[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58268-58301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21837]
[[Page 58267]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 210
October 30, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58268]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392; FRL-10000-81-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT07
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber
Tire Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category.
The proposal addresses the results of the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
proposed amendments address the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) provisions of the rule and amend provisions regarding electronic
reporting of certain notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual reports.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before November 29, 2019.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before November 4, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0392, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0392 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2416; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0881; and email address: [email protected]. For questions about
monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Ketan Patel, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9736;
fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541-5628 or
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
[[Page 58269]]
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM polycyclic organic matter
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and 112(d)(3)?
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
[[Page 58270]]
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the
Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is any facility engaged in
producing passenger car and light duty truck tires, heavy duty truck
tires, off-the-road tires, aircraft tires, and miscellaneous other
tires. The category includes the following processes: Rubber
compounding; tread rubber, cord, and bead production; tire building;
green tire spraying; and tire curing and finishing.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber Tire Manufacturing.............. 40 CFR part 63, subpart 326211, 326212, 314992.
XXXX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies''
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review
is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two
reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred
to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority
and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate
[[Page 58271]]
residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a
two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks
are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health information,
including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit
on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) \1\ of approximately
1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are
unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary
to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the
second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
``in consideration of all health information, including the number of
persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each
particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin
of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP was promulgated on July 9,
2002 (67 FR 45588), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. As
promulgated, the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP applies to affected
sources of HAP at rubber materials manufacturing facilities that are
major sources of HAP. The affected source covered by this subpart is
each new, reconstructed, or existing facility that manufactures rubber
tires.
The Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is subcategorized
into four subcategories, which include rubber processing, tire
production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application.
Components of rubber tires include, but are not limited to, rubber
compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord, and liners. Other
components often associated with rubber tires but not integral to the
tire, such as wheels, inner tubes, tire bladders, and valve stems, are
not components of rubber tires or tire cord and are not subject to this
subpart. At the time of this proposal we did not identify any major
source facilities of tire cord production or puncture sealant
application.
Emissions limits in the 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category were set for each subcategory separately:
1. Rubber Processing
There are no emission limits for rubber processing affected
sources.
2. Tire Production
There are two options for compliance under this subcategory. First
is a HAP constituent option, which states that emissions of each HAP in
Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams
HAP per megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total cements and solvents used
at the tire production affected source, and that emissions of each HAP
not in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000
grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total cements and
solvents used at the tire production affected source.
The second emission limit option is a production-based option. For
this option, emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per megagram
(0.00005 pounds per ton) of rubber used at the tire production affected
source.
3. Tire Cord Production
There are three options for compliance under this subcategory. The
first option is a production-based option for existing tire cord
production affected sources. As part of this option, emissions must not
exceed 280 grams HAP per megagram (0.56 pounds per ton) of fabric
processed at the tire cord production affected source.
The second option is a production-based option for new or
reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of this
option, emissions must not exceed 220 grams HAP per megagram (0.43
pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production
affected source.
The third option is a HAP constituent option available to both
existing and new or reconstructed tire cord production affected
sources. As part of this option, emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per
megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord
production affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in Table 16
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per
megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord
production affected source.
4. Puncture Sealant Application
There are three options for compliance under this subcategory. The
first option is a percent reduction option for existing puncture
sealant application spray booths. As part of this option, facilities
are required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic
compounds (VOC)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight.
The second option is a percent reduction option for new or
reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part of
this option, facilities are required to reduce spray booth HAP
(measured as VOC) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight.
The third option is a HAP constituent option for both existing and
new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As part
of this option, emissions of each HAP in Table 16 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 pounds
per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant
affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram
(20 pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture
sealant affected source.
5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission Limits
The three subcategories subject to emission limits (tire
production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant application)
offer compliance alternatives to meet the above-mentioned emission
limits. For more information, a detailed breakdown of
[[Page 58272]]
the subcategory alternatives can be found in 40 CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR
63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
For the residual risk assessment, the EPA received data from a
voluntary data gathering effort led by the United States Tire
Manufacturing Association (USTMA). USTMA worked with its major source
facility members to provide information to the Agency regarding the
rubber tire manufacturing process and the associated air emissions. The
information received included description of HAP-emitting processes,
information on the HAP-containing materials used, estimates of
emissions, and descriptions of control technologies, if present.
For all major sources who are not members of USTMA, data was
collected from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria
air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes
estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and
mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases
an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes
data necessary for conducting a risk assessment, including annual HAP
emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and
the related emissions release parameters.
The EPA used NEI emissions and the voluntary data gathered by USTMA
as the primary data to develop the model input files for the residual
risk assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category.
Additional information on the development of the modeling file for the
Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category can be found in the document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposal,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
For both the risk assessment and technology review in this action,
the EPA visited three rubber tire manufacturing facilities. During the
visits, the EPA discussed process operations, compliance with the
existing NESHAP, description of the emission points, process controls,
unregulated emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The
EPA used the information provided by the facilities to understand the
various operations, existing controls, and new developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the source category.
Additional information can be found in the site visit reports, Michelin
Tire Lexington Site Visit Report, Goodyear Tire Fayetteville Site Visit
Report, and Continental Tire Mt. Vernon Site Visit Report, which are
available in the docket for this action.
For both the risk assessment and technology review, the EPA also
gathered data from facility construction and operating permits
regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and process
operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation from
state permitting authorities through state-maintained online databases.
The facility permits were also used to confirm that the facilities were
major sources of HAP and were subject to the Rubber Tire NESHAP. In
certain cases, we contacted facility owners or operators to confirm and
clarify the sources of emissions that were reported.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
For the technology review, we collected information from the
Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC).
This is a database that contains case-specific information on air
pollution control technologies that have been required to reduce the
emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's
New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new
construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions
above certain defined thresholds, an NSR permit must be obtained. The
RBLC promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and
aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined
information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are
currently used for these source categories to reduce air emissions.
Additional information about these data collection activities for
the technology review is contained in the technology review memorandum
titled Technology Review for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor and, thus, the Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information. 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, the Agency again considers all of the health risk
and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that
information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of
control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of
controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors. Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that the policy
chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures
of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also
incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the
uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the
most exposed individuals can be
[[Page 58273]]
reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can
then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with
the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent
behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure
of public health risk from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA
section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration
of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his
judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will protect the
public health. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of
the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability
of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that an MIR of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors. Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information.
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that EPA believes the relative weight of
the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of
safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This
occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with
the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category. Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble,
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices,
[[Page 58274]]
processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II. D of this
preamble for information on the specific data sources that were
reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's
SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010.
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The estimated actual emissions and the emission release
characteristics for each facility in the source category were obtained
from USTMA's voluntary data gathering and the 2014 NEI database. In
addition, the EPA provided draft actual emissions data and stack
parameters to facilities for review and confirmation. In some cases,
facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be
outliers, otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of the
industry, or associated with high risk values in our initial risk
screening analyses. Where appropriate, emission values and release
characteristics were corrected, based on revised stack parameter
information provided by the facilities. Additional information on the
development of the modeling file for each source category, including
the development of the actual emissions and emissions release
characteristics, can be found in the document, Residual Risk Assessment
for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
In order to calculate allowable emissions, a detailed analysis of
the source category was conducted to determine how each major source
facility meets the emissions standards of the Rubber Tire NESHAP. All
major sources comply with NESHAP by utilizing the purchasing
alternative (40 CFR 63.5985(a)) or the monthly average alternative,
without using an add-on control device (40 CFR 63.5985(b)). The
purchasing alternative allows a facility to use only cements and
solvents that, as purchased, contain no more HAP than allowed by the
emission limits in Table 1 of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX,
option 1, HAP constituent option). The monthly average alternative,
without using an add-on control device, allows a facility to use
cements and solvents in such a way that the monthly average HAP
emissions do not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of the NESHAP to
this subpart, option 1 or option 2. Calculating allowable emissions was
challenging because certain HAP (those in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX) have lower emission limits than others (those not in
Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX). Since raw ingredients used
in tire production vary for each company and type of tire, the
allowable emissions are also variable. This variability makes
calculating allowable emissions impractical. It is, however, reasonable
to assume that 16 years after promulgation of the MACT standards, tire
manufacturers have optimized their use of cements and solvents, and
their current emissions, per unit of production, are a good reflection
of what the MACT standard allows. For additional information, see
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions Memo, located in the docket for
this action.
Additionally, due to engineering advancements resulting in less
cement/solvent usage for this source category, we expect that majority
of major source facilities use less than 1 ton of cement/solvent. For
facilities using the HAP constituent option (purchasing alternative),
the emission limit results in an allowance of less than 2 pounds of HAP
for those HAP listed in Table 16 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, and
less than 20 pounds for HAP not in Table 16 of this subpart. Due to the
complexity of calculating allowable emissions for this source category,
we solicit comments on calculating allowable emissions.
Since the two utilized options of the standard cannot effectively
be used to calculate representative allowable emissions, production
data were used to determine production output from 2007 to 2016. These
data are presented in Table 2 of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Emissions Memo, which
[[Page 58275]]
can be found in the docket for this action. The annual total of tire
weight, in pounds, was used instead of the number of tires due to the
large variance in size of tires (and hence raw material used) at
facilities within the source category. Based on data in Table 2, the
highest year of total production was 2015. Actual emissions data we
received from the source category were also from 2015. Therefore, we
conclude that the emissions data modeled are representative of the
maximum annual emissions between 2007 and 2016 and actual emissions are
representative of allowable emissions for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
source category.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \7\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \8\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://
[[Page 58276]]
iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/
search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\9\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of
the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings
proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk
and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report,
May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\10\ reasonable worst-case dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \11\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\12\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\12\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \13\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could
[[Page 58277]]
impair an individual's ability to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
Rubber tires are manufactured via a continuous batch operation. In
a continuous batch operation, manufacturing operations take place
continuously, but occur in batches. On any single production line, a
batch must complete the manufacturing process before the next batch may
begin the manufacturing process on that production line. Since rubber
tire facilities are large and have significant production capacities,
there are multiple production lines operating simultaneously. This
results in relatively consistent emissions. As discussed in the
allowable emissions section (III.C.2) above, we do expect there to be
some variability in emissions depending on the type of tire a facility
is manufacturing. To account for this variability, we have selected a
multiplier of two based upon the continuous nature of the batch
processes, to use in assessing acute risks.
We believe two is a conservative acute multiplier for this source
category. Since the operation is a continuous batch process that
operates around the clock, we do not expect there to be significant
changes in hour-to-hour emissions such as those that may occur in
industries that do not continuously operate their production lines.
Slight variation in batch ingredients is accounted for by using the
multiplier of two. A further discussion of why this factor was chosen
can be found in the memorandum, Rubber Tire Manufacturing Emissions
Memo, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined
estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. These
refinements are discussed more fully in, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, we identified
PB-HAP emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM), cadmium, and lead,
so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead,
the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three
progressive tiers. In a tier 1 screening assessment, we determine
whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP
warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through
ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions
against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for
several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening
exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total
Risk Integrated Methodology, Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants represent a
conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for
RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this
assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these
PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to
assess the potential for significant human health risks via the
ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission
rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening
value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1
combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at
[[Page 58278]]
the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to
rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier
1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish
consumption \14\) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile
consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and
gardener scenarios \15\). If PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a
Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB-HAP
emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB-HAP
emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\15\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume-rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\16\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Rubber
Tire Manufacturing source category, we identified emissions of cadmium
and POM. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated cadmium
and POM are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening
[[Page 58279]]
threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment endpoint
and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under
the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in
Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which
is available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. For this source category,
we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from
the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were
removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this
preamble: What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action? Once a quality assured source category dataset was
available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI
for that facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze
risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide''
for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent
with the methods used for the source category analysis described above.
For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to
identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to
the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this
proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of
interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides
the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including
all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category
contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health
[[Page 58280]]
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\17\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\19\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\18\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\19\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine
[[Page 58281]]
whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered
significant and widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume-rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
[[Page 58282]]
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation
cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category is 4-in-1 million. The risk drivers
include several organic and metallic HAP from mixing, curing, and
extruding operations. The total estimated cancer incidence from rubber
tire manufacturing emission sources based on actual and allowable
emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 500 years. Based upon actual or allowable emissions, 4,500 people
are estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the
source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, are estimated
to be less than 1 (0.2), with aniline emissions from mixing and curing
processes driving the TOSHI value.
Table 2--Rubber Tire Manufacturing Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated Estimated
individual population at annual cancer Maximum Maximum screen
Risk assessment Number of cancer risk increased risk incidence chronic acute
facilities (in 1 million) of cancer >=1- (cases per noncancer noncancer HQ
\2\ in-1 million year) TOSHI \3\ \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions:
Source Category..................................... 21 4 4,500 0.002 0.2 0.4
Facility-Wide....................................... 21 8 9,200 0.002 0.2 ..............
Baseline Allowable Emissions:
Source Category..................................... 21 4 4,500 0.002 0.2 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this source category actual and allowable emissions are the same.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is the spleen.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
available acute dose-response value. The HQ of 0.4 is based upon an acute REL based upon worst-case screening values.
2. Acute Risk Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. Our screening
analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual emissions
indicates that no pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of 1 (0.4). Acute
HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from
facilities within the source category did not exceed the Tier 1 cancer
screening value of 1 for POM emissions, while one facility exceeded the
Tier 1 noncancer screening value by a factor of 10 for cadmium
emissions.
For the one facility that did not screen out at Tier 1 for cadmium,
we conducted a Tier 2 screening analysis. The Tier 2 screen replaces
some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 with site-specific data, the
location of fishable lakes, and local wind direction and speed. The
Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end assumptions about
consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised foods (adult
female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish \14\ for the
fisher scenario and 90th percentile for consumption of locally grown or
raised foods \15\) for the farmer scenario and uses an assumption that
the same individual consumes each of these foods in high end quantities
(i.e., that an individual has high-end ingestion rates for each food).
The result of this analysis was the development of site-specific
concentrations of cadmium. It is important to note that, even with the
inclusion of some site-specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the
multipathway screening analysis is still a very conservative, health-
protective assessment (e.g., upper-bound consumption of local fish,
locally grown, and/or raised, foods) and likely will yield results that
serve as an upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility.
The Tier 2 noncancer screening analysis for the single facility
emitting cadmium above a Tier 1 screening value of 1 resulted in a Tier
2 noncancer screening value of 1 for the fisher
[[Page 58283]]
scenario and less than 1 for the farmer scenario. For lead, we did not
estimate any exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
We conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the
Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category for the following pollutants:
Cadmium, lead, and POM.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for
any ecological benchmark. Cadmium emissions at one facility had Tier 1
exceedances for the surface soil threshold levels (no observed adverse
effect level (NOAEL) mammalian insectivores (shrew) by a maximum
screening value of 3.
A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for cadmium with no
exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, we did not estimate
any exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that,
of the 21 facilities, 13 facilities have a facility-wide MIR greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk
is 8-in-1 million, mainly driven by chromium (VI) compounds and metal
emissions from sources outside of the source category which include
mixing, extruding, calendaring, and finishing operations; refer to
Table 2. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 500 years.
Approximately 9,200 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater
than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI
is estimated to be less than 1 (0.2), mainly driven by emissions of
aniline from mixing and curing processes.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Rubber Tire Manufacturing Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber Tire Manufacturing: Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic HI above
Nationwide million due to 1 due to rubber
rubber tire tire
manufacturing manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 317,736,049 4,524 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 66 0
Minority............................................... 38 34 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American....................................... 12 25 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 0 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 3 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and non-white)...... 18 6 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 21 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 79 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................ 14 12 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 88 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................ 6 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 4,500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
percentages of the at-risk population indicate that the demographic
groups White, African American, people below the poverty level, and
people over 25 with a high school diploma that are living within 50 km
of facilities in the source category exceed the corresponding national
percentage for the same demographic groups.
[[Page 58284]]
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the docket for
this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal,
the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from
rubber tire manufacturing facilities, and we considered these in
determining acceptability.
For the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, the risk
analysis indicates that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed
is 4-in-1 million from actual and allowable emissions. The risk
analysis also estimates a cancer incidence of 0.002 excess cancer cases
per year, or 1 case every 500 years, as well as a maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value of 0.2 for both actual and allowable emissions.
The results of the acute screening analysis also estimate a maximum
acute noncancer HQ screening value of less than 1 based on the acute
REL. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level
of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for
repeated exposures. Based on the results of the multipathway cancer
screening analyses of POM emissions, we conclude that the maximum
cancer risk from ingestion exposure to the individual most exposed is
less than 1-in-1 million for the Tier 1 farmer and fisher scenario. The
maximum multipathway noncancer TOSHI screen value for cadmium is equal
to 1 based upon the Tier 2 fisher scenario. Multipathway screening
values were below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PB-HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. No
additional screens or site-specific assessment was conducted since the
multipathway screening values were deemed sufficient to demonstrate
protection of public health based upon the conservative nature of our
model design. The cancer risk for both inhalation and ingestion is
considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper
limit of acceptable risk. Considering all the health risk information
and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in
section III of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Rubber
Tire Manufacturing source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of
safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of the MACT rule
review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or
other measures that would reduce emissions further.
The risks from this source category were deemed acceptable with a
cancer risk to the individual most exposed of 4-in-1 million. Our risk
analysis indicated the inhalation risks from this source category are
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any
risk reductions to control process emissions from rubber tire
manufacturing operations would result in minimal health benefits.
Mixing, extruding, and buffing emissions result in 88 percent of the
cancer incidence for this source category with metal emissions
contributing to 40 percent of the cancer incidence. The inhalation
chronic and acute noncancer risks were also below a HI and a HQ of 1,
respectively. In addition, the multipathway screening analyses for PB-
HAP and lead emissions also demonstrate a low potential for risks for
cancer and noncancer health effects. The ingestion cancer risk also is
less than 1-in-1 million based upon for the Tier 1 farmer and fisher
scenario and the ingestion noncancer HI is less than 1 based upon the
Tier 2 fisher scenario.
Our review of post-control options for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category identified regenerative thermal oxidizers
(RTOs) as an option for reducing organic HAP emissions. The use of RTOs
to control organic HAP emissions was evaluated and determined to not be
cost effective during the original NESHAP. Upon review, we do not
believe the associated costs for installing and operating an RTO have
changed significantly since the original NESHAP. When evaluating the
cost effectiveness of installing RTOs during the 2002 Rubber Tire
Manufacturing NESHAP, a model facility was used. The model facility
estimated a mean reduction of 103 tons of HAP by using an RTO (Docket:
A-97-14 Document: II-B-12). The current mean total HAP emitted per
facility within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category is 18.8
tons of total HAP. This significant reduction in total HAP emitted for
the source category, coupled with similar associated costs for
installing and operating an RTO, leads to the conclusion that RTOs
would be less cost effective now. Thus, we still find the use of an RTO
to not be cost effective. We solicit comment on the cost effectiveness
of using an RTO to control HAP emissions.
If RTOs were installed, the MIR would change from 4-in-1 million to
3-in-1 million and would result in an estimated 50-percent reduction in
cancer incidence from 0.002 excess cancer cases per year to 0.001 cases
per year. This control option would reduce excess cancer cases from one
in every 500 years to one in every 1,000 years based upon actual
emissions from controlled HAP emission sources.
The source category is already controlling particulate matter or
metal HAP with all facilities utilizing fabric filters/baghouses to
control emissions, and we did not identify additional measures that
could be used to control these HAP. As noted above, any further control
of process emissions from rubber tire manufacturing operations would
result in minimal health benefits. Based upon the low baseline risks,
minimal available risk reductions, and lack of cost-effective control
options to reduce organic and metal emissions from mixing, extrusion,
and other process operations, we are proposing that the current NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
As described in section III.A of this document, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-
HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), POM emissions
had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated.
Cadmium
[[Page 58285]]
emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at one facility with a maximum
screening value of 3 for a surface soil NOAEL (mammalian insectivores--
shrew).
A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for cadmium emissions for
this one facility, with no exceedances of any of the ecological
benchmarks. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the
secondary lead NAAQS. Based on the results of the environmental risk
screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as
a result of HAP emissions from this source category and, therefore,
propose that it is not necessary to set more stringent standards to
prevent an adverse environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, the technology
review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since
the MACT standards were promulgated. In conducting the technology
review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding the
emissions from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category. The
review included a search of the RBLC database, reviews of air permits
for rubber tire manufacturing facilities, and meetings with industry
and the trade association (summarized in the docket for this action).
We reviewed these data sources for information on practices, processes,
and control technologies that were not considered during the
development of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. We also looked for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the development of the Rubber
Tire Manufacturing NESHAP.
After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any cost-effective developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies used at rubber tire manufacturing facilities
since promulgation of the MACT standard.
Based on the technology review, we have determined that there are
no new control technologies. Additional information of our technology
review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for Rubber
Tire Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the docket
for this action.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are
proposing revisions to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP related to
SSM and electronic reporting. We are proposing revisions to the SSM
provisions of the rule in order to ensure that it is consistent with
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require
electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and
compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for rubber
tire manufacturing facilities. The proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two regulatory provisions
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, which were
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112. Specifically, the Court
vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112
standards apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption, which
currently appears at 40 CFR 63.5990, and any reference to SSM
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, part A (General Provisions). Consistent
with the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing
standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing
several revisions to Table 17 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX (the
General Provisions Applicability Table), as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
All facilities subject to this rulemaking comply with the emission
limits by either using the HAP constituent option (purchase
alternative) found in 40 CFR 63.5985(a), or the monthly average
alternative without using an add-on control device (40 CFR 63.5985(b)).
Due to the continuous batch operation utilized across this source
category, the EPA has no reason to believe that emissions are
significantly different during periods of startup and shutdown from
those during normal operations.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(containing regulatory definition of ``malfunction''). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards. The EPA's interpretation has been upheld as reasonable.
See United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-10 (D.C. Cir.
2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. See, e.g., National Ass'n of Clean Water
Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated''). While the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112
requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.
The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as
the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine
operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of
[[Page 58286]]
the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
As the Court recognized in United States Sugar Corp v. EPA,
accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if
not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that
can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. See United States
Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 608 (discussing work practice standards and
explaining that ``the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that
could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions,
ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible
standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array
of circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'''). See also
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent pollutant
removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if,
for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit
is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the
source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the
control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to
standards that are not reflective of, and significantly less stringent
than, levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 in a way as to
avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent
with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devises or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will
result in a violation of the standards at this time. At the time of
this proposal, there are no major source facilities using control
devices to comply with the emissions limits of this standard. However,
the NESHAP contains the option to use a control device for compliance
with the emission limits. Thus, while a malfunction event leading to
increased emissions is unlikely at this time, it is possible if a
facility were to use a control device in the future.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. See United States Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 606-10.
b. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
(1) 40 CFR 63.5990 General Compliance Requirements
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 and
5 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to
minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer
necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general compliance
requirement regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5990 that reflects the general
duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods
covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general compliance requirement
entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
compliance requirement. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing at
40 CFR 63.5990(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing the General Provisions table (Table 17) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 and 5 to
a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
[[Page 58287]]
with the general compliance requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5990.
(2) SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer
necessary.
(3) Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this
provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standards apply continuously. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C.
Cir. 1999). Consistent with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA
is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
(4) 40 CFR 63.5993 Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements.
The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing requirement at
40 CFR 63.5993. The performance testing requirements we are proposing
to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions may not be performed during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1).
The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or
operator to record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the
Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the
information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to
add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
(5) Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) by changing the ``yes'' in columns 4
and 5 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``Applies as modified by
Sec. 63.5990(e) and (f)'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The final sentence
in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan
requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add
to the rule at 40 CFR 63.5990(f)(3) text that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).''
(6) Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to
a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping
and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and
shutdown. Special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such
as a startup and shutdown plan, have been removed from the rule (with
exceptions discussed below), thereby reducing the need for additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to
a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM
plans will no longer be required.
(7) Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 17)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement for malfunctions, the EPA is proposing
to replace the SSM report under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the existing
reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The replacement
language differs from the General Provisions' requirement in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semiannual report to be required under the proposed
rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date,
time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause,
if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate
of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
[[Page 58288]]
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions are taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP facilities submit
electronic copies of the required notification of compliance status
reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.6009(k), performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(h), and semiannual compliance
reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum, ``Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,''
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392. This proposed rule
requirement does not affect submittals required by state air agencies
as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(h), the
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \21\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT.
Performance tests results collected using test methods that are not
supported by the ERT at the time of the performance test are required
to be submitted to the EPA electronically in a portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.6010(g),
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet report form to submit information to CEDRI, 1
year after finalizing this proposed action. A draft version of the
proposed electronic spreadsheet reporting template for this report is
included in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0392). The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout,
and overall design of the template. Prior to availability of the final
spreadsheet report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected
sources will be required to submit the semiannual compliance report as
currently required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the spreadsheet
report template, rubber tire sources will be notified about its
availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required
reporting template with the final rule. The owner or operator would
begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is
due, once the electronic spreadsheet report template has been available
for at least 1 year.
For the electronic submittal of notification of compliance status
reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.6009(k), the final
spreadsheet report template discussed above, which will reside in
CEDRI, will also contain the information required for the notification
of compliance status report and will satisfy the requirement to provide
the notifications of compliance status information electronically,
eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance
status report. As stated above, the final spreadsheet report template
will be available after finalizing this proposed action and sources
will be required to use the spreadsheet report template after 1 year.
Prior to the availability of the final spreadsheet report template in
CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to
submit notice of compliance status reports as currently required by the
rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the availability of
the final spreadsheet report template via the CEDRI website.
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which an extension of time for electronic reporting may be requested
from the EPA. In both circumstances, the decision to grant additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing a
mechanism for requesting extensions of time for electronic reporting to
protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of their control. An extension of time may be requested
due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI where an owner or operator is
precluded from accessing the system and submitting required reports is
addressed in 40 CFR 63.6010. The situation where an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.6010. Examples of force majeure
events may include acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \22\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \23\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\24\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the
[[Page 58289]]
memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\23\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\24\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must comply with all of the
amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for
submitting notifications and compliance reports, no later than 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever
is later. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction
after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the
amendments being proposed, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports,
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to
meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until
the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is
not expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so
the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
XXXX. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are also proposing
to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience
with similar industries that are required to convert reporting
mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar
with the process of submitting performance test results electronically
through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission
capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a
time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is
generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our
experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of
regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read
and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their
operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of
startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary
adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] be in compliance
with all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of
the regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The EPA estimates that there are 21 rubber tire manufacturing
facilities that are subject to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP
affected by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX.
The bases of our estimates of affected facilities are provided in the
memorandum, Rubber Tire Major Source Memo, which is available in the
docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned or
potential new or reconstructed rubber tire manufacturing facilities in
the source category.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We are not finalizing revisions to the emission limits other than
to make them applicable during SSM periods, we do not anticipate any
air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments, since
facilities are already in compliance with emission limits during all
periods, including SSM.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rule and
becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is
estimated to be $6,740 (2017$). The total cost per facility is
estimated to be $321 per facility to review the final rule requirements
and become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. All
other costs associated with notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping
are believed to be unchanged because the facilities in each source
category are currently required to comply with notification, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements and will continue to be required to
comply with those requirements. The number of personnel-hours required
to develop the materials in support of reports required by the NESHAP
remain unchanged.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a proposed rule. The total cost associated with this
proposed rule is estimated to be $6,740, which is a one-time cost
associated with reviewing the revised rule and becoming familiar with
the electronic reporting requirements. The estimated cost per facility
is $321. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or
absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result
of the proposed amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP.
However, the proposed amendments would improve the rule by ensuring
that the standards apply at all times and by requiring electronic
submittal of initial notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual reports that would increase the usefulness of the data and
would ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
Because
[[Page 58290]]
these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant,
as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions
were estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing
emissions.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the project website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1982.03. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, in the form
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including
reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and
including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In
addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed.
The number of respondents was reduced from 23 to 21 based on
consultation with industry representatives and state/local agencies.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of rubber tire
manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX).
Estimated number of respondents: 21 facilities.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual
compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to
be 5,870 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$819,000 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and
operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets
identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-
related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than November 29, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities, since there
are no small entities in the source category.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or
[[Page 58291]]
uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable
duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, and would not be
affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A,
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed in sections IV.A,
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble, we performed a demographic
analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups, of the population close to the
facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In our analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer
hazards from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category across
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near operations identified as having the highest
risks.
Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category indicate that, for four of the 10
demographic groups, White, African American, people living below the
poverty level, and adults over 25 without a high school diploma that
reside within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than
the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.
When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from
rubber manufacturing facilities, we find 4,500 people exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and nobody exposed to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The results of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 4,500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
percentages of the at-risk population for four of the 10 demographic
groups; White people, people living below the poverty level, adults
with a high school diploma, and African Americans that reside within 50
km of facilities in the source category is greater than the
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 27, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart XXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Rubber Tire Manufacturing
0
2. Section 63.5990 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), paragraph (f) introductory text,
paragraphs (f)(2), and (f)(3); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (f)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.5990 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must be in compliance with the applicable
emission limitations specified in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
if you are using a control device to comply with an emission limit.
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], you must be in compliance with the applicable
emission limitations specified in Tables 1 through 4 to this subpart at
all times
(b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], except as provided in Sec. 63.5982(b)(4),
you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], at all times, you
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not
require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
[[Page 58292]]
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
(d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each affected source that complies with
the emission limits in Tables 1 through 3 to this subpart using a
control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). After
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
(f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in your site-specific monitoring plan, you
must also address the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (3) of this section as follows. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must also address the ongoing procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section as follows.
* * * * *
(2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing data quality assurance procedures in
accordance with the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d). After [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2).
(3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], ongoing recordkeeping and reporting
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.
63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or
operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of
the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject
to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection,
upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan
is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e.,
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2); and
(4) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures
in accordance with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1),
and (e)(2)(i).
0
3. Section 63.5993 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5993 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you may not conduct performance tests during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], performance tests shall be conducted
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of
startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an
applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request,
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
(d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], You must conduct three separate test runs for
each performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(1) unless otherwise specified in the test method. Each test run
must last at least 1 hour. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must conduct
three separate test runs for each performance test required in this
section, as specified in Sec. 63.5993(c) above, unless otherwise
specified in the test method. Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.5995 is amended by revising paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.5995 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(d) For any other control device, or for other capture systems,
ensure that the CPMS is operated according to a monitoring plan
submitted to the Administrator with the Notification of Compliance
Status report required by Sec. 63.9(h). The monitoring plan must meet
the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (3) of this
section. Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to
the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator
require an alternate monitoring scheme.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.6009 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6009 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each initial compliance demonstration
required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart that includes a
performance test conducted according to the requirements in table 5 to
this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], For each initial
compliance demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart
that includes a performance test conducted according to the
requirements in table 5 to this subpart, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.
63.10(d)(2) and Sec. 63.6010(h)(1) through (3).
* * * * *
(k) You must submit to the Administrator notification reports of
the following recorded information. Beginning on [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
[[Page 58293]]
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or once the
reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year,
whichever date is later, you must submit all subsequent notification of
compliance status reports required in Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec.
63.6009(d) through (i) to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov).
You must use the appropriate electronic report form (i.e., template) on
the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date on which the report form becomes available will
be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the
notification of compliance status report specific to this subpart is
not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must
submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses
listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1
year, you must begin submitting all subsequent notification of
compliance status reports via CEDRI. The applicable notification must
be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of
the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim that some of
the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential
business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the CEDRI
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. Where applicable, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage, in accordance with Sec. 63.6010(i), or force majeure, in
accordance with Sec. 63.6010(j), for failure to timely comply with
this requirement.
0
6. Section 63.6010 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (4);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d);
0
d. Revising paragraph (g); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.6010 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the first semiannual compliance report must
be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31,
whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.5983. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the first semiannual compliance report must
be submitted electronically via CEDRI no later than July 31 or January
31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.5983.
* * * * *
(4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each subsequent semiannual compliance report
must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31,
whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual
reporting period. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each subsequent semiannual
compliance report must be submitted electronically via CEDRI no later
than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following
the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction
during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must
include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
(d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each deviation from an emission
limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an
affected source, the compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
when the affected source is operating. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for each
deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating
limit) that occurs at an affected source, the compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) and (d)(1)
through (3) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source is operating.
(1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the total operating time of each affected
source during the reporting period. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], in the event that
an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the
number of failures. For each failure record the date, time and duration
of each failure.
(2) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] information on the starting date, starting
time, duration, and cause of each deviation (including unknown cause,
if applicable) and the corrective action taken. After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for
each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list
of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], record actions taken to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.5990, and any corrective actions taken to
return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(g) Before [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or once the reporting form has been available on
the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, if acceptable to
both the Administrator and you, you may submit reports and
notifications electronically. Beginning on [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or once the
reporting form has been available on the
[[Page 58294]]
CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, you must submit the
semiannual compliance report required in Sec. 63.6010(c)(1) through
(10), as applicable, to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). You must use
the appropriate electronic report form on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date on
which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI
website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the
appropriate addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the form has been
available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent
reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the
reports are submitted. If you claim that some of the information
required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be
generated using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(h) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you use a control system (add-on control
device and capture system) to meet the emission limitations, you must
also conduct a performance test at least once every 5 years following
your initial compliance demonstration to verify control system
performance and reestablish operating parameters or operating limits
for control systems used to comply with the emissions limits. Within 60
days after the date of completing each performance test required by
this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed
through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(i) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if you are required to electronically submit a
report or notification (i.e., Notification of Compliance Status Report)
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To
assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report or notification within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report or notification must be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(j) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if you are required to electronically submit a
report or notification (i.e., Notification of Compliance Status Report)
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure
for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert
a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
[[Page 58295]]
hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale
power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
7. Section 63.6011 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6011 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], it is
not required to keep records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
* * * * *
(e) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] any records required to be maintained by this
subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be
maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic
copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records,
data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or
the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.6015 is amended by revising the definition for Deviation
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6015 What definitions apply to this part?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], fails to meet any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this
subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether
or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after [DATE
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
0
9. Table 15 of Subpart XXXX is revised to read as follows:
Table 15 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
[As stated in Sec. 63.6010, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report a. If there are no deviations from Semiannually according to the
any emission limitations that apply requirements in Sec. 63.6010(b),
to you, a statement that there were unless you meet the requirements
no deviations from the emission for annual reporting in Sec.
limitations during the reporting 63.6010(f).
period. If there were no periods
during which the CPMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), a statement that there
were no periods during which the
CPMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
b. If you have a deviation from any Semiannually according to the
emission limitation during the requirements in Sec. 63.6010(b),
reporting period at an affected unless you meet the requirements
source where you are not using a for annual reporting in Sec.
CPMS, the report must contain the 63.6010(f).
information in Sec. 63.6010(d).
If the deviation occurred at a
source where you are using a CMPS
or if there were periods during
which the CPMS were out-of-control
as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must contain the
information required by Sec.
63.5990(f)(3).
c. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], If you had a FEDERAL REGISTER], semiannually
startup, shutdown or malfunction according to the requirements in
during the reporting period and you Sec. 63.6010(b), unless you meet
took actions consistent with your the requirements for annual
startup, shutdown, and malfunction reporting in Sec. 63.6010(f).
plan, the compliance report must After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
include the information in Sec. PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180 FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF no longer required.
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], this report is no longer
required.
[[Page 58296]]
2. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE a. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], immediate FEDERAL REGISTER], actions taken FEDERAL REGISTER], by fax or
startup, shutdown, and malfunction for the event. After [DATE 180 DAYS telephone within 2 working days
report if you had a startup, AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL after starting actions inconsistent
shutdown, or malfunction during the RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this with the plan. After [DATE 180 DAYS
reporting period that is not report is no longer required. AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
consistent with your startup, RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this
shutdown, and malfunction plan. report is no longer required.
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is
no longer required.
b. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the information FEDERAL REGISTER], by letter within
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). After 7 working days after the end of the
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF event unless you have made
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE alternative arrangements with the
FEDERAL REGISTER], this report is permitting authority (Sec.
no longer required. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). After [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], this report is no longer
required.
3. Performance Test Report If you use a control system (add-on Conduct a performance test at least
control device and capture system) once every 5 years following your
to meet the emission limitations. initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.5993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
10. Table 17 of Subpart XXXX is revised to read as follows:
Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], as stated in Sec. 63.6013, you must comply with
the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to the
following table:
Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to This Subpart XXXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to Subpart XXXX?
Brief description of ----------------------------------------
Citation Subject applicable sections Using a control Not using a
device control device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1............. Applicability...... Initial applicability Yes................ Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions;
notifications.
Sec. 63.2............. Definitions........ Definitions for part 63 Yes................ Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3............. Units and Units and abbreviations Yes................ Yes.
Abbreviations. for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4............. Prohibited Prohibited activities; Yes................ Yes.
Activities. compliance date;
circumvention;
severability.
Sec. 63.5............. Construction/ Applicability; Yes................ Yes.
Reconstruction. applications; approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a).......... Applicability...... GP apply unless Yes................ Yes.
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)... Compliance Dates Standards apply at Yes................ Yes.
for New and effective date; 3 years
Reconstructed after effective date;
Sources. upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction
commences for section
112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)....... Notification....... Must notify if commenced Yes................ Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)....... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)....... Compliance Dates ........................ No................. No.
for New and
Reconstructed Area
Sources that
Become Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)... Compliance Dates Comply according to date Yes................ Yes.
for Existing in subpart, which must
Sources. be no later than 3
years after effective
date; for CAA section
112(f) standards,
comply within 90 days
of effective date
unless compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)....... Compliance Dates Area sources that become Yes................ Yes.
for Existing Area major must comply with
Sources that major source standards
Become Major. by date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time period
(for example, 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d).......... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)... Operation & Operate to minimize Yes................ Yes.
Maintenance. emissions at all times;
correct malfunctions as
soon as practicable;
and operation and
maintenance
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operation and
maintenance
requirements were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)....... Startup, Shutdown, ........................ Yes................ No.
and Malfunction
Plan (SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)....... Compliance Except ........................ Yes................ No.
During SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)... Methods for Compliance based on Yes................ Yes.
Determining performance test;
Compliance. operation and
maintenance plans;
records; inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)... Alternative Procedures for getting Yes................ Yes.
Standard. an alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).......... Opacity/Visible ........................ No................. No.
Emission (VE)
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(i).......... Compliance Procedures and criteria Yes................ Yes.
Extension. for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
[[Page 58297]]
Sec. 63.6(j).......... Presidential President may exempt Yes................ Yes.
Compliance source category from
Exemption. requirement to comply
with rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)... Performance Test ........................ No................. No.
Dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)....... CAA section 114 Administrator may Yes................ No.
Authority. require a performance
test under CAA section
114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)....... Notification of Must notify Yes................ No.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)....... Notification of If rescheduling a Yes................ No.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date
of rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c).......... Quality Assurance/ Requirement to submit Yes................ No.
Test Plan. site-specific test plan
60 days before the test
or on date
Administrator agrees
with: Test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; and
internal and external
quality assurance
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d).......... Testing Facilities. Requirements for testing Yes................ No.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)....... Conditions for Performance tests must Yes................ No.
Conducting be conducted under
Performance Tests. representative
conditions; cannot
conduct performance
tests during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)....... Conditions for Must conduct according Yes................ No.
Conducting to rule and EPA test
Performance Tests. methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)....... Test Run Duration.. Must have three test Yes................ No.
runs of at least 1 hour
each; compliance is
based on arithmetic
mean of three runs; and
conditions when data
from an additional test
run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f).......... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes................ No.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).......... Performance Test Must include raw data in Yes................ No.
Data Analysis. performance test
report; must submit
performance test data
60 days after end of
test with the
Notification of
Compliance Status
report; and keep data
for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h).......... Waiver of Tests.... Procedures for Yes................ No.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)....... Applicability of Subject to all Yes................ Yes.
Monitoring monitoring requirements
Requirements. in standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)....... Performance Performance Yes................ No.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)....... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)....... Monitoring with ........................ No................. No.
Flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)....... Monitoring......... Must conduct monitoring Yes................ Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)... Multiple Effluents Specific requirements Yes................ Yes.
and Multiple for installing
Monitoring Systems. monitoring systems;
must install on each
effluent before it is
combined and before it
is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise; if more than
one monitoring system
on an emission point,
must report all
monitoring system
results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)....... Monitoring System Maintain monitoring Applies as modified No.
Operation and system in a manner by Sec.
Maintenance. consistent with good 63.5990(e) and (f).
air pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).... Routine and ........................ No................. No.
Predictable SSM.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)... SSM not in SSMP.... ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii).. Compliance with How Administrator Yes................ Yes.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements; review of
source operation and
maintenance procedures,
records, manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations, and
inspection of
monitoring system.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes................ No.
Installation. representative emission
and parameter
measurements; must
verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)....... Continuous ........................ Applies as modified No.
Monitoring System by Sec.
(CMS) Requirements. 63.5990(f).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)....... Continuous Opacity ........................ No................. No.
Monitoring Systems
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)....... CMS Requirements... ........................ Applies as modified No.
by Sec.
63.5990(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)... CMS Requirements... Out-of-control periods, Yes................ No.
including reporting.
Sec. 63.8(d).......... CMS Quality Control ........................ Applies as modified No.
by Sec.
63.5990(e) and (f).
Sec. 63.8(e).......... CMS Performance ........................ No................. No.
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)... Alternative Procedures for Yes................ Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)....... Alternative to ........................ No................. No.
Relative Accuracy
Test.
Sec. 63.8(g).......... Data Reduction..... ........................ Applies as modified No.
by Sec.
63.5990(f).
Sec. 63.9(a).......... Notification Applicability and state Yes................ Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
[[Page 58298]]
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)... Initial Submit notification 120 Yes................ Yes.
Notifications. days after effective
date; notification of
intent to construct/
reconstruct,
notification of
commencement of
construct/reconstruct,
notification of
startup; and contents
of each.
Sec. 63.9(c).......... Request for Can request if cannot Yes................ Yes.
Compliance comply by date or if
Extension. installed best
available control
technology or lowest
achievable emission
rate.
Sec. 63.9(d).......... Notification of For sources that Yes................ Yes.
Special Compliance commence construction
Requirements for between proposal and
New Source. promulgation and want
to comply 3 years after
effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e).......... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes................ No.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f).......... Notification of VE/ No...................... No.................
Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g).......... Additional No...................... No.................
Notifications When
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(h).......... Notification of Contents; due 60 days Yes................ Yes.
Compliance Status. after end of
performance test or
other compliance
demonstration, except
for opacity/VE, which
are due 30 days after;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i).......... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes................ Yes.
Submittal Administrator to
Deadlines. approve change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).......... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 Yes................ Yes.
Information. days after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)......... Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes................ Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority; procedures
for owners of more than
1 source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)...... Recordkeeping/ General Requirements; Yes................ Yes.
Reporting. keep all records
readily available; and
keep for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)- Records related to ........................ Yes................ No.
(iv). Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) CMS Records........ Malfunctions, Yes................ No.
and (x)-(xi). inoperative, out-of-
control; calibration
checks; adjustments,
maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)- Records............ Measurements to Yes................ Yes.
(ix). demonstrate compliance
with emission
limitations;
performance test,
performance evaluation,
and visible emission
observation results;
and measurements to
determine conditions of
performance tests and
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii). Records............ Records when under Yes................ Yes.
waiver.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records............ ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). Records............ All documentation Yes................ Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)...... Records............ Applicability Yes................ Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)......... Records............ ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)...... General Reporting Requirement to report... Yes................ Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)...... Report of When to submit to Yes................ No.
Performance Test Federal or State
Results. authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)...... Reporting Opacity ........................ No................. No.
or VE Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)...... Progress Reports... Must submit progress Yes................ Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)...... Startup, Shutdown, ........................ Yes................ No.
and Malfunction
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)......... Additional CMS ........................ No................. No.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(f)......... Waiver for Procedures for Yes................ Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11............ Flares............. ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.12............ Delegation......... State authority to Yes................ Yes.
enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13............ Addresses.......... Addresses where reports, Yes................ Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14............ Incorporation by Test methods Yes................ Yes.
Reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15............ Availability of Public and confidential Yes................ Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], as stated in Sec. 63.6013, you must comply with the
applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to Subpart XXXX?
Brief description of ----------------------------------------
Citation Subject applicable sections Using a control Not using a
device control device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1............. Applicability...... Initial applicability Yes................ Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions;
notifications.
Sec. 63.2............. Definitions........ Definitions for part 63 Yes................ Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3............. Units and Units and abbreviations Yes................ Yes.
Abbreviations. for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4............. Prohibited Prohibited activities; Yes................ Yes.
Activities. compliance date;
circumvention;
severability.
Sec. 63.5............. Construction/ Applicability; Yes................ Yes.
Reconstruction. applications; approvals.
[[Page 58299]]
Sec. 63.6(a).......... Applicability...... GP apply unless Yes................ Yes.
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)... Compliance Dates Standards apply at Yes................ Yes.
for New and effective date; 3 years
Reconstructed after effective date;
Sources. upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction
commences for section
112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)....... Notification....... Must notify if commenced Yes................ Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)....... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)....... Compliance Dates ........................ No................. No.
for New and
Reconstructed Area
Sources that
Become Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)... Compliance Dates Comply according to date Yes................ Yes.
for Existing in subpart, which must
Sources. be no later than 3
years after effective
date; for CAA section
112(f) standards,
comply within 90 days
of effective date
unless compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)....... Compliance Dates Area sources that become Yes................ Yes.
for Existing Area major must comply with
Sources that major source standards
Become Major. by date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time period
(for example, 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d).......... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)- Operations & ........................ No................. No.
(ii). Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)- Operation & Operate to minimize Yes................ Yes.
(2). Maintenance. emissions at all times;
correct malfunctions as
soon as practicable;
and operation and
maintenance
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operation and
maintenance
requirements were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)....... Startup, Shutdown, ........................ No................. No.
and Malfunction
Plan (SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)....... SSM Exemption...... ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)... Methods for Compliance based on Yes................ Yes.
Determining performance test;
Compliance. operation and
maintenance plans;
records; inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)... Alternative Procedures for getting Yes................ Yes.
Standard. an alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).......... Opacity/Visible ........................ No................. No.
Emission (VE)
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(i).......... Compliance Procedures and criteria Yes................ Yes.
Extension. for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).......... Presidential President may exempt Yes................ Yes.
Compliance source category from
Exemption. requirement to comply
with rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)... Performance Test ........................ No................. No.
Dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)....... CAA section 114 Administrator may Yes................ No.
Authority. require a performance
test under CAA section
114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)....... Notification of Must notify Yes................ No.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)....... Notification of If rescheduling a Yes................ No.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date
of rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c).......... Quality Assurance/ Requirement to submit Yes................ No.
Test Plan. site-specific test plan
60 days before the test
or on date
Administrator agrees
with: Test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; and
internal and external
quality assurance
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d).......... Testing Facilities. Requirements for testing Yes................ No.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)....... Conditions for Performance tests must No................. No.
Conducting be conducted under
Performance Tests. representative
conditions; cannot
conduct performance
tests during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)....... Conditions for Must conduct according Yes................ No.
Conducting to rule and EPA test
Performance Tests. methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)....... Test Run Duration.. Must have three test Yes................ No.
runs of at least 1 hour
each; compliance is
based on arithmetic
mean of three runs; and
conditions when data
from an additional test
run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f).......... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes................ No.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).......... Performance Test Must include raw data in Yes................ No.
Data Analysis. performance test
report; must submit
performance test data
60 days after end of
test with the
Notification of
Compliance Status
report; and keep data
for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h).......... Waiver of Tests.... Procedures for Yes................ No.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)....... Applicability of Subject to all Yes................ Yes.
Monitoring monitoring requirements
Requirements. in standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)....... Performance Performance Yes................ No.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)....... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)....... Monitoring with ........................ No................. No.
Flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)....... Monitoring......... Must conduct monitoring Yes................ Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
[[Page 58300]]
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)... Multiple Effluents Specific requirements Yes................ Yes.
and Multiple for installing
Monitoring Systems. monitoring systems;
must install on each
effluent before it is
combined and before it
is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise; if more than
one monitoring system
on an emission point,
must report all
monitoring system
results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)....... Monitoring System Maintain monitoring Applies as modified No.
Operation and system in a manner by Sec.
Maintenance. consistent with good 63.5990(e) and (f).
air pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).... Routine and ........................ No................. No.
Predictable SSM.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)... SSM not in SSMP.... ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii).. Compliance with How Administrator No................. No.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements; review of
source operation and
maintenance procedures,
records, manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations, and
inspection of
monitoring system.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes................ No.
Installation. representative emission
and parameter
measurements; must
verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)....... Continuous ........................ Applies as modified No.
Monitoring System by Sec.
(CMS) Requirements. 63.5990(f).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)....... Continuous Opacity ........................ No................. No.
Monitoring Systems
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)....... CMS Requirements... ........................ Applies as modified No.
by Sec.
63.5990(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)... CMS Requirements... Out-of-control periods, Yes................ No.
including reporting.
Sec. 63.8(d).......... CMS Quality Control ........................ Applies as modified No.
by Sec.
63.5990(e) and (f).
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)....... Written Procedures ........................ No................. No
for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(e).......... CMS Performance ........................ No................. No.
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)... Alternative Procedures for Yes................ Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)....... Alternative to ........................ No................. No.
Relative Accuracy
Test.
Sec. 63.8(g).......... Data Reduction..... ........................ Applies as modified No.
by Sec.
63.5990(f).
Sec. 63.9(a).......... Notification Applicability and state Yes................ Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)... Initial Submit notification 120 Yes................ Yes.
Notifications. days after effective
date; notification of
intent to construct/
reconstruct,
notification of
commencement of
construct/reconstruct,
notification of
startup; and contents
of each.
Sec. 63.9(c).......... Request for Can request if cannot Yes................ Yes.
Compliance comply by date or if
Extension. installed best
available control
technology or lowest
achievable emission
rate.
Sec. 63.9(d).......... Notification of For sources that Yes................ Yes.
Special Compliance commence construction
Requirements for between proposal and
New Source. promulgation and want
to comply 3 years after
effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e).......... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes................ No.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f).......... Notification of VE/ ........................ No................. No.
Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g).......... Additional ........................ No................. No.
Notifications When
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(h).......... Notification of Contents; due 60 days Yes................ Yes.
Compliance Status. after end of
performance test or
other compliance
demonstration, except
for opacity/VE, which
are due 30 days after;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i).......... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes................ Yes.
Submittal Administrator to
Deadlines. approve change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).......... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 Yes................ Yes.
Information. days after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)......... Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes................ Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority; procedures
for owners of more than
1 source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)...... Recordkeeping/ General Requirements; Yes................ Yes.
Reporting. keep all records
readily available; and
keep for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i) Records related to ........................ No................. No.
and (iv)-(v). Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii).. Recordkeeping of ........................ No. See 63.6010 for ..................
failures to meet a recordkeeping of
standard. (1) date, time and
duration; (2)
listing of
affected source or
equipment, and an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated
pollutant emitted
over the standard;
and (3) actions to
minimize emissions
and correct the
failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii), CMS Records........ Malfunctions, Yes................ No.
(vi), and (x)-(xi). inoperative, out-of-
control; calibration
checks; adjustments,
maintenance.
[[Page 58301]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (vii)- Records............ Measurements to Yes................ Yes.
(ix). demonstrate compliance
with emission
limitations;
performance test,
performance evaluation,
and visible emission
observation results;
and measurements to
determine conditions of
performance tests and
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii). Records............ Records when under Yes................ Yes.
waiver.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) Records............ ........................ No................. No.
(xiii).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xiv) Records............ All documentation Yes................ Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)...... Records............ Applicability Yes................ Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)......... Records............ ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)...... General Reporting Requirement to report... Yes................ Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)...... Report of When to submit to Yes................ No.
Performance Test Federal or State
Results. authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)...... Reporting Opacity ........................ No................. No.
or VE Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)...... Progress Reports... Must submit progress Yes................ Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)...... Startup, Shutdown, ........................ No................. No.
and Malfunction
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)......... Additional CMS ........................ No................. No.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(f)......... Waiver for Procedures for Yes................ Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11............ Flares............. ........................ No................. No.
Sec. 63.12............ Delegation......... State authority to Yes................ Yes.
enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13............ Addresses.......... Addresses where reports, Yes................ Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14............ Incorporation by Test methods Yes................ Yes.
Reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15............ Availability of Public and confidential Yes................ Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-21837 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P