer, and the fPM and metal 
HAP emissions were measured simultaneously. Because metal HAP are 
emitted as fPM, the EPA proposed an emission limit for fPM as a 
surrogate for metal HAP, and also an alternative emission limit for 
total metal HAP itself. The baghouses that are used to capture fPM will 
also reliably capture metal HAP, and the fPM emission limit accounts 
for variability in individual metal HAP emission rates among different 
batches of rubber compound being mixed.
    Because the proposed standards for new and existing sources are 
based on the best performing mixer, which is already controlled by a 
baghouse, and no more effective controls than a baghouse for PM or 
metal HAP are in use or were identified, we did not identify any 
beyond-the-floor options to evaluate for either existing or new mixers.
2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    Since proposal, the EPA has received additional fPM data for 3 
mixers (bringing the total to 10) and has recalculated the MACT floor 
to include the additional data and has also recalculated the 3xRDL 
values for fPM and metal HAP. (The EPA also received fPM data for a 
fourth additional mixer in the public comments, but those data did not 
include the production data needed to calculate emissions per mass of 
rubber processed, so the fourth mixer could not be included in the 
final rule MACT analysis.) The final rule limits for fPM and metal HAP 
have been increased since proposal. The existing source MACT floor UPL 
has been recalculated using the combined data from the 2 lowest 
emitting mixers because they represent 12 percent of the 10 mixers for 
which the Administrator now has fPM data. The EPA has also recalculated 
the 3xRDL value to reflect the higher number of sources for which the 
Administrator has data.
    The final rule limits for fPM and metal HAP also include the option 
of facility-wide averaging among mixers to demonstrate compliance.
3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should find that HAP 
metals emissions from mixers are already controlled and are incidental 
to the very efficient dust control measures that are an integral part 
of mixing operations for materials recovery purposes and safety 
reasons, and therefore there is no ``gap'' that is ``necessary'' for 
the EPA to fill under CAA section 112(d)(6), as the EPA effectively 
already recognized in the 2020 RTR rulemaking. The commenter asserted 
it is inappropriate to impose additional costs for essentially no 
benefit, since metals emissions from mixing are already low, often 
below detection limits, and the EPA has already determined the residual 
risk from metals emissions from all processes at tire plants is 
acceptable. However, the commenter agreed that if the EPA nevertheless 
imposes new limits on HAP metal emissions from mixing, then total fPM 
is an appropriate surrogate, and establishing alternative emission 
limitations for HAP metals as the EPA proposed is permissible under the 
CAA.
    The commenter also argued that the EPA should base the MACT floor 
for fPM on more than just a single mixer and supplied additional 
particulate test data from which the EPA could calculate a fPM emission 
limitation substantially higher than what the EPA proposed.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that there is no ``gap'' in the 
standards for metal HAPs. While mixers operate baghouses to control 
nuisance PM, the current MACT standard does not specifically regulate 
emissions of metal HAP or the fPM surrogate from mixers. Metal HAPs 
emitted during rubber processing include, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
phosphorus, and selenium.
    The court in National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34 
(D.C. Cir. 2000), found that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA to set 
emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted from each listed major 
source category (or subcategory). The court in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 
F.3d 875, 878 (D.C. Cir. 2007) confirmed the prior holding in National 
Lime Association that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA

[[Page 94900]]

to set emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted from each listed 
major source category (or subcategory). Additionally, the LEAN decision 
requires that when the EPA undertakes a 112(d)(6) technology review, it 
must set a MACT standard for previously unregulated pollutants, even if 
there is a prior risk assessment that identifies the risk from those 
pollutants as ``low.'' \18\ This requirement, that the EPA address all 
enumerated air toxic pollutants, is applicable to the EPA regardless of 
any findings that the EPA has made regarding the risk posed by the 
expected emission levels from those currently unregulated pollutants, 
or other cited considerations from commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See LEAN, 955 F.3d 1088 at 109 (``We hold that . . . EPA's 
section 112(d)(6) review of a source category's emission standard 
must address all listed air toxics the source category emits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA does not authorize the EPA to decline to set the emission 
limits required by 112(d)(1) because a risk assessment under 112(f)(2) 
finds that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety. It 
is clear that Congress intended the EPA to set technology-based 
standards that address all emitted HAP, and the EPA does not agree that 
the absence of such limits in an existing NESHAP justifies a decision 
at this point not to address all emitted HAP from a major source.
    Additionally, the CAA provides specific guidance for setting MACT 
standards for source categories, which includes setting the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the 
existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 
information). For this source category the EPA received fPM emissions 
data from 7 mixers before proposal and from 3 more mixers since 
proposal that could be used to calculate UPL values for each mixer. 
Therefore, for the proposed rule, the EPA set the MACT standard using 
the top 12 percent of the 7 mixers data (i.e., the best performing 
mixer) that was made available to the administrator at proposal, as the 
act requires. However, after proposal the EPA received additional fPM 
data representing 4 more mixers, including 3 mixers with enough data to 
calculate a UPL value. (The data for one mixer included only 2 runs.) 
For the final rule, the EPA has recalculated the MACT floor for 
existing sources using the data from the 2 best performing mixers, but 
the MACT floor for new sources is still equal to the best performing 
source. The MACT floor fPM UPL emission limit for existing sources from 
the combined data for the 2 lowest emitters is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 x 10\3\ 
lb/Mton). However, the recalculated 3xRDL from the same 2 mixers is 
equal to 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 x 10\3\ lb/Mton).
    The EPA acknowledges the commenter agrees with the EPA that fPM is 
an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals, noting that fPM contains HAP 
metals and that fPM control devices such as baghouses also collect HAP 
metals, just as THC emissions contain organic HAP and that THC control 
devices such as thermal oxidizers also control organic HAP emissions.
    This rule correctly applies statutory requirements, consistent with 
past Agency practice, to select the best performing source and to 
calculate appropriate emission limits. In keeping with regulatory 
requirements and past Agency practice, this rule applies techniques to 
ensure source owners or operators can determine compliance with the 
rule on a continuous basis. While use of PM CEMS could provide this 
information, the rule allows the use of bag leak detection system 
(BLDS) parameter measurement to supply data upon which compliance can 
be determined. The commenter's assertion that mixer emissions are too 
variable and should escape regulation appears to disregard the use of a 
15-day averaging period, which, as described earlier, smooths out 
production and emissions spikes and dips. Contrary to the commenter's 
view, BLDS parameters provide a better description of ongoing baghouse 
operation than the typical baghouse continuous parameters of pressure 
drop and flow rate, which typically only show catastrophic failure.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA must base the fPM 
emission limitations on stack tests conducted while mixing 
nonproductive rubber. The commenter stated that the EPA has long 
recognized that the majority of emissions from rubber mixing occur 
during nonproductive passes, such as in the documentation supporting 
the AP-42 emission factors for rubber tire manufacturing. The commenter 
noted that most of the raw materials are added during the nonproductive 
passes, so one would expect that fPM emissions during nonproductive 
passes are greater than during mixing of productive rubber. The 
commenter noted that the available fPM emissions data from both the ICR 
testing and the additional fPM stack testing data submitted by the 
commenter show that fPM emissions were higher when mixing non-
productive passes: over twice as high on a concentration basis and over 
5 times higher on a mass of fPM per mass of rubber processed basis.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The commenter cited the data presented on pages 4-6 of 
Attachment 4 of docket item EPA&HQ-OAR-19-0132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter asserted that MACT floor emissions must represent an 
emissions rate that the best performers can achieve under the worst-
case conditions,\20\ and an fPM emission limitation based on what the 
best performers achieve during productive passes would not reflect what 
those mixers can achieve during non-productive passes. The commenter 
stated that a majority of mixers at major-source tire plants either are 
presently used or could be used for non-productive passes, and non-
productive mixing is essential for processing rubber for rubber tire 
components. The commenter added that the EPA would have to conduct 
additional fPM emissions testing and data collection and re-propose if 
the EPA wanted to create 2 subcategories of mixers for productive and 
non-productive rubber fPM emission limitations. Thus, according to the 
commenter, the EPA must establish fPM surrogate emissions limitations 
based only on testing that occurred while mixing non-productive rubber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The commenter cited, e.g., National Ass'n of Clean Water 
Agencies v . EPA, F.3d 1115, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (``[A]s we 
explained in Sierra Club, it is reasonable to expect that the 
incinerator on which the MACT floors are based should be able to `in 
practice,' which it could not do unless `achieved in practice' meant 
`achieved under the worst forseeable circumstancfes,' '') (internal 
citations omitted); Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 
F.3d 1232 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (``[E]ven the best performing 
sources occasionally have spikes, and under the standard, each 
facility must meet the 400 ppm standard every day and under all 
operating conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees that the final rule limit cannot be 
achieved by sources during the mixing of non-productive rubber passes. 
The emission standard was developed based on data submitted to EPA by 
regulated parties, and the emission standard is therefore ``achieved in 
practice'' by the best controlled similar source. See CAA section 
112(d)(3). In the data provided by USTMA in Attachment 6 to their 
comments, Goodyear Mt. Vernon Mixer #14 achieved an average emission 
rate of 2.3 g/Mg while mixing non-productive rubber on all 3 passes. As 
explained above in the response to comments in this same section, the 
EPA has revised the fPM limit in the final rule to 3.0 g/Mg and added 
facility wide averaging allowing for increased flexibility to account 
for variability in emissions. Therefore, the final rule emission limits 
are achievable during the mixing of non-productive rubber on

[[Page 94901]]

all passes.. For a detailed discussion of the EPA stance on worst-case 
performance, see section IV.c. of the Response to Comments document 
found in the docket for this rule.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 
FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in 
section IV.B.3. of this preamble, we are promulgating emission limits 
for fPM from rubber processing with several changes since proposal. 
First, we are revising the emission limit for both fPM and metal HAP. 
For fPM, we are basing the existing source MACT floor on the average 
performance of the 2 lowest emitting sources instead of the single 
lowest emitting source because we have more fPM data than at proposal. 
We have fPM data for 10 mixers and 12 percent of 10 is 1.2, which is 
rounded up to 2 mixers. The UPL calculated for the combined data for 
the 2 lowest emitting mixers is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 x 10\3\ lb/Mton) rubber 
produced.
    We have also recalculated the 3xRDL value to reflect the higher 
number of mixers for which the Administrator has data. The 3xRDL value 
recalculated for the final rule is 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 x 10\3\ lb/Mton) 
rubber produced. Because this value is higher than the revised UPL 
value(s) for new and existing sources, the final rule is based on the 
3xRDL values for fPM.

C. Emission Testing and Compliance Demonstrations

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed that facilities demonstrate compliance with the 
THC emission limits by monitoring the emissions from each mixer with a 
CEMS and also monitoring production and calculating the emission rate 
in grams THC per megagram rubber produced (g/Mg) on a 15-day rolling 
average. The EPA proposed that compliance would be demonstrated for 
each mixer separately.
    The EPA also proposed that THC emissions would be measured at the 
outlet for each RTO on a 5-year interval and during the testing 
operating limits would be established for each RTO.
    The EPA proposed that facilities could choose to comply with either 
the emission limit for fPM or the alternative emission limit for total 
metal HAP and, accordingly, measure fPM emissions using EPA Method 5 or 
the metal HAP emissions using EPA Method 29. The fPM or metal HAP 
measurements would be required every 5 years. For each baghouse, owners 
and operators would need to install and operate a bag leak detection 
system.
2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
    The final rule will allow facilities to average among mixers to 
demonstrate compliance with both the THC and fPM or metal HAP emission 
limits. The final rule does not include the requirement to perform a 
THC compliance test every 5 years and does not require the facility to 
establish and comply with operating limits for the RTO, but instead 
requires the use of THC CEMS. The other proposed emission testing and 
monitoring compliance requirements have been retained in the final 
rule.
3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should not require 
multiple THC CEMS at each mixer exhaust point instead of allowing for 
measurement of THC emissions at the actual point at which they exhaust 
to the atmosphere. The commenter suggested that this approach would 
reduce the number of THC CEMS required and also eliminate the need for 
continuous monitoring of RTO combustion temperature and a 5-year repeat 
performance test using Method 25A. The commenter added that if the EPA 
requires use of CEMS for compliance, then parameter monitoring, and a 
5-year repeat performance test are not needed.
    Response: The EPA recognizes that because sources will be operating 
THC CEMS that will continuously record the THC concentration in the 
emissions at the stack, there is no need to require operating limits 
for the RTOs (e.g., operating temperature) if an RTO is being used for 
compliance and there is similarly no need for a periodic (e.g., every 5 
years) performance test of the RTO. Therefore, the operating limits for 
RTOs and the periodic THC testing requirement have been removed from 
the final rule.
    In addition, as explained above in section IV.A., the final rule 
will allow for demonstrating compliance with facility-wide emission 
limits for THC, which will also allow for use of a single THC CEMS at 
the exhaust point for combined mixer exhausts and reduce the number of 
THC CEMS needed.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the proposal to require BLDS 
as the continuous compliance demonstration method for the proposed PM 
emission limit for rubber processing because they were not justified by 
the current fPM and metal HAP from particulate controls on mixers and 
the EPA has not justified them as a beyond-the-floor technology.
    The commenter reported that no BLDS are currently installed at 
rubber processing facilities, and over 100 BLDS will need to be 
installed as a result of the proposed requirement, resulting in 
additional capital costs not only for the monitors and data acquisition 
and handling system, but also for stack/duct modifications to 
accommodate a monitor. The commenter noted that the EPA has estimated 
that the proposed standards will result in a reduction of only 318 lb 
of metal HAP per year and asserted that installation of a complicated 
monitoring system that is not currently in use in the industry is not 
reasonable for the expected HAP reduction. The commenter stated that 
facilities currently employ pressure drop and/or visible emissions 
observations along with a program of regular internal and external 
inspections and maintenance of the duct work and baghouse to ensure 
compliance with PM limits in their air permits.
    The commenter recommended that the EPA should replace the 
requirement for BLDS with the use of baghouse pressure drop or twice 
daily visible emissions monitoring to ensure baghouses are operating 
properly as the continuous compliance determination method.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to rely 
on continuous parameter monitoring other than that associated with 
BLDS; those other parameters--including visible emissions, flow rate, 
or pressure drop--do not provide relevant information quickly enough to 
correct problems before emission limits may be compromised. For 
example, the commenter mentions twice daily visible emission checks; 
such an approach is not continuous and detection with the human eye is 
only possible at 5 percent opacity and above. As a result, lower 
opacities may yield fPM values that exceed the emission limits but 
would occur undetected by visible emission checks. As mentioned 
earlier, flow rate and pressure drop across baghouses can indicate 
catastrophic failures, but not provide information to preclude baghouse 
problems before exceedances occur. Of course, owners or operators could 
use PM CEMS in lieu of BLDS; PM CEMS would provide direct, continuous 
measurement of the

[[Page 94902]]

pollutant of concern and would enable source owners or operators to 
forgo any type of fPM control device parameter monitoring. Using the 
process in the NESHAP general provisions, mentioned earlier, owners or 
operators could request--and expect to receive--approval from the EPA 
for use of PM CEMS for rule compliance purposes.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 
FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in 
section IV.C.3. of this preamble, we are finalizing emission testing 
and compliance demonstration requirements as proposed, but with several 
changes since proposal.
    First, the EPA has removed the requirement for a periodic THC 
compliance test and compliance with THC operating limits and monitoring 
(e.g., RTO operating temperature) because THC emissions will be 
continuously monitored by a THC CEMS. The final rule will also allow 
for demonstrating compliance with facility-wide emission limits for 
THC, which will also allow for use of a single THC CEMS at the exhaust 
point for combined mixer exhausts and reduce the number of THC CEMS 
needed.
    Second, the EPA believes requiring BLDS will provide significantly 
more accurate and continuous feedback on the operation of a baghouse 
and can provide an earlier indication of potential bag leaks compared 
to the requested visible emission inspections.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    As listed in CFR 63.5982 (b)(4), the rubber processing affected 
source is the collection of all rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys 
and associated drop mills) that either mix compounds or warm a rubber 
compound before the compound is processed into components of rubber 
tires. The mixed rubber compound itself is also included in the rubber 
processing affected source. Among the 15 major sources that are subject 
to the NESHAP, 12 facilities perform rubber processing, while 3 
facilities do not perform rubber processing and use rubber that is 
processed at other facilities.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    This action proposes first-time MACT floor-based emission standards 
for THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP), metal HAP, and fPM from 
rubber processing. These first-time MACT standards will limit HAP 
emissions and require, in some cases, the installation of additional 
controls at rubber tire manufacturing plants that are major sources of 
HAP. We estimate that the rubber tire manufacturing industry will 
comply with the final standards for THC, metal HAP, and fPM through the 
installation and operation of control devices.
    For THC, we estimate that the installation of RTOs or similar 
control devices will achieve annual reductions of THC of 94 Mg (104 
tons) across the source category.
    For fPM and metal HAP, we estimate that the replacement or upgrade 
of baghouses will achieve annual reductions of fPM of 61 Mg (67 tons) 
or 0.073 Mg (160 lb) of total metal HAP (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
phosphorous, and selenium) across the source category.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased energy usage associated with the operation of 
control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria 
pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts are due to use of natural 
gas needed to operate control devices and other equipment. We conclude 
that the secondary impacts of this action are minimal, resulting from 
the operation of the control device, and would comprise CO2 
and methane (CH4) emissions from the combustion of the 
natural gas required to operate an RTO. For purposes of assessing the 
projected disbenefits, we estimate that the monetized disbenefits would 
be no greater than $8.1 million in any year, with estimates ranging 
from $2.7 million to $8.1 million per year depending on the discount 
rate assumption.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This range of disbenefit estimates is presented in 2022 
dollars and was calculating by multiplying the social cost of carbon 
(SC-CO2) by 17,536 metric tons of CO2e reductions for 
each year in the timeframe of 2027 to 2036. We applied near-term 
Ramsey discount rates of 2.5 percent, 2.0 percent, and 1.5 
percent,and found that the largest disbenefit estimate was 2036 when 
using a 1.5 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate. Additional 
information on the social cost of carbon and an EPA workbook for 
applying SC-CO2 estimates is found here: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final rule, we estimate that 8 new RTOs would be needed and 
each RTO would consume about 29,800 thousand standard feet (mscf) per 
year of natural gas and 1.33 million kilowatt hours per year of 
electricity. For all 8 new RTOs, the indirect greenhouse gas emissions 
of CO2 and CH4 from the combustion of the natural 
gas and the generation of electricity would be equivalent to 19,330 
tons (17,536 Mg) of CO2 emissions.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    This action proposes MACT floor-based emission limits for new and 
existing sources in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, 
specifically the rubber processing subcategory. Although the action 
contains requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new 
sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years and we are 
not aware of any new additional mixers to existing facilities. 
Consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. We 
estimate the total annualized cost of the final rule to existing 
sources in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category to be $13.3 
million per year. The costs are a combination of the annualized capital 
and annual operating costs for installing and operating RTOs or similar 
control devices to control THC and organic HAP; baghouses and 
associated BLDSs to control fPM and metal HAP; and THC CEMS to monitor 
THC emissions. The capital and annual costs are summarized in table 2.

              Table 2--Summary of Capital and Annual Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
                                         Total capital    equipment and
             Cost element                 investments     operation and
                                           (million)       maintenance
                                                         costs (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTOs (8 new)..........................           $25.0              $4.9

[[Page 94903]]

 
THC CEMS (97 CEMS)....................            14.0               4.2
                                       ---------------------------------
    Total Annual RTO and CEMS Costs...  ..............               9.1
New Baghouses (46 mixers).............            19.6               2.0
Retrofitted Baghouses (new bags; 34     ..............               0.5
 mixers)..............................
BLDS and PM Testing (114 BLDS)........            2.54               1.7
    Total Annual Baghouse, BLDS, and    ..............               4.2
     PM Testing Costs.................
                                       ---------------------------------
    Totals............................  ..............              13.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual costs are based on operation and maintenance 
of the added control systems. A memorandum titled Final Rule Rubber 
Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, And Cost Effectiveness, 
includes details of our cost assessment, and is included in the docket 
for this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for the final rule in 
the report titled Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Amendments, Final, which is available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). The economic impacts of the final 
rule are calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs 
incurred by affected ultimate parent owners compared to their revenues. 
This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate 
parent owners of facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We 
estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by this final 
rule will incur total annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of their 
revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies 
and the industry impacted by the final rule, and there will not be 
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. We lack the 
information necessary to independently assess the downtime loss of 
production due to capital improvements or deferred maintenance that 
would be associated with these controls for each affected facility. The 
costs of the final rule 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 benefits of this rule include any benefits relating to the 
reduction of emissions of organic HAP and fPM. The rule is projected to 
reduce emissions of THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP, and fPM, as a 
surrogate for metal HAP, through the installation and operation of 
control devices. The reduction in fPM can also result in associated 
reduction in PM-related mortality and morbidity.
    The EPA is currently unable to monetize most benefits associated 
with HAP reductions. The potential benefits from reducing THC were not 
monetized and are therefore not reflected in the benefit estimates 
associated with this rulemaking. However, we estimate that the final 
rule amendments would reduce THC emissions by 104 tons/yr and metal HAP 
emissions by 160 lb/yr and thus lower risk of serious adverse health 
effects from exposure to certain HAPs in communities near rubber tire 
manufacturing plants. It is reasonable to expect that emissions 
reductions from this rule will improve air quality and public health 
for populations exposed to emissions from rubber tire manufacturing 
facilities. Due to methodology and data limitations, we could not 
monetize the health benefits of HAP reductions for this final 
rulemaking.
    Although we are unable to quantify the benefits of reducing HAPs 
from this rulemaking, we are providing a qualitative assessment of the 
benefits of reducing both organic and metal HAPs. This is detailed in 
section 4 of Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Amendments, Final, which is available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). These HAPs include, but are not 
limited to, the following: organic HAPs such as 2-butanone, 
acetophenone, cumene, hexane, isooctane, methylene chloride, phenol, 
toluene, and xylene, and metal HAPs such as antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
phosphorus, and selenium.
    The control measures are expected to reduce fPM by 66.7 tons/yr for 
the source category. Any monetization of PM-related health benefits 
would require the EPA to assume the percentage of fPM that is 
PM2.5. As the percentage of the fPM reductions that is 
PM2.5 is unknown, it is too uncertain to estimate the PM-
related benefit impacts of this rule. For purposes of assessing the 
economic significance of these benefits, we can determine that if all 
of the fPM were PM2.5, the annual benefits would be 
estimated to be no greater than $24 million, occurring in 2028.\22\ 
Therefore, this action is not economically significant based on benefit 
impacts. This rule is expected to limit emissions of directly emitted 
PM2.5, which may will in turn reduce ambient concentrations 
of PM2.5 and in turn benefit public health. Though EPA 
neither quantified nor monetized these benefits, we anticipate reducing 
PM2.5 concentrations will reduce the incidence or premature 
death, non-fatal heart attacks, cases of aggravated asthma, lost days 
of work and school and other adverse effects (U.S. EPA, 2022).\23\ This 
rule is also expected to

[[Page 94904]]

reduce emissions of Hg. Methylmercury (MeHg), which is formed by 
microbial action in the top layers of sediment and soils, after mercury 
has precipitated from the air and deposited into waterbodies or land, 
can cause a number of adverse effects when impacting fishes associated 
with recreational or commercial consumption and present at sufficiently 
elevated levels. Though not quantified here, these effects include IQ 
loss measured by performance on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on 
tests of attention, fine motor-function, language, and visual spatial 
ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This estimate is based on the use of a ``benefit-per-ton'' 
(BPT) approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking assuming 
that all fPM2.5 These BPT estimates provide the estimated 
monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and 
premature mobidity) of reducing one tone of the PM2.5 from a 
specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the 
estimates from the ``Synthetic Organic Chemicals'' sector by the 
corresponding emission reductions. The method used to derive these 
estimates is described in the BPT Technical Support Document on 
Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5
    \23\ U.S. EPA, 2022. Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits. Office of Air and Radiation, Research 
Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon 
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice 
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage 
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing 
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical 
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance 
states that a regulatory action may involve potential environmental 
justice concerns if it could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts 
on communities with EJ concerns; (2) exacerbate existing 
disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; or (3) 
present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on 
communities with EJ concerns through this action under development.
    The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of 
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three 
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with 
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for 
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential 
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the 
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory 
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under 
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared 
to the baseline?'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis'', U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 3-
Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical/guidance/assessing-environmental/justice/regulatory/analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of 
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the 
potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of 
such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this 
action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory 
factors the EPA is required to consider under this section.
    We did not conduct any new demographic analyses for this final 
rule. There were no known changes to the population of Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing facilities nor any known changes to our estimates of HAP 
emissions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities since proposal. 
Therefore, the EPA relied on the demographic analysis performed for the 
2020 proposal for this final rulemaking.
    In the 2020 proposal, we conducted a baseline proximity analysis 
and baseline risk-based analysis (i.e., before implementation of any 
controls promulgated by this action). The baseline proximity 
demographic analysis is an assessment of individual demographic groups 
in the total population living within 5 kilometers (km) (approximately 
3.1 miles) and 50 km (approximately 31 miles) of the facilities. The 
baseline risk-based demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to 
individual demographic groups in the population living within 5 km and 
50 km of the facilities prior to the implementation of any controls 
promulgated by this action. The results of the proximity demographic 
analysis and the risk-based demographic analysis for populations living 
within 5 km and 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the 
docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392-0069).
    The results of the proximity analysis conducted for the 2020 
proposal indicated that a total of approximately 516,000 people live 
within 5 km of the 21 Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities. The percent 
of the population that is Black (24 percent, 124.000 people) is double 
the national average (12 percent). The percent of people living below 
the poverty level (21 percent, 108,000 people) and the percent of 
people over the age of 25 without a high school diploma (16 percent, 
83,000 people) are higher than the national averages (14 percent and 14 
percent, respectively). The results of the baseline proximity analysis 
indicate that the proportion of other demographic groups living within 
5 km of Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities is similar to or below the 
national average.
    The baseline risk-based demographic analysis conducted for the 2020 
proposal, indicated that emissions from the source category, prior to 
the controls we are proposing, expose approximately 4,500 people living 
near 21 facilities to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million (maximum 
individual risk is 4-in-1 million) and expose no people to a chronic 
noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) greater than 1 
(maximum noncancer HI is 0.2). The percent of the baseline population 
with estimated cancer risks great than or equal to 1-in-1 million that 
are Black (25 percent, 1,000 people) is more than 2 times the average 
percentage of the national population (12 percent). The percent of the 
population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million 
resulting from Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category emissions 
prior to the proposed controls that is Below the Poverty Level (21 
percent, 1,000 people) is above the national average (14 percent).
    As indicated in section V.B. of this preamble, this final action is 
projected to reduce HAP emissions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
facilities by setting first time emission limits on the mixing 
operation. As a result, we expect risk for all exposed individuals and 
communities will also be reduced. See section V.B. of this preamble for 
more details.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    In the July 24, 2020, final Rubber Tire Manufacturing RTR rule (85 
FR 44752), the EPA conducted a residual risk assessment and determined 
that risk from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category was 
acceptable, and the standards provided an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392-0013). 
There are no known changes that would increase risk, thus the EPA 
relied on the 2020 demographic analysis for this rulemaking. In 
addition, this action promulgates first-time emissions standards for 
THC and fPM and metal HAP, including mercury and lead which are known 
to cause particular impacts to children's health and/or from early life 
exposure, for the rubber processing subcategory, which will further 
reduce emissions. Specifically, we estimate that the new emission 
limits will reduce THC and fPM emissions by 94 Mg/yr and 61 Mg/yr, 
respectively.
    This action's health and risk assessments are protective of the 
most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we 
determine exposure and through the health

[[Page 94905]]

benchmarks that we use. Specifically, the risk assessments we perform 
assume a lifetime of exposure, in which populations are conservatively 
presumed to be exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence 
continuously, 24 hours per day for a 70-year lifetime, including 
childhood. With regards to children's potentially greater 
susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the assessments rely on the 
EPA's (or comparable) hazard identification and dose-response values 
that have been developed to be protective for all subgroups of the 
general population, including children. For further details on the 
health and risk assessments can be found in the document ``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 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0392).

VI. 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, Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a `` significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any 
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is 
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the 
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis is briefly 
summarized in section V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic 
Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted. This analysis, `` Economic 
Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments, Final'' (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392), is also available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned 
EPA ICR number 1982.06. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket 
for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information 
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The final rule ICR describes changes to the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP 
associated with the incorporation of reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements associated with the new and existing source MACT standards 
for THC, fPM, and metal HAP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of rubber tire 
manufacturing facilities conducting rubber processing operations that 
are major sources.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XXXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 12.
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, annually.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over 
the next 3 years from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements is 
estimated to be 1,162 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs 
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP 
is estimated to be $2.12 million per year. This includes labor costs of 
$149,000 per year and non-labor capital and operations and maintenance 
costs of $1.97 million per year for monitoring systems for the final 
rubber processing amendments when they are fully implemented.
    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. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. 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. The Agency 
has determined that none of the 4 ultimate parent companies owning the 
potentially affected facilities are small entities, as defined by the 
U.S. Small Business Administration. Details of this analysis are 
presented in `` Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Amendments, Final,'' which is located in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal 
governments or the private sector.

E. 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.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any rubber tire 
manufacturing facilities owned or operated by Indian Tribal 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. 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 a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 
Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094), and because the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by 
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The risks due 
to HAP emissions from this source category were found to be acceptable 
for all populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer risks less than or 
equal to 4-in-1 million for all populations and non-cancer hazard 
indexes are less than 1). The methodology and the results of the 
demographic analyses are included 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 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0392). The first-

[[Page 94906]]

time emission standards for THC and fPM (or metal HAP) promulgated by 
this action, will further reduce emissions and thereby protect 
children's health.
    However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. 
Information on how the Policy was applied is available under ``What 
analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct'' in section 
V.G. of this preamble.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. In this final action, the EPA is 
setting emission standards for two previously unregulated pollutants. 
This does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP through the 
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a 
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA 
Methods 5, 25A, 29, SW-846, M0010, SW-846 M3542, SW-846, M8270E, M204, 
PS 8A, and QA Procedure 2. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or 
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 
analytical procedures that are similar to that of the EPA's referenced 
method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a 
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to 
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review 
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements 
of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 
engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA referenced 
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when 
additional information is available for any particular VCS.
    Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test 
methods for this final rule. The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Part 10 
of Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 3B (the manual portion only and not the instrumental portion). 
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6784-16--Standard Test Method 
for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated 
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) D6784-16 was 
revised and approved in 2016 to include better quality control than the 
earlier 2008 version. It is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 
101A and Method 29 (portion for particulate mercury only) as a method 
for measuring mercury. [Note: this acceptability applies to 
concentrations between approximately 0.5 and 100 micrograms per normal 
cubic meter ([mu]g/Nm\3\)].
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981-Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' a method for 
quantitatively determining the gaseous constituents of exhausts 
resulting from stationary combustion and includes a description of the 
apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with 
Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, as an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 for the 
manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. The manual 
method segment of the oxygen determination is performed through the 
absorption of oxygen. This VCS may be obtained from Two Park Avenue, 
New York, NY 10016-5990; phone: (800) 843-2763; email: 
[email protected]; website: https://www.asme.org.
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16, 
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and 
Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 
Hydro Method)'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 
(particulate portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring 
mercury concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 to 100 [mu]g/
Nm\3\. This test method describes equipment and procedures for 
obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and 
procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for calculating 
results. VCS ASTM D6784-16 allows for additional flexibility in the 
sampling and analytical procedures for the earlier version of the same 
standard VCS ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008).
    The EPA is also incorporating by reference EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This document provides 
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak 
detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system 
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup, 
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures. The 
document is reasonably available and can be viewed or downloaded at 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF.
    Detailed information on the VCS search and determination can be 
found in the memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing Amendments,'' which is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0329). The two VCS may be 
obtained from https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters at 100 
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 
19428-2959. The standards are available to everyone at a cost 
determined by ASTM. The costs of obtaining these methods are not a 
significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and 
adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns. The risks due to HAP 
emissions from this source category were found to be acceptable for all 
populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer risks less than or equal to 
4-in-1 million for all populations and non-cancer hazard indexes are 
less than 1). The methodology and the results of the demographic 
analyses are included 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 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. We expect this final rule to achieve reductions in 
HAP emissions. This final rule will provide additional

[[Page 94907]]

benefits to all populations, including these demographic groups that 
have a greater representation in the 50 km radius of modeled 
facilities, by establishing new emission limits for rubber processing.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in section V.F. of this preamble.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action does not meet the criteria under 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 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 A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  63.14 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (i)(105), and 
(o)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981; Sec. Sec.  
63.116(c) and (h); 63.128(a); 63.145(i); 63.309(k); 63.365(b); 
63.457(k); 63.490(g); 63.772(e) and (h); 63.865(b); 63.997(e); 
63.1282(d) and (g); 63.1450(a), (b), (d), (e), (g); 63.1625(b); table 5 
to subpart EEEE; Sec. Sec.  63.3166(a); 63.3360(e); 63.3545(a); 
63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 63.4766(a); 63.4965(a); 63.5160(d); 
table 4 to subpart UUUU; tables 5, 16, and 17 to subpart XXXX; table 3 
to subpart YYYY; table 4 to subpart AAAAA; Sec.  63.7322(b); table 5 to 
subpart DDDDD; Sec. Sec.  63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b); 
63.8000(d); table 4 to subpart JJJJJ; table 4 to subpart KKKKK; 
Sec. Sec.  63.9307(c); 63.9323(a); 63.9621(b) and (c);table 4 to 
subpart SSSSS; tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU; table 1 to subpart 
ZZZZZ; Sec. Sec.  63.11148(e); 63.11155(e); 63.11162(f); 63.11163(g); 
table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ; Sec. Sec.  63.11410(j); 63.11551(a); 
63.11646(a); 63.11945.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (105) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1450(d); 63.9621; table 5 to subpart AAAAA; 
table 17 to subpart XXXX; table 5 to subpart UUUUU; appendix A to 
subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (4) EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 
September 1997; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e); 63.864(e); 
63.6012(c); 63.7525(j); 63.8450(e); 63.8600(e); 63.9632(a); 63.9804(f); 
63.11224(f); 63.11423(e). (Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf).
* * * * *

Subpart XXXX--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.5981 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5981  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Rubber tire manufacturing includes rubber processing, the 
production of rubber tires and/or the production of components integral 
to rubber tires, the production of tire cord, and the application of 
puncture sealant. 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.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  63.5982 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), and (c) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5982  What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The tire production affected source is the collection of all 
processes that use or process cements and solvents as defined in Sec.  
63.6022, located at any rubber tire manufacturing facility. It 
includes, but is not limited to: Storage and mixing vessels and the 
transfer equipment containing cements and/or solvents; wastewater 
handling and treatment operations; tread and cement operations; tire 
painting operations; ink and finish operations; undertread cement 
operations; process equipment cleaning materials; bead cementing 
operations; tire building operations; green tire spray operations; 
extruding, to the extent cements and solvents are used; cement house 
operations; marking operations; calendar operations, to the extent 
solvents are used; tire striping operations; tire repair operations; 
slab dip operations; other tire building operations, to the extent that 
cements and solvents are used; and balance pad operations.
* * * * *
    (4) The rubber processing affected source is the collection of all 
rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys and associated drop mills) that 
either mix compounds or warm rubber compound before the compound is 
processed into components of rubber tires. The mixed rubber compound 
itself is also included in the rubber processing affected source. On 
and before November 29, 2024, there are no emission limitations or 
other requirements for the rubber processing affected source. The 
emission limitations for the rubber processing affected source are 
effective after November 29, 2024.
    (c) An affected source that is not a rubber processing affected 
source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source 
commenced after October 18, 2000, and it met the applicability criteria 
of Sec.  63.5981 at the time construction commenced. An affected source 
that is a rubber processing affected source is a new affected source if 
construction of the affected source commenced after November 16, 2023, 
and it met the applicability criteria of Sec.  63.5981 at the time 
construction commenced.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  63.5983 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5983  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) If you own or operate an existing affected source that is not a 
rubber processing affected source, you must comply with the emission 
limitations for existing sources no later than July 11, 2005. If you 
own or operate a rubber processing affected sources that began 
construction or reconstruction before

[[Page 94908]]

November 16, 2023, you must comply with the emission limitations for 
existing rubber processing existing sources no later than November 29, 
2027.
* * * * *
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.6016 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.6016 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the date you 
are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

0
6. Amend Sec.  63.5990 by revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) to read as 
follows:


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

    (a) Before January 21, 2021, 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 January 20, 2021, you must be in compliance with 
the applicable emission limitations specified in tables 1 through 4 to 
this subpart at all times. After November 29, 2024, you must be in 
compliance with the applicable emission limitations for rubber 
processing specified in tables 15 and 16 to this subpart at all times 
according to the compliance dates in Sec.  63.5983.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Before January 21, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance 
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  
63.8(d). After January 20, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance 
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  
63.8(d)(1) and (2). 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 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 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).
* * * * *

0
7. Revise Sec.  63.5992 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5992  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    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. The requirements of 
this paragraph do not apply to the measurement of THC emissions that 
are monitored with a continuous emission monitoring system for 
demonstrating compliance with the THC emission limitations for rubber 
processing in Sec.  63.6009. When complying with the emission limits 
for rubber processing in Sec.  63.6009 for fPM or metal HAP based on 
averaging to comply with the facility-wide average alternatives, the 
subsequent performance tests must begin no later than 5 years after the 
first test of the averaged mixers is performed.

0
8. Revise and republish Sec.  63.5993 to read as follows:


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

    (a) If you use a control system to meet the emission limitations, 
you must conduct each performance test in table 5 to this subpart that 
applies to you, except that for the rubber processing affected source, 
you must conduct performance tests according to table 17 instead of 
table 5.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
specific conditions specified in table 5 to this subpart, except that 
for the rubber processing affected source, you must conduct performance 
tests according to table 17 instead of table 5.
    (c) Before January 21, 2021, you may not conduct performance tests 
during periods startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1). After January 20, 2021, 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 the entire range 
of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum 
emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum production. 
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 January 21, 2021, 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 January 20, 2021, you must 
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in 
this section, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless 
otherwise specified in the test method. Each test run must last at 
least 1 hour.
    (e) If you are complying with the emission limitations using a 
control system, you must also conduct performance tests according to 
the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section as 
they apply to you. The provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) 
of this section do not apply to the rubber processing subcategory.
    (1) Determining capture efficiency of permanent or temporary total 
enclosure. Determine the capture efficiency of a capture system by 
using one of the procedures in Table 5 to this subpart.
    (2) Determining capture efficiency of an alternative method. As an 
alternative to constructing a permanent or temporary total enclosure, 
you may determine the capture efficiency using any capture efficiency 
protocol and test methods if the data satisfy the criteria of either 
the Data Quality Objective or the Lower Confidence Limit approach in 
appendix A to subpart KK of this part.
    (3) Determining efficiency of an add-on control device. Use Table 5 
to this subpart to select the test methods for determining the 
efficiency of an add-on control device.

0
9. Amend Sec.  63.5996 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5996  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limits for tire production affected sources?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6016(e).

0
10. Amend Sec.  63.5999 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

[[Page 94909]]

Sec.  63.5999  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limits for tire cord production affected sources?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6016(e).

0
11. Amend Sec.  63.6002 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6002  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limits for puncture sealant application affected sources?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6016(e).

0
12. Amend Sec.  63.6004 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6004  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limits for tire production affected sources?

* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an 
emission limit in table 1 to this subpart. You must also report each 
instance in which you did not meet the applicable requirements in table 
10 to this subpart. These instances are deviations from the emission 
limits in this subpart. The deviations must be reported in accordance 
with the requirements in Sec.  63.6017(e).
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  63.6006 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6006  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limits for tire cord production affected sources?

* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an 
applicable emission limit in table 2 to this subpart. You must also 
report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable 
requirements in table 12 to this subpart. These instances are 
deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations 
must be reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  
63.6017(e).

0
14. Amend Sec.  63.6008 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6008  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations for puncture sealant application affected sources?

* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an 
applicable emission limit in table 3 to this subpart. You must also 
report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable 
requirements in table 14 to this subpart. These instances are 
deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations 
must be reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  
63.6017(e).

0
15. Add undesignated center heading ``Emission Limits for Rubber 
Processing Affected Sources'' immediately following Sec.  63.6008.
0
16. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  63.6013 through 63.6015 as Sec. Sec.  
63.6020 through 63.6022 and transfer undesignated center ``Other 
Requirements and Information'' to immediately before newly redesignated 
Sec.  63.6020.
0
17. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  63.6009 through 63.6012 as Sec. Sec.  
63.6016 through 63.6019 and transfer undesignated center heading 
``Notifications, Reports, and Records'' to immediately before newly 
redesignated Sec.  63.6016.
0
18. Add new Sec. Sec.  63.6009 through 63.6015, undesignated center 
heading ``Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources'' 
before new Sec. Sec.  63.6009, undesignated center heading ``Testing 
and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected 
Sources'' immediately following new Sec.  63.6010, and undesignated 
center heading ``Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber 
Processing Affected Sources'' immediately following new Sec.  63.6013 
to read as follows:

Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources

Sec.  63.6009 What emission limits must I meet for rubber processing 
affected sources?
Sec.  63.6010 What are my alternatives for meeting the emission 
limits for rubber processing affected sources?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing 
Affected Sources

Sec.  63.6011 How do I conduct tests and procedures for rubber 
processing affected sources?
Sec.  63.6012 What are my rubber processing monitoring installation, 
operation, and maintenance requirements?
Sec.  63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?

Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected 
Sources

Sec.  63.6014 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing 
affected sources?
Sec.  63.6015 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?

Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources


Sec.  63.6009  What emission limits must I meet for rubber processing 
affected sources?

    (a) You must meet the emission limit for total hydrocarbons (THC) 
and either total metal HAP or the alternative emission limit for 
filterable particulate matter (fPM) in table 15 to this subpart that 
applies to you. You may choose to comply with each emission limit for 
each rubber processing mixer separately or for a group of rubber 
processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, or with 
an alternative for all mixers combined based on a facility-wide 
average.
    (b) You must also meet each operating limit in table 16 to this 
subpart that applies to you.


Sec.  63.6010  What are my alternatives for meeting the emission limits 
for rubber processing affected sources?

    (a) You must comply with the applicable emission limit for THC in 
table 15 of this subpart for each rubber processing mixer or a group of 
rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device, or you must 
demonstrate compliance by averaging among all mixers and comply with 
the limit as a facility-wide emission limit.
    (b) You must demonstrate compliance with either the emission limit 
for fPM or the alternative emission limit for total metal HAP in table 
15 of this subpart; if you demonstrate compliance with the alternative 
fPM emission limit, you do not have to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission limit for metal HAP. You must comply with the applicable 
emission limit for fPM or metal HAP in table 15 of this subpart for 
each rubber processing mixer or group of rubber processing mixers 
routed to the same control device, or you must demonstrate compliance 
by averaging among all mixers and comply with the limit as a facility-
wide emission limit.
    (c) For each rubber processing mixer, you must show that the 
control device and capture system meet the operating limits in table 16 
to this subpart.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing 
Affected Sources


Sec.  63.6011   How do I conduct tests and procedures for rubber 
processing affected sources?

    (a) Conduct any required compliance demonstration according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.5993 (b), (c), and (d).
    (b) You must use the methods in table 17 of this subpart and 
according to

[[Page 94910]]

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section to measure emissions 
and stack gas flow rates and characteristics to determine THC and fPM 
or metal HAP mass emission rates in grams per day.
    (1) You must operate a THC CEMS in accordance with the requirements 
in Sec.  63.6012 and Performance Specification 8A in appendix B to 40 
CFR part 60. For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality 
assurance evaluations for CEMS, the reference method (RM) is Method 25A 
of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60. Owners or operators are responsible 
for ensuring their instruments provide appropriate data continuously. 
If a THC monitor will be used for an emission stream that could have a 
wide variability in THC concentrations because of mixing both high-
emitting and low-emitting compounds at different times, then a dual-
span monitor should be considered for use. If the THC monitor is used 
for emissions that are relatively constant, then a dual-span monitor 
may not be needed, but it remains the responsibility of source owners 
or operators to make that determination. Owners and operators cannot 
discard from the compliance determination THC concentration data that 
exceed the calibration range of the monitor.
    (2) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the 
first 15 mixer operating days after the applicable compliance date for 
each mixer. All THC values must be used as they are recorded by the THC 
CEMS, except that negative values equal to or greater than to -5 should 
be treated as zeros, and values less than (i.e., more negative than) -5 
cannot be used as valid compliance data in the calculations.
    (3) To convert the THC concentration measurements to mass emission 
rates, you must measure the volumetric flow rate in the same duct or 
stack in which the THC concentration is monitored no less frequently 
than once every 5 years. You may use the same flow rate measurements 
that are completed for demonstrating compliance with the emission 
limits for fPM or total metal HAP according to table 17 of this 
subpart. If you change operations in a way that would likely result in 
a change to volumetric flow rate, you must conduct an additional 
measurement of the new volumetric flow rate.
    (c) You must monitor mixed rubber compound processed in each mixer 
in Mg per day during the testing for THC. During the testing for fPM or 
total metal HAP, you must monitor the mixed rubber compound processed 
in each mixer in Mg for the same periods that fPM or total metal HAP 
testing runs are performed, excluding the mass of rubber processed 
during the time between fPM or metal HAP sampling runs.
    (d) You must use the methods in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of 
this section to calculate the THC emission rate for the 15-day initial 
compliance period to demonstrate initial compliance. You must use the 
average THC emission rate obtained during the first 15 mixer operating 
days after the applicable compliance date to determine initial 
compliance for each mixer, group of mixers routed to the same control 
device or stack, or all mixers combined if complying with the facility-
wide average alternative.
    (1) Use Equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1) of this section to calculate 
the 15-day average THC emission rate in grams THC per megagram of mixed 
rubber compound processed. This emission rate is calculated for each 
rubber mixer separately, group of mixers routed to the same control 
device or stack, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with 
the facility-wide average alternative.

Equation 1 to Paragraph (d)(1)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.001

Where:

E15 days = Emission rate of the THC emitted per total 
mass of mixed rubber compounds processed per 15-day period, grams 
THC per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed.
THCi = Daily THC emissions for each day during the 15-day 
compliance period, grams/day, using the methods in paragraph (b) of 
this section. These THC emission values are calculated for each 
rubber mixer separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer 
separately, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the 
facility-wide average alternative. If you are demonstrating 
compliance for two or more mixers routed to the same control device 
or stack, then these THC emission values are calculated using the 
data for the combined mixer emissions at the common stack.
RPi = Daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for 
each day i during the 15-day compliance period, megagrams/day. These 
rubber mass processed values are calculated for each rubber mixer 
separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer separately, 
or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-
wide emission average alternative. If you are demonstrating 
compliance for two or more mixers that are routed to the same 
control device or stack, then these rubber mass values are 
calculated for the combined mass processed for the mixers that share 
the common stack.

    (2) Use Equation 2 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section to calculate 
the THC emission rate in grams per day THC as propane for each day i in 
the 15-day initial compliance period for rubber processing for each 
rubber mixer emission stack.

Equation 2 to Paragraph (d)(2)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.002

Where:

THCi = Daily THC emissions from rubber processing, grams/
day for each rubber mixer emission stack.
THCj = Daily average THC concentration, parts per million 
by volume, for each day during the 15-day compliance period for 
rubber processing for each rubber mixer emission stack, as measured 
by the THC CEMS.
Q = Average volumetric flow rate of gas, dry standard cubic feet per 
minute, dscfm, for each rubber mixer emission stack from the most 
recent available emissions test.
H = Hours per day that rubber processing is performed in at least 
one of the mixers vented to the rubber mixer emission

[[Page 94911]]

stack for which emissions are being calculated.

    (e) You must use Equation 3 to this paragraph to calculate the fPM 
emission rate in grams per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed 
or use Equation 4 to of this paragraph to calculate the metal HAP 
emission rate in grams per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed 
to demonstrate initial compliance. The rubber mass processed at each 
mixer must be recorded for the exact same period of time as the fPM or 
metal HAP emissions are measured at each mixer. If you are 
demonstrating compliance with the facility-wide emission average 
alternative, the relevant measurement of fPM or metal HAP, as 
appropriate, at each mixer does not need to be done simultaneously for 
all mixers, but all tests of mixers to be averaged must be done within 
the same 3-month period.

Equations 3 and 4 to Paragraph (e)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.003

Where:

EfPM = Emission rate of the fPM emitted in grams of fPM 
per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed.
fPMi = Total grams of fPM emitted during the performance 
test, measured using EPA method 5. These fPM emission values are 
calculated for each rubber mixer i separately if compliance is 
demonstrated for each mixer separately, and it is summed for all 
rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average 
alternative.
RPj = Total megagrams of mixed rubber compound mass 
processed rate recorded during the fPM (Eq. 3A) or total metal HAP 
emissions test (Eq. 3B).
EMHAP = Emission rate of the total metal HAP in grams of 
metal HAP per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed.
MHAPi = Total grams of total metal HAP emitted during the 
performance test, measured using the methods specified in table 17 
to this subpart. These total metal HAP emission values are 
calculated for each rubber mixer separately if compliance is 
demonstrated for each mixer separately, and it is summed for all 
rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average 
alternative.
N = Number of mixers included if complying with the facility-wide 
average alternative.

Sec.  63.6012   What are my rubber processing monitoring installation, 
operation, and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must install and operate a THC continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS) according to Sec.  63.8 (b) and (c) and comply 
with the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the 
monitoring plan required by Sec.  63.5990(e).
    (1) On each stack used to exhaust emissions from a rubber 
processing mixer to the atmosphere, you must install, operate, and 
maintain a THC CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and comply with all of the requirements 
for CEMS found in the general provisions, subpart A of this part. The 
THC CEMS must be installed downstream of any organic vapor control 
device (such as a thermal oxidizer), if present. A single THC CEMS may 
be used to monitor the combined emissions from multiple rubber mixers.
    (2) You must operate and maintain each CEMS according to the 
quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to 40 CFR 
part 60. Where a dual range analyzer is used, the daily calibration 
drift check must be performed for each operating range. For THC CEMS 
certified under Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to 40 CFR 
part 60, conduct the relative accuracy test audits required under 
Procedure 1 in accordance with Performance Specification 8, sections 8 
and 11 using Method 25A in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 as the 
reference method; the relative accuracy must meet the criteria of 
Performance Specification 8, section 13.2.
    (b) Parameter monitoring requirements. If you have an operating 
limit that requires the use of a continuous parameter monitoring system 
(CPMS), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to 
the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section by the 
applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.5983. Standard 
operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan 
required by Sec.  63.5990(e).
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four 
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
    (2) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all 
times that the mixer is operating.
    (3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded readings.
    (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (c) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any 
applicable requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this 
section. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the 
monitoring plan required by Sec.  63.5990(e).
    (1) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of 
detecting fPM emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligrams per dry 
standard cubic meter or less.
    (2) The sensor on the BLDS must provide output of relative fPM 
emissions.
    (3) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record 
the output signal from the sensor.
    (4) The BLDS must have an alarm that will sound automatically when 
it detects an increase in relative fPM emissions greater than a preset 
level.
    (5) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (6) For a positive-pressure fabric filter baghouse, each 
compartment or cell must have a bag leak detector (BLD). For a 
negative-pressure or induced-air fabric filter baghouse, the BLD must 
be installed downstream of the fabric filter. If multiple BLD are 
required (for either type of fabric filter baghouse), the detectors may 
share the system instrumentation and alarm.
    (7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated, 
operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter 
Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
63.14). Other types of bag leak

[[Page 94912]]

detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 
maintained according to the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated 
into the monitoring plan required by Sec.  63.5990(e).
    (8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways in 
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii), according to section 5.0 of the EPA-454/
R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  63.14):
    (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging 
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted 
except as specified in the monitoring plan required by Sec.  
63.5990(e). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 
percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period, 
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that 
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as 
defined in section 5.2 of the EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak 
Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  63.14). You 
must record each adjustment.
    (10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (d) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution 
control device, you must inspect each capture/collection and closed 
vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system 
vents captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution 
air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling 
temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter. You must record the 
results of each inspection.


Sec.  63.6013   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limit that applies to you according to table 17 to this subpart.
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6016(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected 
Sources


Sec.  63.6014   How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing 
affected sources?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected 
sources as specified in table 18 to this subpart.
    (b) You must monitor and collect data according to the requirements 
in Sec.  63.6012.


Sec.  63.6015   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each applicable 
emission limit in table 15 and each operating limit in table 16 to this 
subpart using the methods specified in table 18 to this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an 
applicable emission limit in table 15 or operating limit in table 16 to 
this subpart. You must also report each instance in which you did not 
meet the applicable requirements in table 18 to this subpart. These 
instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. 
The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in 
Sec.  63.6017(e).
0
19. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  63.6016 by revising paragraphs (e) 
and (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6016   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in 
tables 5 through 8 and table 17 to this subpart, you must submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). 
The Notification must contain the information listed in table 20 to 
this subpart for compliance reports. The Notification of Compliance 
Status must be submitted according to the following schedules, as 
appropriate:
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in tables 6 
through 8 and table 17 to this subpart that does not include a 
performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) Before January 21, 2021, for each initial compliance 
demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 and table 17 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 January 20, 2021, 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. Sec.  63.10(d)(2) and 63.6017(h)(1) 
through (3).
* * * * *
    (k) You must submit to the Administrator notification reports of 
the following recorded information. Beginning on January 21, 2021, or 
once the reporting form has been available on the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website for 1-year, 
whichever date is later, you must submit all subsequent notification of 
compliance status reports required in Sec. Sec.  63.9(h) and paragraphs 
(d) through (i) of this section to the EPA via the 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/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. The EPA will make all the information submitted through 
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use 
CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business 
information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be 
claimed to be CBI. Although we

[[Page 94913]]

do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to 
assert a CBI, 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 CEDRI as described earlier in 
this paragraph. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of 
submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not 
entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. Where applicable, 
you may assert a claim of the EPA system outage, in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6017(i), or force majeure, in accordance with Sec.  
63.6017(j), for failure to timely comply with this requirement.

0
20. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  63.6017 by:z
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (c) introductory 
text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(11);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(2), (g), and (h) 
introductory text; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.6017   What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each applicable report in table 20 to this 
subpart.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in table 20 to this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) The compliance report must contain information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section.
* * * * *
    (11) For each rubber processing affected source, whether you are 
complying with the particulate matter or total metal HAP emission limit 
alternative in table 15 to this subpart.
    (d) Before January 21, 2021, for each deviation from an emission 
limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an 
affected source where you are not using a CPMS to comply with the 
emission limitations in this subpart, 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 
January 20, 2021, for each deviation from an emission limitation 
(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source 
where you are not using a CPMS to comply with the emission limitations 
in this subpart, 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 of process, 
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment when the affected 
source is operating.
* * * * *
    (2) Before January 20, 2021, information on the number, duration, 
and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable) and 
the corrective action taken. After January 20, 2021, for each failure 
to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the cause 
of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), affected 
sources or equipment, whether the failure occurred during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, 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.
* * * * *
    (g) Before July 24, 2021, 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 July 24, 2021, or once 
the reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, 
whichever date is later, you must submit compliance reports required in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section, 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/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 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. 
The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available 
to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit 
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot 
later be claimed to be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert 
a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI, 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 
CEDRI as described earlier in this paragraph. All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and 
requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, 
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly 
available.
    (h) After January 20, 2021, 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. The provisions of this

[[Page 94914]]

paragraph (h) and (h)(1) and (h)(3) do not apply to control devices and 
capture systems to control THC emissions from rubber processing when 
monitored by a THC CEMS.
* * * * *
    (k) For each THC CEMS, within 60 days after the reporting period 
ends, you must report all of the calculated 15-day rolling average 
values derived from the THC CEMS for THC emissions in grams of THC per 
megagram (g/Mg) of rubber processed, either for each mixer 
individually, or for all mixers that use a single control device or 
stack, or that are averaged to comply on the basis of the facility-wide 
average alternative.

0
21. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  63.6018 by redesignating paragraph 
(e) as paragraph (f) and adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6018   What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (e) For each rubber processing affected source, you must keep the 
records specified in table 19 to this subpart to show continuous 
compliance with each emission limit that applies to you.
* * * * *

0
22. Revise newly redesignated Sec.  63.6020 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6020   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 22 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

0
23. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  63.6021 by revising paragraph (c)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6021   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.5981 through 63.5984, 63.5986, 63.5988, and 63.6009.
* * * * *

0
24. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  63.6022 by adding the definitions 
``Bag leak detector system (BLDS)'' and ``Particulate matter (PM) 
detector'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6022   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Bag leak detector system (BLDS) is a type of PM detector used on 
fabric filters to identify an increase in PM emissions resulting from a 
broken filter bag or other malfunction and sound an alarm.
* * * * *
    Particulate matter (PM) detector means a system that is 
continuously capable of monitoring PM loading in the exhaust of a 
fabric filter in order to detect bag leaks, upset conditions, or 
control device malfunctions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. A PM 
detector system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 
other effects to continuously monitor relative particulate loadings. A 
BLDS is a type of PM detector.
* * * * *

0
25. Revise tables 1 through 3 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as 
follows:

Table 1 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Tire Production 
Affected Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.5984, you must comply with the emission 
limits for each new, reconstructed, or existing tire production 
affected source in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
          For each . . .                           limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1--HAP constituent        a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21
 option.                             to this subpart 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 b.
                                     Emissions of each HAP not in table
                                     21 to this subpart 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.
2. Option 2--production-based       Emissions of HAP must not exceed
 option.                             0.024 grams per megagram (0.00005
                                     pounds per ton) of rubber used at
                                     the tire production affected
                                     source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Tire Cord 
Production Affected Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.5986, you must comply with the emission 
limits for tire cord production affected sources in the following 
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
          For each . . .                           limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1.a (production-based     Emissions must not exceed 280 grams
 option)--Existing tire cord         HAP per megagram (0.56 pounds per
 production affected source.         ton) of fabric processed at the
                                     tire cord production affected
                                     source.
2. Option 1.b (production-based     Emissions must not exceed 220 grams
 option)--New or reconstructed       HAP per megagram (0.43 pounds per
 tire cord production affected       ton) of fabric processed at the
 source.                             tire cord production affected
                                     source.
3. Option 2 (HAP constituent        a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21
 option)--Existing, new or           to this subpart must not exceed
 reconstructed tire cord             1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2
 production affected source.         pounds per ton) of total coatings
                                     used at the tire cord production
                                     affected source, and
                                    b. Emissions of each HAP not in
                                     table 21 to this subpart must not
                                     exceed 10,000 grams HAP per
                                     megagram (20 pounds per ton) of
                                     total coatings used at the tire
                                     cord production affected source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94915]]

Table 3 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Puncture 
Sealant Application Affected Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.5988(a), you must comply with the emission 
limits for puncture sealant application affected sources in the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
          For each . . .                           limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1.a (percent reduction    Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as
 option)--Existing puncture          volatile organic compounds (VOC))
 sealant application spray booth.    emissions by at least 86 percent by
                                     weight.
2. Option 1.b (percent reduction    Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as
 option)--New or reconstructed       VOC) emissions by at least 95
 puncture sealant application        percent by weight.
 spray booth.
3. Option 2 (HAP constituent        a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21
 option) Existing, new or            to this subpart must not exceed
 reconstructed puncture sealant      1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2
 application spray booth.            pounds per ton) of total puncture
                                     sealants used at the puncture
                                     sealant affected source, and
                                    b. Emissions of each HAP not in
                                     table 21 to this subpart must not
                                     exceed 10,000 grams HAP per
                                     megagram (20 pounds per ton) of
                                     total puncture sealants used at the
                                     puncture sealant affected source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
26. Revise table 5 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests

    As stated in Sec.  63.5993, you must comply with the requirements 
for performance tests in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
       If you are using . . .            You must . . .            Using . . .            requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer..............  a. Measure total HAP    i. Method 25 or 25A     (1). Measure total HAP
                                      emissions, determine    performance test and    emissions and determine
                                      destruction             data from the           the destruction efficiency
                                      efficiency of the       temperature             of the control device
                                      control device, and     monitoring system.      using Method 25 (40 CFR
                                      establish a site-                               part 60, appendix A-7).
                                      specific firebox                                You may use Method 25A (40
                                      secondary chamber                               CFR part 60, appendix A-7)
                                      temperature limit at                            if: an exhaust gas
                                      which the emission                              volatile organic matter
                                      limit that applies to                           concentration of 50 parts
                                      the affected source                             per million (ppmv) or less
                                      is achieved.                                    is required to comply with
                                                                                      the standard; the volatile
                                                                                      organic matter
                                                                                      concentration at the inlet
                                                                                      to the control system and
                                                                                      the required level of
                                                                                      control are such that
                                                                                      exhaust volatile organic
                                                                                      matter concentrations are
                                                                                      50 ppmv or less; or
                                                                                      because of the high
                                                                                      efficiency of the control
                                                                                      device exhaust, is 50 ppmv
                                                                                      or less, regardless of the
                                                                                      inlet concentration.
                                                                                     (2). Collect firebox
                                                                                      secondary chamber
                                                                                      temperature data every 15
                                                                                      minutes during the entire
                                                                                      period of the initial 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test, and
                                                                                      determine the average
                                                                                      firebox temperature over
                                                                                      the 3-hour performance
                                                                                      test by computing the
                                                                                      average of all of the 15-
                                                                                      minute reading.
2. A carbon adsorber (regenerative)  a. Measure total        i. Method 25 or Method  (1). Measure total HAP
                                      organic HAP             25A performance test    emissions using Method 25.
                                      emissions, establish    and data from the       You may use Method 25A, if
                                      the total               carbon bed              an exhaust gas volatile
                                      regeneration mass or    temperature             organic matter
                                      volumetric flow, and    monitoring device.      concentration of 50 ppmv
                                      establish the                                   or less; or because of the
                                      temperature of the                              high efficiency of the
                                      carbon bed within 15                            control device, exhaust is
                                      minutes of completing                           50 ppmv or less is
                                      any cooling cycles.                             required to comply with
                                      The total                                       the standard; the volatile
                                      regeneration mass,                              organic matter
                                      volumetric flow, and                            concentration (VOMC) at
                                      carbon bed                                      the inlet to the control
                                      temperature must be                             system and the required
                                      those at which the                              level of control are such
                                      emission limit that                             that exhaust VOMCs are 50
                                      applies to the                                  ppmv or less; or because
                                      affected source is                              of the high efficiency of
                                      achieved.                                       the control device,
                                                                                      exhaust is 50 ppmv or
                                                                                      less, regardless of the
                                                                                      inlet concentration.
                                                                                     (2). Collect carbon bed
                                                                                      total regeneration mass or
                                                                                      volumetric flow for each
                                                                                      carbon bed regeneration
                                                                                      cycle during the
                                                                                      performance test.
                                                                                     (3). Record the maximum
                                                                                      carbon bed temperature
                                                                                      data for each carbon bed
                                                                                      regeneration cycle during
                                                                                      the performance test.
                                                                                     (4). Record the carbon bed
                                                                                      temperature within 15
                                                                                      minutes of each cooling
                                                                                      cycle during the
                                                                                      performance test.
                                                                                     (5). Determine the average
                                                                                      total regeneration mass or
                                                                                      the volumetric flow over
                                                                                      the 3-hour performance
                                                                                      test by computing the
                                                                                      average of all of the
                                                                                      readings.
                                                                                     (6). Determine the average
                                                                                      maximum carbon bed
                                                                                      temperature over the 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test by
                                                                                      computing the average of
                                                                                      all of the readings.
                                                                                     (7). Determine the average
                                                                                      carbon bed temperature
                                                                                      within 15 minutes of the
                                                                                      cooling cycle over the 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test.
3. Any control device other than a   Determine control       EPA-approved methods    Conduct the performance
 thermal oxidizer or carbon           device efficiency and   and data from the       test according to the site-
 adsorber.                            establish operating     continuous parameter    specific plan submitted
                                      parameter limits with   monitoring system.      according to Sec.
                                      which you will                                  63.7(c)(2)(i).
                                      demonstrate
                                      continuous compliance
                                      with the emission
                                      limit that applies to
                                      the affected source.
4. All control devices.............  a. Select sampling      Method 1 or 1A of 40    Locate sampling sites at
                                      ports' location and     CFR part 60, appendix   the inlet and outlet of
                                      the number of           A.                      the control device and
                                      traverse ports.                                 prior to any releases to
                                                                                      the atmosphere.

[[Page 94916]]

 
                                     b. Determine velocity   Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
                                      and volumetric flow     2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
                                      rate.                   part 60, appendix A.
                                     c. Conduct gas          Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
                                      analysis.               40 CFR part 60
                                                              appendix A; as an
                                                              alternative to the
                                                              manual portion of
                                                              Method 3B, you may
                                                              use ANSI/ASME PTC
                                                              19.10-1981
                                                              (incorporated by
                                                              reference; see Sec.
                                                              63.14).
                                     d. Measure moisture     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A.
                                      gas.
5. A permanent total enclosure       Measure the face        Method 204 of CFR part  Capture efficiency is
 (PTE).                               velocity across         51, appendix M.         assumed to be 100 percent
                                      natural draft                                   if the criteria are met
                                      openings and document
                                      the design features
                                      of the enclosure.
6. Temporary total enclosure (TTE).  Construct a             Method 204 and the
                                      temporarily installed   appropriate
                                      enclosure that allows   combination of
                                      you to determine the    Methods 204A-204F of
                                      efficiency of your      40 CFR part 51,
                                      capture system and      appendix M.
                                      establish operating
                                      parameter limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Initial Compliance With the 
Emission Limits for Puncture Sealant Application Affected Sources

0
27. Revise the heading of table 8 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as 
set forth above.


0
28. Redesignate tables 15 through 17 to subpart XXXX of part 63 as 
tables 20 through 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63.


0
29. Add new tables 15 through 17 and tables 18 and 19 to subpart XXXX 
of part 63 to read as follows:

Table 15 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Rubber 
Processing Affected Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.6009(a), you must comply with the emission 
limits for each new, reconstructed, or existing rubber processing 
affected source in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
          For each . . .                           limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing rubber processing       a. THC emissions, measured as
 affected sources.                   propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg
                                     mixed rubber compound processed,
                                     based on a 15-day rolling average.
                                    b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0
                                     grams/Mg mixed rubber compound
                                     processed, or metal HAP emissions
                                     must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg
                                     mixed rubber compound processed.
2. New or reconstructed rubber      a. THC emissions, measured as
 processing affected sources.        propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg
                                     mixed rubber compound processed,
                                     based on a 15-day rolling average.
                                    b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0
                                     grams/Mg mixed rubber compound
                                     processed, or metal HAP emissions
                                     must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg
                                     mixed rubber compound processed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 16 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Operating Limits for Rubber 
Processing Control Devices

    As stated in Sec.  63.6009(b) you must comply with the operating 
limits for rubber processing affected sources in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For each rubber processing       a. Inspect each emission capture
 mixer.                              system or enclosure and closed vent
                                     system at least once each calendar
                                     year to ensure that each system or
                                     enclosure vents captured emissions
                                     through a closed system, except
                                     that dilution air may be added to
                                     emission streams for the purpose of
                                     controlling temperature at the
                                     inlet to a fabric filter. You must
                                     record the results of each
                                     inspection.
2. Each mixer equipped with a       a. Maintain and operate the fabric
 fabric filter.                      filter such that the BLDS detector
                                     alarm condition does not exist for
                                     more than 5 percent of the total
                                     operating time in a 6-month period;
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.6012(c). Standard
                                     operating procedures must be
                                     incorporated into the monitoring
                                     plan required by Sec.   63.5990(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Initial Compliance With the 
Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.6011, you must show initial compliance with 
the emission limits for the rubber processing affected source and 
conduct performance tests according to the following table:

[[Page 94917]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following emission limit .
                . .                    You must do the following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The applicable THC emission      a. Continuously measure THC
 limit in table 15 to this subpart.  emissions using a THC CEMS and mass
                                     of mixed rubber compounds processed
                                     over a period of not less than 15
                                     days.
                                    b. Use the applicable methods in
                                     item 2 in this table to measure
                                     exhaust flow rate in dry standard
                                     cubic feet per minute to determine
                                     THC mass emissions in grams per day
                                     using the equations and procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.6011.
                                    c. Demonstrate that you have
                                     achieved the applicable THC
                                     emission limits in table 15 to this
                                     subpart according to the applicable
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.6011.
2. The applicable fPM emission      a. Conduct the performance test
 limit in table 15 to this subpart.  according to the site-specific plan
                                     submitted according to Sec.
                                     63.7(c)(2)(i).
                                    b. Measure fPM and the mass of mixed
                                     rubber compound processed for at
                                     least 3 runs lasting at least 1
                                     hour per run.
                                    c. Use Method 5 in appendix A-3 to
                                     40 CFR part 60 to measure fPM
                                     emissions.
                                    d. Select sampling ports' location
                                     and the number of traverse ports
                                     according to Method 1 or 1A of 40
                                     CFR part 60, appendix A-1.
                                    e. Determine velocity and volumetric
                                     flow rate according to Method 2,
                                     2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
                                     part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2.
                                    f. Conduct the gas analysis
                                     according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
                                     40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2; as an
                                     alternative to the manual portion
                                     of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME
                                     PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
                                     reference; see Sec.   63.14).
                                    g. Measure moisture content of the
                                     stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                     part 60, appendix A-3.
                                    h. Demonstrate that you have
                                     achieved the applicable fPM
                                     emission limit in table 15 to this
                                     subpart according to the applicable
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.6011.
                                    i. Install, operate, and maintain
                                     the BLDS according to the
                                     requirements in Sec.   63.6012(c)
                                     at the time of the initial
                                     compliance test. Standard operating
                                     procedures for the BLDS must be
                                     incorporated into the monitoring
                                     plan required by Sec.   63.5990(e).
3. The applicable metal HAP         a. Conduct the performance test
 alternative emission limit in       according to the site-specific plan
 table 15 to this subpart.           submitted according to Sec.
                                     63.7(c)(2)(i).
                                    b. Measure metal HAP emissions and
                                     mass of mixed rubber compound
                                     processed for at least 3 runs
                                     lasting at least 1 hour per run.
                                    c. Use Method 29 in appendix A-8 to
                                     40 CFR part 60 to measure metal HAP
                                     emissions. As an alternative to
                                     Method 29 for mercury only, you may
                                     use the particulate mercury portion
                                     of ASTM D6784-16 to measure
                                     particulate mercury emissions
                                     (incorporated by reference; see
                                     Sec.   63.14).
                                    d. Select sampling ports' location
                                     and the number of traverse ports
                                     according to Method 1 or 1A of 40
                                     CFR part 60, appendix A-1.
                                    e. Determine velocity and volumetric
                                     flow rate according to Method 2,
                                     2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
                                     part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2.
                                    f. Conduct the gas analysis
                                     according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
                                     40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2; as an
                                     alternative to the manual portion
                                     of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME
                                     PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
                                     reference; see Sec.   63.14).
                                    g. Measure moisture content of the
                                     stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                     part 60, appendix A-3.
                                    h. Demonstrate that you have
                                     achieved the applicable metal HAP
                                     emission limit in table 15 to this
                                     subpart according to the applicable
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.6011.
                                    i. Install, operate, and maintain
                                     the BLDS according to the
                                     requirements in Sec.   63.6012(c)
                                     at the time of the initial
                                     compliance test. Standard operating
                                     procedures for the BLDS must be
                                     incorporated into the monitoring
                                     plan required by Sec.   63.5990(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 18 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the 
Emission Limitations for Rubber Processing Affected Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.6014(a), you must show continuous compliance 
with the emission limitations for rubber processing affected sources 
according to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       You must demonstrate continuous
             For . . .                       compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each THC continuous emissions    a. Continuously monitoring and
 monitoring system installed in a    record the THC concentration and
 rubber processing mixer affected    calculate the daily THC emissions
 source.                             in grams per day.
2. Each rubber processing affected  a. Continuously monitor the daily
 source.                             mass of mixed rubber compound
                                     processed for each mixer in
                                     megagrams per day.
3. Each rubber processing affected  a. Maintain and operate the fabric
 source fabric filter.               filter so that the alarm on the
                                     BLDS is not activated and an alarm
                                     condition does not exist for more
                                     than 5 percent of the total
                                     operating time in each 6-month
                                     reporting period; and continuously
                                     recording the output from the BLDS
                                     detection system; and
                                    b. Each time the alarm sounds and
                                     the owner or operator initiates
                                     corrective actions within 1 hour of
                                     the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time
                                     will be counted (if the owner or
                                     operator takes longer than 1 hour
                                     to initiate corrective actions,
                                     alarm time will be counted as the
                                     actual amount of time taken by the
                                     owner or operator to initiate
                                     corrective actions); if inspection
                                     of the fabric filter system
                                     demonstrates that no corrective
                                     actions are necessary, no alarm
                                     time will be counted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94918]]

Table 19 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Minimum Data for Continuous 
Compliance With the Emission Limitations for Rubber Processing Affected 
Sources

    As stated in Sec.  63.6018(e), you must maintain minimum data to 
show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for rubber 
processing affected sources according to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For . . .                     You must maintain . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rubber processing affected       a. Records of the annual inspections
 sources using an emission capture   of the enclosure and closed vent
 system or enclosure to capture      system specified in table 16 to
 emissions and performing the        this subpart.
 inspections specified in table 16
 to this subpart.
2. Rubber processing affected       a. Records of each THC concentration
 sources using a continuous          measurement and each inspection,
 emissions monitoring system to      calibration, and validation check.
 comply with the THC limits in      b. Records of each flow rate
 table 15 to this subpart.           measurement.
3. Rubber processing affected       a. Records of daily mass of mixed
 sources subject to the THC          rubber compound processed for each
 emission limit in table 15 to       mixer, in megagrams per day.
 this subpart.                      b. Records of each calculated 15-day
                                     rolling average THC emission rate,
                                     in grams THC per Mg rubber
                                     processed for each mixer separately
                                     or for all mixers combined and
                                     complying with the facility-wide
                                     emission limit.
4. Rubber processing affected       a. Records of applicable periodic
 sources subject to the fPM or       fPM or metal HAP performance tests.
 metal HAP emission limits in       b. Records of mass of mixed rubber
 table 15 to this subpart.           compound processed during the
                                     periodic fPM or metal HAP
                                     performance test.
                                    c. Records of the calculated fPM or
                                     metal HAP emission rate, in grams
                                     fPM or metal HAP per Mg rubber
                                     processed for each mixer separately
                                     or for all mixers combined and
                                     complying with the facility-wide
                                     emission limit.
                                    d. Records of each inspection,
                                     calibration, and validation check
                                     of the bag leak detection system.
                                    e. Records of each bag leak
                                     detection system alarm, the amount
                                     of time taken to initiate
                                     corrective action after the alarm,
                                     and the response and corrective
                                     action taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



0
30. Revise newly redesignated table 20 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to 
read as follows:

Table 20 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

    As stated in Sec.  63.6017, you must submit each report that 
applies to you according to the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must      You must submit
     You must submit a(n)            contain . . .      the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report..........  a. If there are no      Semiannually
                                 deviations from any     according to
                                 emission limitations    the
                                 that apply to you, a    requirements in
                                 statement that there    Sec.
                                 were no deviations      63.6017(b),
                                 from the emission       unless you meet
                                 limitations during      the
                                 the reporting period.   requirements
                                 If there were no        for annual
                                 periods during which    reporting in
                                 the CPMS was out-of-    Sec.
                                 control as specified    63.6017(f) for
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),   the tire
                                 a statement that        production
                                 there were no periods   affected source
                                 during which the CPMS   only.
                                 was out-of-control
                                 during the reporting
                                 period.
                                b. If you have a        Semiannually
                                 deviation from any      according to
                                 emission limitation     the
                                 during the reporting    requirements in
                                 period at an affected   Sec.
                                 source where you are    63.6017(b),
                                 not using a CPMS, the   unless you meet
                                 report must contain     the
                                 the information in      requirements
                                 Sec.   63.6010(d). If   for annual
                                 the deviation           reporting in
                                 occurred at a source    Sec.
                                 where you are using a   63.6017(f) for
                                 CMPS or if there were   the tire
                                 periods during which    production
                                 the CPMS were out-of-   affected source
                                 control as specified    only.
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 the report must
                                 contain the
                                 information required
                                 by Sec.
                                 63.5990(f)(3).
                                c. Before January 21,   Before January
                                 2021, If you had a      21, 2021,
                                 startup, shutdown,      semiannually
                                 and malfunction         according to
                                 during the reporting    the
                                 period and you took     requirements in
                                 actions consistent      Sec.
                                 with your startup,      63.6017(b),
                                 shutdown, and           unless you meet
                                 malfunction plan, the   the
                                 compliance report       requirements
                                 must include the        for annual
                                 information in Sec.     reporting in
                                 63.10(d)(5)(i). After   Sec.
                                 January 20, 2021,       63.6017(f).
                                 this information is     After January
                                 no longer required.     20, 2021, this
                                                         information is
                                                         no longer
                                                         required.

[[Page 94919]]

 
2. Before January 21, 2021,     a. Before January 21,   Before January
 immediate startup, shutdown,    2021, actions taken     21, 2021, by
 and malfunction report if you   for the event. After    fax or
 had a startup, shutdown, and    January 20, 2021,       telephone
 malfunction during the          this report is no       within 2
 reporting period that is not    longer required.        working days
 consistent with your startup,                           after starting
 shutdown, and malfunction                               actions
 plan. After January 20, 2021,                           inconsistent
 this report is no longer                                with the plan.
 required.                                               After January
                                                         20, 2021, this
                                                         report is no
                                                         longer
                                                         required.
                                b. Before January 21,   Before January
                                 2021, the information   21, 2021, by
                                 in (Sec.                letter within 7
                                 63.10(d)(5)(ii)).       working days
                                 After January 20,       after the end
                                 2021, this report is    of the event
                                 no longer required.     unless you have
                                                         made
                                                         alternative
                                                         arrangements
                                                         with the
                                                         permitting
                                                         authority (Sec.
 
                                                         63.10(d)(5)(ii)
                                                         ). After
                                                         January 20,
                                                         2021, this
                                                         report is no
                                                         longer
                                                         required.
3. Performance Test Report....  If you use a control    Conduct a
                                 system (add-on          performance
                                 control device and      test at least
                                 capture system) to      once every 5
                                 meet the emission       years following
                                 limitations.            your initial
                                                         compliance
                                                         demonstration
                                                         according to
                                                         the
                                                         requirements in
                                                         Sec.   63.5993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
31. Amend newly redesignated table 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text to the first table (that applies 
before January 21, 2021); and
0
b. Revising the second table (that applies after January 20, 2021).
    The revisions read as follows:

Table 22 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to This Subpart XXXX

    Before January 21, 2021, as stated in Sec.  63.6020, you must 
comply with the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements 
according to the following table:
* * * * *
    After January 20, 2021, as stated in Sec.  63.6020, 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  control
                                                                            device                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
                          Reconstructed       years after effective
                          Sources.            date; upon startup; 10
                                              years after
                                              construction or
                                              reconstruction
                                              commences for CAA
                                              section 112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)......  Notification......  Must notify if           Yes...............  Yes.
                                              commenced 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      Yes...............  Yes.
                          for Existing        date in subpart, which
                          Sources.            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.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)......  Compliance Dates    Area sources that        Yes...............  Yes.
                          for Existing Area   become major must
                          Sources that        comply with major
                          Become Major.       source standards 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 and      .......................  No. See Sec.        No. See Sec.
 (ii).                    Maintenance.                                 63.5990(a).         63.5990(a).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)-  Operation and       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.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)......  Startup, Shutdown,  .......................  No. See Sec.        No.
                          and Malfunction                              63.5990(a).
                          Exemption.
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.

[[Page 94920]]

 
Sec.   63.6(h).........  Opacity/Visible     .......................  No................  No.
                          Emissions (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         Yes...............  No.
                                              testing facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)......  Conditions for      Performance tests must   No. See Sec.        No.
                          Conducting          be conducted under       63.5993(c).
                          Performance Tests.  representative
                                              conditions; cannot
                                              conduct performance
                                              tests during startup,
                                              shutdown, and
                                              malfunction.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)......  Conditions for      Must conduct according   Yes...............  No.
                          Conducting          to rule and the EPA
                          Performance Tests.  test 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    Yes...............  No.
                          Data Analysis.      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.
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, if using a     Yes, if using a CEMS.
                          Specifications.     Specifications in        CEMS.
                                              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          monitoring systems;
                          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          Applies as modified by
                          Operation and       system in a manner       modified by Sec.    Sec.   63.5990(e) and
                          Maintenance.        consistent with good      63.5990(e) and     (f).
                                              air pollution control    (f).
                                              practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...  Routine and         .......................  No................  No.
                          Predictable
                          Startup,
                          Shutdown, and
                          Malfunction.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..  Startup, Shutdown,  .......................  No................  No.
                          and Malfunction
                          not in Startup,
                          Shutdown, and
                          Malfunction Plan.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).  Compliance with     How the 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...............  Yes.
                          Installation.       representative
                                              emission and parameter
                                              measurements; must
                                              verify operational
                                              status before or at
                                              performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)......  CMS Requirements..  .......................  Applies as          Applies as modified by
                                                                       modified by Sec.    Sec.   63.5990(f).
                                                                        63.5990(f).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)......  Continuous Opacity  .......................  No................  No.
                          Monitoring
                          Systems Minimum
                          Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)......  CMS Requirements..  .......................  Applies as          Applies as modified by
                                                                       modified by Sec.    Sec.   63.5990(e).
                                                                        63.5990(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)..  CMS Requirements..  Out-of-control periods,  Yes...............  Yes.
                                              including reporting.

[[Page 94921]]

 
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)..  CMS Quality         .......................  Applies as          Applies as modified by
                          Control.                                     modified by Sec.    Sec.   63.5990(e) and
                                                                        63.5990(e) and     (f).
                                                                       (f).
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)......  Written Procedures  .......................  No. See Sec.        No. See Sec.
                          for CMS.                                     63.5990(f)(2)..     63.5990(f)(2).
Sec.   63.8(e).........  CMS Performance     Performance evaluation   Yes...............  Yes.
                          Evaluation.         of continuous
                                              monitoring systems.
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      Requesting an            Yes...............  Yes.
                          Relative Accuracy   alternative to the
                          Test.               relative accuracy test
                                              for a CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g).........  Data Reduction....  How to reduce CMS data.  Applies as          Applies as modified by
                                                                       modified by Sec.    Sec.   63.5990(f).
                                                                        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             commence construction
                          Compliance          between proposal and
                          Requirements for    promulgation and want
                          New Source.         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          Additional notification  Yes...............  Yes.
                          Notifications       requirements for
                          When Using CMS.     sources with
                                              continuous monitoring
                                              systems.
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.   63.9(k).........  Notification......  Electronic reporting     Yes, as specified   Yes, as specified in
                                              procedures.              in Sec.   63.9(j).  Sec.   63.9(j).
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 63.6017
                          failures to meet                             for recordkeeping
                          a standard.                                  of (1) date,
                                                                       time, cause, and
                                                                       duration; (2)
                                                                       listing of
                                                                       affected source
                                                                       or equipment,
                                                                       whether the
                                                                       failure occurred
                                                                       during startup,
                                                                       shutdown, or
                                                                       malfunction, an
                                                                       estimate of the
                                                                       quantity of each
                                                                       regulated
                                                                       pollutant emitted
                                                                       over the standard
                                                                       and the method
                                                                       used to estimate
                                                                       the emissions;
                                                                       and (3) actions
                                                                       to minimize
                                                                       emissions and
                                                                       correct the
                                                                       failure.
Sec.                     CMS Records.......  Malfunctions,            Yes...............  Yes.
 63.10(b)(2)(iii),                            inoperative, out-of-
 (vi), and (x)-(xi).                          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 VE
                                              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.                     Records...........  Emission levels          Yes...............  Yes.
 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).                           relative to the
                                              criterion for
                                              obtaining permission
                                              to use an alternative
                                              to the relative
                                              accuracy test.
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)(1)-(14)  Records...........  Additional               Yes...............  Yes.
                                              recordkeeping
                                              requirements for
                                              sources with
                                              continuous monitoring
                                              systems.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)....  Use of SSM plan...  .......................  No................  No.

[[Page 94922]]

 
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,  See Sec.   63.6017(d)    No................  No.
                          and Malfunction     for malfunction
                          Reports.            reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)........  Additional CMS      Additional reporting     Yes...............  Yes.
                          Reports.            requirements for
                                              sources with
                                              continuous monitoring
                                              systems.
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          Yes...............  Yes.
                                              reports,
                                              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. 2024-26895 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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