[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 150 (Thursday, August 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47725-47726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19680]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6845-2]


Section 112(c)(6) Source Category List: Tire Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's finding that there are no 
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) emissions from tire production manufacturing. 
Tire production was listed in the Federal Register on April 10, 1998 
(63 FR 17838) as a source category to be regulated to meet the 
requirements of Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The April 
10 notice listed tire production as a major contributor of HCB 
emissions based on information available at that time. Our finding that 
there are no HCB emissions from tire production sources does not 
require EPA, pursuant to section 112(c)(6), to list other source 
categories that emit HCB. The national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for tire production (renamed rubber tire 
manufacturing) is being proposed in a separate Federal Register 
document, which addresses pollutants other than HCB.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-05 contains information relevant to this 
notice. You can read and copy it between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday (except for Federal holidays), at our Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
2060; telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket office may charge a 
reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Wayne, Policy, Planning and 
Standards Group, Emission Standards Division, (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-5439; facsimile number (919) 541-
0942; electronic mail address ``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Basis

    This notice informs the public that we have evaluated additional 
information regarding the emission data provided in the April 10, 1998 
Federal Register document (63 FR 17838) and have concluded that tire 
manufacturing sources emit no HCB.

A. Why Did We Look at HCB Emissions From Rubber Tire Manufacturing?

    Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA lists seven specific hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP \1\) and directs EPA to identify sources emitting these 
HAP and to assure that 90 percent of the emissions of these HAP are 
subject to standards under section 112(d). The April 10, 1998 notice 
identified the sources and the contributions of these sources to 
emissions of the seven listed HAP. That notice included tire production 
as a source of HCB based on 1994 estimated emission factor information. 
Tire production was also identified as a source of polycyclic organic 
matter (POM). That notice also stated that the source category list 
would act as an impetus for us to perform further analyses on emissions 
and control methods for the listed source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The listed HAP are alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic 
organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated 
biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How Was Tire Production Identified for the April 10, 1998 Section 
112(c)(6) Listing?

    Tire production was listed as a contributor to emissions of HCB 
based on industry test data generated in 1994 in developing emission 
factors for the industry to supplement exiting EPA stationary source 
emission factor information. Industry testing detected HCB in the air 
samples collected during one test of a rubber missing process for one 
specific natural rubber compound (Compound No. 3).
    The detected level was below the lab quantitation limit of the 
analysis techniques used at that time. The result, however, was 
reported as an ``estimate'' to the public. Additionally, the estimated 
value was used to supplement the lack of tested air emissions for tire 
production processes other than rubber mixing and thus was extrapolated 
to estimate HCB emissions for the tire manufacturing processes of 
calendaring and extruding.
    In developing the HCB emissions inventory estimate for tire 
manufacturing in the April 10, 1998 document, we used the estimated 
emission factor developed from the emissions tests of rubber Compound 
No. 3 mixing. To calculate total HCB emissions from the tire 
manufacturing source category, we applied this emission factor to all 
rubber mixing, as well as calendaring and extruding processes. As a 
result, in that notice, we listed the annual HCB emissions from the 
tire manufacturing source category as 0.435 tons per year (Table 1 of 
that document). This level of emissions was approximately 29.5 percent 
of the total HCB emissions contribution by the three source categories 
listed as contributing 100 percent of the HCB emissions (Table 2 of 
that document).

C. What Were Some of the Concerns With the HCB Emissions Estimate 
Presented for Tire Production?

    The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) claimed that HCB is not 
emitted from tire manufacturing sources and that the emission factor 
data relied upon by EPA in the April 10, 1998 listing were inaccurate.
    During development of the proposed rubber tire manufacturing 
NESHAP, the RMA questioned the presence and amount of HCB associated 
with tire manufacturing. They claimed that there is no reason to expect 
HCB to occur from tire manufacturing. They raised questions concerning 
the validity of the earlier testing results for mixing rubber Compound 
No. 3. Specifically, they stated that the original laboratory analysis 
that identified HCB may have been contaminated by an artifact of 
thermal degradation of the absorbent resin sampling medium used in the 
original testing.

[[Page 47726]]

    The RMA also claimed that even if HCB is present in emissions from 
some mixing processes, EPA's calculation of total HCB emissions from 
the source category were overestimated. They provided revised 
calculation assumptions and procedures for determining the total amount 
of HCB emitted.

D. What Did We Learn During the Review of HCB Emissions From Tire 
Manufacturing and Subsequent Emission Testing?

    To address the questions concerning the validity of the 1994 
testing data, the RMA, in the interest of its member tire 
manufacturers, offered to retest the emissions from mixing processes 
using rubber Compound No. 3. The RMA proposed to conduct a test of a 
larger rubber compound mixer and a larger batch of the original 
compound formulation under conditions very similar to those used in the 
testing conducted in 1994. The RMA then developed the testing protocol 
for our review, conducted the test under our observation, and submitted 
the findings of the tests for our review and discussion. We found the 
test protocol and the manner in which the test was conducted to be 
acceptable for the purpose of determining the presence of HCB. The test 
was also structured to determine the quantity of HCB in the event that 
HCB was detected. The analytical procedure had a lab quantitation limit 
which was an order of magnitude better than the limit for the procedure 
used in 1994.
    The new testing and analysis of air samples have indicated to our 
satisfaction that HCB is not present in the compounding of rubber as 
previously reported. The data showed that HCB is not emitted from 
rubber Compound No. 3 (the original and only suspect compound). As a 
result of this new test information, the improved method quantitation 
limit, and the probable contamination of the original sample, we have 
concluded that the previous rubber compound mixing test results should 
be rejected. In addition, the emission factors (estimated based on the 
mixing test of 1994) for tire calendaring and extruding processes are 
invalid since these were extrapolated from the 1994 mixing test data.
    Today's document only changes our findings with respect to HCB 
emissions from tire manufacturing sources as identified in Table 1 of 
the April 10, 1998 notice, and their percent contribution as provided 
in Table 2 of the notice. We are notifying the public that the HCB 
emission information associated with the tire manufacturing source 
category, specifically the 0.435 tons per year, should be 0.0 tons per 
year. We are also advising the public that the two remaining source 
categories, chlorinated solvent production and pesticide manufacture, 
therefore, comprise 100 percent of the contribution of HCB.

II. Administrative Requirements

    Today's document is not a rule, it imposes no regulatory 
requirements or costs on any sources, including small businesses. 
Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risk and Safety Risks), Executive 
Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments), Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 
and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply to today's notice. 
Also, this notice does not contain any information collection 
requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may either:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this regulatory action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

    Dated: July 27, 2000.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-19680 Filed 8-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M