[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 94886-94922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26895]
[[Page 94885]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 230
November 29, 2024
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire
Manufacturing; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 94886]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392; FRL-5949.1-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV70
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber
Tire Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Rubber Tire Manufacturing, as required by the
Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure that all emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from sources in the source category are regulated, the
EPA is promulgating emissions standards for the rubber processing
subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, which is the
only unregulated subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
source category.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 29, 2024. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November
29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only as pdf versions that can
only be accessed on the EPA computers in the docket office reading
room. Certain databases and physical items cannot be downloaded from
the docket but may be requested by contacting the docket office at 202-
566-1744. The docket office has up to 10 business days to respond to
these requests. With the exception of such material, publicly available
docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055,
RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2416; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations.
Throughout this document the use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in
this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the
reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines
the following terms and acronyms here:
3xRDL three times the representative detection level
BDL below detection limit
BLDS bag leak detection system
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DLL detection level limited
DRE destruction and removal efficiency
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
fPM filterable particulate matter
g gram
g/Mg grams per megagram
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
lb pound
lb/Mton pounds per million tons
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
Mg megagram
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RDL representative detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
the court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
[mu]g/Nm3 microgram per normal cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound
Background information. On November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP (88 FR 78692),
specifically standards for the rubber processing subcategory of the
rubber tire manufacturing industry, to ensure that all emissions of HAP
from sources in the source category are regulated. In this action, we
are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some
of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in Comment Summary and Response Document
for Proposed NESHAP for Rubber Processing in the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Industry, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392. A ``track
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
source category in our November 16, 2023, proposal?
D. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
B. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
A. Emission Standards for Unregulated Organic HAP Emissions from
the Rubber Processing Subcategory
B. Emission Standards for Unregulated Metal HAP Emissions from
the Rubber Processing Subcategory
C. Emission Testing and Compliance Demonstrations
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
[[Page 94887]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review,
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber Tire Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, 326211, 326212, 314992.
subpart XXXX).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) by
January 28, 2025. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
On November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed revisions to the NESHAP for
Rubber Tire Manufacturing.\1\ The EPA is finalizing in this action
amendments to the NESHAP to ensure that all emissions of HAP from
sources in the source category are regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 88 FR78962, November 16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN)
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA has an
obligation to address unregulated emissions from a major source
category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review.\2\ In
setting standards for major source categories under CAA 112(d), EPA has
the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA 112((b).\3\ The
amendments in this rulemaking address currently unregulated emissions
of HAP from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category, specifically
from the rubber processing subcategory. Available data indicate the
following unregulated pollutants are emitted from the source category:
organic HAP compounds and metallic HAP compounds. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing standards that reflect maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) for these pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Additionally, in accordance with CAA,
costs are not considered when setting these initial MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``LEAN'').
\3\ See Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F3d 524,
527 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (``[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of
section 112(d) to require the regulations of all HAPs listed in
section 112(b)(1)'' citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category and how does
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the initial Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP on
July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45598). The standards are codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX. The Rubber
Tire Manufacturing source category consists of facilities that produce
rubber tire components including but not limited to rubber compounds,
sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord, and liners. The source
category covered by the NESHAP currently includes 15 major source
facilities.Since first established, the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
source category has been split into 4 subcategories for different
phases of rubber tire manufacturing. These subcategories include rubber
processing, tire production, tire cord production, and puncture sealant
application. In the original Rubber Tire Manufactuing NESHAP, emission
limits were established for tire production, tire cord production and
puncture sealant
[[Page 94888]]
application but no standards were established for rubber processing.
The 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category
(67 FR 45598) established emission limits on a subcategory basis as
follows.
1. Rubber Processing
There are currently no emission limits for the rubber processing
subcategory. The EPA proposed emission limits for the rubber processing
subcategory on November 16, 2023, and the EPA is finalizing emission
limits for this subcategory with this action.
2. Tire Production
There are 2 equivalent standards for the tire production
subcategory, and sources can comply with either standard. The first
standard, is based on HAP materials purchased and used in the process.
This standard considers that the quantity of HAP material purchased
will represent the amount of HAP emitted for uncontrolled processes.
The emission limit requires that emissions of each HAP in table 21 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire production
process not exceed 1,000 grams (g) HAP per megagram (Mg) (2 pounds per
ton (lb/ton)) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production
affected source, and requires that the amount of each HAP not in table
21 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire production
process not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of total cements and
solvents used at the tire production affected source.
The second standard is a production-based emission-limit option. A
production-based standard sets a quantity of emissions allowed per unit
of production (i.e., amount of HAP emitted per ton of rubber produced).
For this option, emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per
megagram (g/Mg), (0.00005 lb/ton) of rubber processed at the tire
production affected source.
3. Tire Cord Production
There are 3 standards for the tire cord production subcategory, and
sources can choose which standard to comply with within this
subcategory, depending, in part, on whether the source is an existing
or new source. The first standard is a production-based emission-limit
option for existing tire cord production affected sources. As part of
this standard, emissions must not exceed 280 g HAP per Mg (0.56 lb/ton)
of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source for the
monthly average.
The second standard is a production-based emission-limit option for
new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of
this standard, emissions must not exceed 220 g HAP per Mg (0.43 lb/ton)
of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source.
The third standard is a HAP constituent emission-limit option
available to both existing and new or reconstructed tire cord
production affected sources. A HAP constituent standard requires that
no material be purchased and used at an affected facility that contains
HAP in amounts above a specific composition limit. To comply with this
standard, emissions of each HAP in table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
XXXX, that is used in the tire cord production process must not exceed
1,000 g HAP per Mg (2 lb/ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord
production affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in table 16
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire cord
production process must not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of
total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source.
4. Puncture Sealant Application
There are 3 equivalent standards for the puncture sealant
application subcategory, and sources can choose which standard to
comply with within this subcategory depending, in part, on whether the
source is an existing or new source. The first standard is a percent
reduction emission-limit option for existing puncture sealant
application spray booths. As part of this standard, facilities are
required to reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight.
The second standard is a percent reduction emission-limit option
for new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booths. As
part of this standard, facilities are required to reduce spray booth
HAP (measured as VOCs) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight.
The third standard is a HAP constituent emission-limit option for
both existing and new or reconstructed puncture sealant application
spray booths. As part of this standard, emissions of each HAP in table
16 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 1,000 g HAP per Mg
(2 lb/ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant
affected source, and emissions of each HAP not in table 16 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart XXXX, must not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton)
of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected
source.
5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission Limits
Compliance alternatives are available for the 3 subcategories
currently subject to emission limits (tire production, tire cord
production, and puncture sealant application) to meet the emission
limits mentioned earlier in section II.B. of this preamble. For more
information on these compliance alternatives, a detailed breakdown of
the compliance alternatives for these subcategories may be found at 40
CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR 63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989, for tire production,
tire cord production, and puncture sealant application, respectively.
These alternatives are also summarized here.
For tire production, alternatives for showing compliance are
available for both emission standards. For the standard option based on
the materials purchased and used the alternatives are to use only
cements and solvents that as purchased contain no more HAP than allowed
by the specified emission limitations; use cements and solvents such
that the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission
limitations; or use control devices to reduce HAP emissions such that
the monthly average HAP emissions meet the specified emission
limitations. For the production-based standard option the alternatives
are to use cements and solvents such that the monthly average HAP
emissions meet the specified emissions limitations; or use control
devices to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP
emissions meet the specified emission limitations.
For tire cord production there are two alternative compliance
options: use coating solutions such that the monthly average HAP
emissions do not exceed the applicable emission limit; or use a control
device to reduce HAP emissions such that the monthly average HAP
emissions do not exceed the applicable emission limitation.
For puncture sealant application, there are two alternative
compliance options: use an emissions capture system and control device
and demonstrate that the application booth emissions meet the specified
emission limitations and operating limits; or use a permanent total
enclosure that satisfies the Method 204 criteria in 40 CFR part 51 and
demonstrate that the control device meets the specified operating
limits and reduces at least 86 percent of emissions for existing
sources and 95 percent of emissions for new sources.
[[Page 94889]]
6. Recent Actions Relating to the NESHAP for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Source Category
In the 2020 Risk and Technology Review (RTR) (85 FR 44752), the EPA
found that the risk associated with air emissions from rubber tire
manufacturing was acceptable considering all the health information and
factors evaluated, and risk estimation uncertainty. The EPA found that
the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA
determined that there were no developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that warranted revisions to the MACT standards
under CAA section 112(d)(6). Based on the analysis conducted as part of
the RTR, no revisions to the numerical emission limits were made for
any of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing subcategories. The 2020 RTR
addressed periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by
clarifying that emissions during SSM operations are subject to the
NESHAP. In addition, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring
electronic reporting of performance test results and reports,
compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports.
C. What changes did we propose for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source
category in our November 16, 2023, proposal?
In response to the LEAN decision requiring the EPA to ensure that
missing emission standards are promulgated when the EPA undertakes a
112(d)(6) technology review, on November 16, 2023, the EPA published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that took into consideration the
MACT analyses for the rubber processing subcategory. In the proposed
rule, the EPA proposed numerical emissions limits for the rubber
processing subcategory of the rubber tire manufacturing industry, which
is the only unregulated subcategory within the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category with unregulated HAP.
Additionally, EPA solicited comment on several aspects of the
proposed rulemaking. EPA solicited comment on the use of THC as a
surrogate for organic HAP, as well as on the EPA's approach to testing
for THC, as opposed to testing for individual speciated organic HAP.
EPA solicited comment on the use of THC as a surrogate in place of
setting emission limits for PAHs, specifically. EPA solicited comment
on our approach regarding the 30-day THC data. EPA solicited comment on
the proposed approach to addressing negative THC values. EPA solicited
comment on the proposed compliance periods, and specifically requested
submission of information from sources in this source category
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply
with the proposed amended provisions and the time needed to make the
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised provisions.
The EPA proposed to establish MACT standards for the rubber
processing subcategory for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for
organic HAP. For these MACT standards, we proposed a THC emission limit
for mixers processing silica containing compounds and a THC emission
limit for mixers processing non-silica containing compounds. Both
limits were based on a 15-day rolling average.
The EPA also proposed MACT standards for filterable particulate
matter (fPM) and metal HAP. The emission limits proposed for new and
existing sources were an emissions limit for fPM, as a surrogate for
metal HAP, with an emission limit for total metal HAP as an
alternative.
D. What outreach did we conduct following the proposal?
Following publication of the proposed rule, the EPA offered the
opportunity for a public hearing, but none was requested. However, the
USTMA did request a meeting with the EPA, and the EPA and USTMA met in
May 2024 and USTMA discussed supplemental testing performed by USTMA
and the use of THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. A summary of that
meeting is in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392).
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the MACT
provisions of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing source category and sets emission limitations for the
rubber tire processing subcategory within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing
NESHAP based on those determinations.
A. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
We are establishing MACT standards for the rubber processing
subcategory in the rubber tire manufacturing source category, as
required by the CAA. To satisfy the requirements of CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3), we are revising the NESHAP to include emissions
limitations for the previously unregulated rubber processing
subcategory including limitations for THC, as a surrogate for organic
HAP emissions; fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP; and an alternative
limit for metal HAP. The standards in this final rule are similar in
format to those in the proposed rule, but with updates to the standards
based on public comments and additional data received and analyzed for
the final rule. In the proposal, the EPA included separate THC
standards for silica-containing and non-silica-containing processed
rubber. Based on comments and data received during the comment period,
the EPA is establishing a single MACT standard, instead of setting
separate standards for the mixing of silica-containing and non-silica
containing compounds, as proposed. The same THC standard is being
established for both new and existing facilities and is based on 3
times the representative detection level (3xRDL) since this value is
larger than the calculated Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) for THC.\4\
Also based on the public comments, the final rule is allowing facility-
wide averaging of the individual emissions from each mixer to
demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ It is the practice of the EPA to use the higher of the
calculated UPL and 3xRDL value when setting an emission limit, as
describedin the memorandum, Data and Procedure for Handling Below
Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions
Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule is also setting standards for fPM, as a surrogate
for metal HAP, and an alternative standard for metal HAP, with the same
standards applying for new and existing facilities. The final standards
for fPM and metal HAP are also based on the 3xRDL value for fPM and
metal HAP, since this value is larger than the calculated UPL. Also
based on the public comments, the final rule is allowing facility-wide
averaging of the individual emissions from each mixer to demonstrate
compliance with the fPM emission limits.
1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
The EPA received data from 5 facilities for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions. The PAH compounds measured were aniline,
dibenzofuran, hydroquinone, naphthalene, and o-toluidine. The PAH
emissions were collected using U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 0010, extracted
[[Page 94890]]
using Method 3542, and analyzed using Method 8270E.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw/846/compendium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the measured emissions for the PAH compounds were below the
detection limit (BDL) of the approved testing method, and others were
detection level limited (DLL). Results are considered BDL when every
measured result for a compound in a test run is less than the
laboratory's reported detection level.\6\ Data is considered DLL when
only some results in a given test run are less than the laboratory's
reported detection level for that compound. The Agency's practice in
establishing emission limits for pollutants with DLL values is to use
the DLL value to calculate the UPL and then to compare the calculated
UPL to a value that is 3 times the pollutant's RDL (3xRDL value).
Consistent with our practice described in the aforementioned memo,\7\
the larger of the UPL calculation or the 3xRDL value becomes the
emission limit. Reported levels of 2 PAH compounds--dibenzofuran and
hydroquinone--are BDL at each facility; therefore, the EPA did not
propose and is not promulgating emission limits for dibenzofuran or
hydroquinone. The EPA has no data indicating the presence of
polychlorinated dioxins or polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and measured
unpolychlorinated dibenzofuran values are BDL, therefore, the EPA did
not propose and is not promulgating separate emission limits for
dioxin-like compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In keeping with the EPA's practice, when all pollutant
values fall below BDL, no emission limit should be established for
that pollutant.
\7\ See the memorandum Data and Procedure for Handling Below
Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various Pollutant Emissions
Databases for MACT and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test results for the remaining PAH species--aniline,
naphthalene, and o-toluidine--were DLL. However, these PAH species are
also organic HAP and hydrocarbons and will be accounted for in THC
measurements. As such, setting both a separate PAH standard in addition
to a THC standard would be redundant and doubly regulate PAH emissions.
In order to prevent this redundance, the EPA did not propose and is not
promulgating a separate emission limit for PAHs and instead proposed
and is promulgating a limit for THC emissions, which will encompass
PAHs. The THC results include the effect of PAH, other organic HAP, and
VOC contained in exhaust streams and are well suited to serve as
surrogates for these compounds.
A detailed description of the analysis of the PAH data is included
in the memorandum, Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber
Tire Manufacturing Industry, located in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
2. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
a. THC Existing Source Standard
The EPA determined the existing source MACT floor THC emission
limit based on the top 2 performing mixers. There are 97 mixers; for a
source category of this size, the CAA requires the EPA to use the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions
information) when establishing the MACT floor level of control. The EPA
has THC data measured for 12 mixers, and 12 percent of 12 mixers is
1.44 mixers, which we rounded up to 2 mixers for purposes of
determining the existing source MACT floor. The EPA received THC data
from an additional 5 mixers as a result of the ICR, but these data
represented the uncontrolled emissions from units that were collected
prior to the emission stream entering a regenerative thermal oxidizer
(RTO) and the EPA did not have data for the controlled emissions, which
would be collected after the exhaust stream has passed through the RTO.
In response to comments, the EPA determined the destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) of an RTO can vary depending on the THC inlet
concentration, thus a reported DRE measured at one THC concentration
may not be applicable to the THC concentrations observed for these
mixers. As such, without specifically measuring DRE values for each THC
concentration, accurate controlled emissions could not be determined
for these 5 mixers by applying the reported DRE to emissions prior to
the control device. While it is expected that emissions from these
controlled mixers would be low, the EPA does not have post-control
emission data from these mixers. As a result, the EPA is not including
these 5 mixers in the MACT analysis.
When determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources
for the MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole
number to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer
than the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this
instance, we rounded up to 2 mixers for determining the existing source
MACT floor. The EPA is promulgating the MACT floor THC emission limit
for existing sources based on the average 15-day emission rate achieved
by the 2 best performing (i.e. lowest emitting) mixers. From the data
available, the 2 best performing mixers are Continental Mt. Vernon
mixer #22, which is controlled by an RTO, and Goodyear Fayetteville
mixer #4, which has no control device for THC. For these 2 best
performing mixers, the EPA included each mixer's daily average THC
emission rate in a list and then calculated 15-day rolling averages
from the combined daily averages. The 15-day rolling averages were then
used to calculate the 15-day UPL THC emission rate in g/Mg rubber
produced, which was 24 g/Mg.
The EPA-calculated THC emission limits for existing mixers are
based on the calculated 99 percent UPL or 3xRDL, whichever is higher,
calculated from the 15-day rolling averages of the data combined from
the 2 mixers.
The 3xRDL for THC for the 2 combined mixers is 63.1 g/Mg rubber
produced. Because the 3xRDL value is higher than the calculated UPL
value from the 2 combined mixers, and because the EPA rounds up when
simplifying to 2 significant figures, the existing source THC limit in
the final rule is 64 g/Mg rubber produced. You may choose to comply
with the THC emission limit for each rubber processing mixer
separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the
same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber
processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an
alternative facility-wide average for THC emissions for all mixers is
discussed in section A.2.d.
The maximum THC parts per million (ppm) value (from minute-to-
minute analysis provided during the information collection request
(ICR)) from the 2 best performers is 25 ppm, so an appropriate
instrument range is 0 to 50 ppm, which leads to an RDL value of 3.082
ppm and a 3xRDL value of 9.25 ppm. For additional information on how
the EPA calculated these RDL values please see the memorandum titled
Measurement Detection Capabilities for EPA for Instrumental Test
Methods located in the docket for this rule. When this 3xRDL value is
combined with the average flow rate, and production of the best
performers, the result is 63.1 g/Mg rubber produced. Since the 3xRDL
value is higher than the UPL value of 24 g/Mg rubber produced, the
3xRDL value (63.1 g/Mg) is the basis for the existing source MACT floor
for all rubber processing, which is then set to 64 g/Mg.
[[Page 94891]]
Of the 12 mixers for which the EPA has measured emissions, 4 mixers
(33 percent) have emissions (based on their calculated UPL) that are
estimated to be greater than the final rule THC limit of 64 g/Mg rubber
produced (rounded to 2 significant figures) and thus would need to
install a control device. Therefore, we estimate that 33 percent of the
97 mixers (33 mixers) located at major sources would need to be
controlled (e.g., by an RTO) to meet the final rule limit.
Based on data received in response to the CAA section 114
information request, which shows on average currently installed RTOs
are shared by 3 co-located mixers, EPA estimates, on average, one RTO
will be shared by 3 mixers for any new RTOs installed as a result of
this rulemaking. Accounting for the current number of mixers and RTOs
at each major source facility, the EPA estimates that a total of 17
RTOs (corresponding to a total of 35 mixers) would likely be needed to
comply with this final rule. Given that 9 RTOs already exist at the
regulated facilities at issue, the EPA expects that the cumulative
impact to industry would be the installation of 8 new RTOs. EPA
acknowledges it is possible some facilities may choose to comply with
the rule through a variety of technology pathways including the
installation of boilers instead of RTOs or a different ratio of RTOs to
mixers than assumed in this analysis. However, EPA has no way of
accurately knowing how facilities will choose to comply thus we are
unable to determine exactly what business decisions firms will make.
For additional information on how EPA calculated the amount of RTOs
likely to be installed for this rulemaking see the memo ``Rubber
Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness''
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392).
b. THC Beyond-The-Floor Existing Source Standard
In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, as a
second step in the standard-setting process, the EPA must also examine
whether to adopt additional, and more stringent, ``beyond-the-floor''
regulatory options. The first step, as discussed in the preceding
section, requires the establishment of an emission floor--developed
under CAA section 112(d)(3). The second step requires consideration of
whether additional reductions are achievable, taking into account the
factors listed in section 112(d)(2) (i.e., cost, non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements). If additional
reductions are determined to be achievable, taking these factors into
account, the resulting emissions standards are referred to as ``beyond-
the-floor'' MACT standards.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CAA section 112(d)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that
emissions standards promulgated under section 112 ``shall require
the maximum degree of reduction in emisions of the hazardous air
pollutants,'' after taking into consideration ``the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements,'' which EPA
``determines is achievable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the MACT floor, which represents the minimum stringency
requirement, the EPA must consider various impacts of more stringent
regulatory options when considering beyond-the-floor options. If the
EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory options are not
reasonable, then EPA selects the MACT floor as the final MACT standard.
However, if the EPA concludes that the beyond-the-floor levels of
control are reasonable, when considering additional emissions
reductions that would be achieved, then those beyond-the-floor measures
represent the applicable MACT standard.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we identify control
options or techniques that could achieve emission reductions beyond the
MACT floor level of control. The EPA did not identify any control
options or techniques other than what is currently used (i.e., an RTO)
that could serve as a basis for establishing a limit beyond the MACT
floor.
In addition to the lack of additional control options, the MACT
floor limit for the existing source category already reflects the
lowest concentration that can be reliably measured. Following the EPA's
well-established approach to determining MACT floor limits, the EPA is
finalizing a MACT floor limit for the existing source category that is
based on the 3xRDL value. This is because--for the measurement method
and data--the value of 3xRDL is higher than the combined calculated UPL
for the 2 best performing sources. This MACT floor limit based on 3xRDL
reflects the detection limit of the measurement method and represents
the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured. Because no
further measurable reductions can be achieved from these sources, EPA
is unable to adopt a beyond-the-floor limit in this action.
c. THC New Source Standard
The THC MACT emission limits for new sources are based on the
emission limitation achieved by the single best performing similar
source. However, as stated above the MACT floor limit is based on the
3xRDL value for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value
is higher than the combined UPL, and thus represents the lowest level
at which THC can be reliably detected. Because the MACT floor limit is
based on the 3xRDL value for the THC measurements, it is not feasible
to establish a lower limit. Therefore, the final MACT standard for new
and existing mixers is the MACT floor limit and is 64 g/Mg. You may
choose to comply with the THC emission limit for each rubber processing
mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to
the same control device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber
processed for the connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an
alternative facility-wide average for THC emissions for all mixers is
discussed in section A.2.d.
d. Alternative THC Standard: Facility-Wide Averaging
In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received public comment
regarding the potential for a facility-wide standard. Upon review, the
EPA is establishing an alternative standard based on facility-wide
averaging. Averaging across rubber mixers is appropriate, and
consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3), because the total quantity
of HAP that may be emitted by the regulated source is not greater than
if each mixer complied separately with the applicable standard. For
additional information on EPA's decision to include facility-wide
averaging, see the Response to Comments document available in the
docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). This
standard is based on averaging the individual emissions of each mixer
at a facility. For an individual mixer, the THC emission limit for both
new and existing sources is 64 g/Mg (1.3 x 10\5\ lb/Mton) of rubber
processed; thus, the average for all mixers across a facility is also
64 g/Mg. Because the THC emission limit is already set at the 3xRDL
level, no emissions discount is applied for setting the standard for
facility-wide averaging. To comply based on averaging, the facility
would sum the emissions from all mixers at the facility over a 15-day
period and divide the sum of the emissions by the sum of the rubber
processed in all of the mixers at the facility over the same 15-day
period.
3. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP
a. Existing Source Standard
Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, the
[[Page 94892]]
EPA has fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data is available
from 5 of the mixers. The EPA had no reason to assume a difference in
fPM and metal HAP emissions based on the mixing of silica-containing or
non-silica-containing compounds. Thus, a single emission standard was
calculated for mixing all classes of rubber compounds. For each mixer,
the EPA calculated the 99 percent UPL for both fPM and the sum of the
metal HAP that were measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorous, and
selenium).
Detailed data by individual run and for each metal HAP, as well as
total metal HAP and fPM, were provided and are summarized in the
memorandum, Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Industry, included in the docket for this rulemaking. In
the metal HAP measurements for Continental, Mt. Vernon, the phosphorous
data were unreliable because of a contaminated reagent and are not
included in the table and in the total metals. The PM data provided
from USTMA before proposal for Danville mixers #5 and #7 were the only
data containing fPM and corresponding rubber production data. The metal
HAP data provided for Danville mixers #5 and #7 by USTMA before
proposal were not in the format needed to calculate production-based
emission rates.
After proposal, the EPA also received additional fPM data from
USTMA for 4 mixers as part of their public comments, and these data are
also summarized in Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the Rubber
Tire Manufacturing Industry memorandum, available in the docket for
this rule (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). The data for 3 mixers
consisted of at least 3 runs, which is consistent with the fPM testing
that the EPA requested in the ICR, and the data for the fourth mixer
consisted of only 2 runs, which is fewer than the minimum number of
runs requested in the ICR and the number needed to calculate a UPL
value.
There are 97 mixers; for a source category of this size, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine the average emission limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which
the Administrator has information).
The EPA has metal HAP data from 5 mixers. The EPA calculated 12
percent of 5 mixers for metal HAP, which results in 0.6. When
determining the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for the
MACT floor pool, we round fractional amounts to the next whole number
to ensure that the MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. In this instance,
we rounded the value of 0.6 up to one mixer for purposes of determining
the existing source MACT floor for metal HAP.
Since the EPA has fPM emissions data from a total of 10 mixers for
which UPL values could be calculated, the MACT floor final rule limit
for fPM is based on 12 percent of 10 mixers, which is 1.2. This
includes the 7 tests from the EPA ICR, and 3 of the tests from USTMA
for which a UPL value could be calculated. When determining the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we
round fractional amounts to the next whole number to ensure that the
MACT floor calculations are based on no fewer than the best performing
12 percent of existing sources. In this instance, we rounded the fPM of
1.2 up to 2 and the metal HAP value of 0.6 to one mixer for purposes of
determining the existing source MACT. Because metal HAP are emitted as
fPM, the EPA is using fPM as a surrogate for metal HAP. Additionally,
the EPA is finalizing an alternative emission limit for total metal
HAP. Data gathered from the CAA section 114 information request
identified that the primary control devices utilized for metal HAP
emissions on rubber tire mixers are baghouses and capture of fPM will
reliably indicate capture of metal HAP. It is also practical to use fPM
as a surrogate for metal HAP because the fPM emission limit accounts
for variability in individual metal HAP emission rates among different
batches of rubber compound being mixed.
The EPA calculated the UPL for fPM as 2.5 g/Mg (4900 lb/Mton) of
rubber produced and total metal HAP emission rate of 3.7 x
10-\2\ g/Mg (74 lb/Mton) rubber produced. The lowest fPM UPL
emission rate and the lowest metal HAP emission rate were measured at
the same mixer, and the fPM and metal HAP emissions were measured
simultaneously.
The EPA calculated the 3xRDL for fPM using the average flow rate of
the top 2 mixers. The average flow rate was 9,622 dry standard cubic
feet per minute (dscfm) and average production rate was 17.98 tons per
hour (ton/hr) for Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1 and Goodyear Danville Mixer
#7 as representative values. The calculations also used a fPM RDL of 2
mg and 3xRDL of 6 mg in a sample volume of 2 dscm, or 3 mg/dscm. These
values would provide a fPM 3xRDL value of 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton)
rubber processed. These calculations are detailed in the MACT memo for
the final rule. Because the 3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the
final rule fPM emission limit is based on the 3xRDLvalue instead of the
99-percent UPL value. Rounded to 2 significant figures, this limit is
3.0 g/Mg (6.0 x 10\3\ lb/Mton).
The EPA also used the flow and production data from Goodyear Lawton
Mixer #1 (top performer) to calculate the 3xRDL value for total metal
HAP. The calculations used the RDL values for each metal HAP in a
sample volume of 2 dscf. The total metal HAP 3xRDL value is 109.7
[micro]g in a sample volume of 2 dscm, or a value of 5.4 x
10-\2\ g/Mg rubber (110 lb/Mton) rubber processed using the
flow and production data for Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1. Because the
3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the final rule total metal
alternative emission limit is based on the 3xRDL value instead of the
UPL value. Rounded to 2 significant figures, this limit is 5.4 x
10-\2\ g/Mg rubber (110 lb/Mton). These calculations are
detailed in the memorandum titled Final Rule Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Analysis for the Rubber Processing Subcategory in the
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry found in the docket for this rule.
You may choose to comply with the fPM emission limit (or the total
metal HAP alternative) for each rubber processing mixer separately, or
for a group of rubber processing mixers routed to the same control
device or stack, the emissions and amount of rubber processed for the
connected mixers can be combined. Additionally, an alternative
facility-wide average of fPM (or total metal HAP) emissions for all
mixers is discussed in section A.3.d.
b. New Source Standard
The fPM and the total metal HAP alternative MACT emission limits
for new sources are based on the emission limitation achieved by the
best controlled similar source. However, as stated above the MACT floor
limit is set at the value of the 3xRDL for the measurement method and
data because the 3xRDL value is higher than the combined UPL. Because
the MACT floor limit is set at the 3xRDL value for both fPM and the
total metal alternative measurements, it is not feasible to establish a
lower limit. Therefore, the final MACT standard for new and existing
mixers is the MACT floor limit and is 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton) rubber
processed for fPM and 5.4 x 10-\2\ g/Mg
[[Page 94893]]
rubber (110 lb/Mton) for total metal HAP. You may choose to comply with
the fPM emission limit (or the total metal HAP alternative) for each
rubber processing mixer separately, or for a group of rubber processing
mixers routed to the same control device or stack, the emissions and
amount of rubber processed for the connected mixers can be combined.
Additionally, an alternative facility-wide average of fPM (or total
metal HAP) emissions for all mixers is discussed in section A.3.d.
c. Beyond the Floor Analysis
In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, the EPA
must examine more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options
when establishing the applicable MACT emission limitation. Unlike the
MACT floor minimum stringency requirements, when considering beyond-
the-floor options, the CAA provides that the EPA must consider various
impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining whether
beyond-the-floor measures should be included in a final MACT emission
standard. If the EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory
options are not reasonable, then the EPA selects the MACT floor as the
final applicable MACT standard. However, if the EPA concludes that the
beyond-the-floor levels of control are reasonable considering the
additional emissions reductions that would be achieved, the EPA selects
those levels as MACT.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As discussed in supra section III.A.2.b., EPA evaluates
whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate under CAA
section 112(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we identify control
options or techniques that could achieve emission reductions beyond the
MACT floor level of control. The EPA did not identify any control
options or techniques other than what is currently used.
The existing source MACT floor limit is set at the value of the
3xRDL for the measurement method and data because the 3xRDL value is
higher than the average UPL of the 2 lowest emitting sources for fPM
and the UPL of the single lowest emitting source for total metal HAP.
For both fPM and total metal HAP, the existing source MACT floor limit
is set at the 3xRDL value, which represents the lowest concentration
that can be measured. As such, we did not identify additional controls
for reducing emissions further because no further reductions can be
achieved that are measurable. The final MACT standard for existing
mixers is the MACT floor limit and is set at the 3xRDL value.
d. Alternative fPM Standard: Facility-Wide Averaging
In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received public comment
regarding the potential for a facility-wide standard. Upon review, the
EPA agrees with the commenters, and is establishing an alternative
standard based on facility-wide averaging. For additional information
on EPA's decision to include facility-wide averaging, see the Response
to Comments document available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). This standard is based on averaging the
individual emissions of every mixer at a facility and can be applied to
either the fPM or total metal HAP standard. For an individual mixer,
the fPM emission limit for both new and existing sources is 3.0 g/Mg
rubber produced (5.4 x 10-\2\ g/Mg for the total metal HAP
alternative). Averaging this limit across all mixers at a facility
results in an identical emission limit for the facility-wide
alternative. Because the facility-wide average emission limit is
identical to the limit for individual mixers, the EPA does not
anticipate a difference in the achieved emissions reduction. As stated
above, this approach is consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3),
because the total quantity of HAP that may be emitted by the regulated
source is not greater than if each mixer complied separately with the
applicable standard.
B. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
We are updating the electronic reporting requirements found in 40
CFR 63.6009(k) and in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) and (h) to reflect new
procedures for reporting CBI. The update provides an email address to
which source owners and operators can electronically mail CBI to the
OAQPS CBI Office when submitting compliance reports.
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
Amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP finalized in
this rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are
subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section
112(i). For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides that there
shall be compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event
later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard,'' subject
to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\10\ In
determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as
practicable,'' we consider the amount of time needed to plan and
construct projects, as well as any time necessary to implement changes
in operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new
affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective
date of the final amendments to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP or
upon startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA 716 F.3d 667, 672
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA projects that some existing sources may be required to
install add-on controls to comply with the emission limits, including
new RTOs and new or upgraded baghouses. These sources would require
time to design, construct, conduct performance testing, and implement
monitoring to comply with the revised provisions. Sources would also be
required to install a THC continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
and conduct performance testing. Therefore, the final rule allows 3
years for existing sources to comply with the new emission standards.
All affected facilities must continue meeting the current provisions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until the applicable compliance date of
the amended rule. This final action does not meet the criteria under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), so the revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated
by this action are effective on November 29, 2024 as specified in CAA
section 112(d)(10).
For all affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before November 16, 2023, the final rule provides
3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup,
whichever is later) for owners and operators to comply with the
provisions of this action. For all affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after November 16, 2023, owners and
operators must comply with the provisions by the effective date of the
final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later).
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the
[[Page 94894]]
EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in the docket.
A. Emission Standards for Unregulated Organic HAP Emissions From the
Rubber Processing Subcategory
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
In the proposed rule, published on November 16, 2023, we proposed
emission limits for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. Separate limits
were proposed for mixing silica-containing and non-silica-containing
rubber compounds, including different emission limits for new and
existing sources. The proposed emission limits were based on the EPA's
determination of the MACT floor after options more stringent than the
MACT floor were determined to not be feasible or cost-effective. The
format of the proposed limits was in grams of THC emitted per megagram
of rubber produced over a 15-day period. The proposed limits for
existing sources were based on the average emission rate of the top 2
best performing sources, and the limits for new sources were based on
the lowest emitting source.
2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
In the final rule, the EPA is promulgating THC emission limits as a
surrogate for organic HAP for rubber processing but has made several
changes since proposal. First, the EPA had proposed separate THC
emission limits based on the mixing of silica-containing or non-silica-
containing compounds because the EPA believed the presence of silica
compounds impacted the emission profiles. However, for the final rule
the EPA is not promulgating separate standards for mixing silica-
containing and non-silica-containing rubber compounds. Second, the
final THC emission limits for both new and existing sources are based
on the 3xRDL value for THC because that value is higher than the
calculated UPL of the 2 best performing sources for THC. Additionally,
in response to comments, the EPA is not using data from mixers that
tested and reported emissions prior to a control device such as an RTO.
At proposal the EPA applied a DRE to the data from mixers that then
routed emissions to an RTO, since those streams were combined with
other mixers not being tested at that time. Since the EPA does not have
true outlet data (outlet of control device) from those mixers, we
determined it is inappropriate to use such data to set MACT standards.
Finally, the EPA is allowing facilities to demonstrate compliance with
the THC emission limit by averaging emissions across mixers at the same
facility.
3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
Comment: One commenter argued that emissions of organic HAP and THC
vary too widely between mixers and even at different times at the same
mixer to be practicably measured as the basis for an emission standard.
The commenter noted that data already available to the EPA show that
emission rates and species of organic HAP can vary depending on the
tire component for which the rubber is being mixed, the different raw
materials added, and the mixing conditions. The commenter stated that
different organic HAP emissions are produced during rubber mixing from
small amounts of organic HAP that are contained as impurities in the
raw materials and are also generated by the mixing process when natural
and synthetic rubbers are mixed at elevated temperatures. The commenter
added that each product formulation may include different raw materials
and ingredients because the unique combination of the different raw
materials and ingredients imparts in a tire compound a specific
combination of certain desired tire properties, such as traction, fuel
efficiency, noise, vibration, robustness, etc. Thus, according to the
commenter, the organic HAP and THC emission profile will differ from
tire component to tire component and within the same tire component,
between one product formulation and another.
The same commenter added that different passes through the mixer
within the rubber mixing process will also impact the levels of organic
HAP and THC emissions from rubber mixers with the 3 major passes
(initial, middle, and final) being different in terms of the raw
materials and ingredients added, heating temperature, and duration. The
commenter also noted that each pass specification is different from
company to company and sometimes from plant to plant, and the passes
that need to be run are different from tire component to tire
component. As a result, according to the commenter, each pass will
yield significantly different organic HAP and THC emissions, and the
same pass at a different tire plant may produce significantly different
organic HAP and THC emissions. The commenter stated that these
differences in emissions were demonstrated by past industry testing,
the testing in response to the EPA's ICR, and by the supplemental
testing results submitted with the public comments.
The commenter argued that attempting to determine an appropriate
emission limitation using an average of 15 days or longer does not mean
that the resulting limitation would be representative of the actual
performance of the particular mixers tested for the ICR, let alone the
entire range of operations and designs of the nearly 100 mixers at
major source tire manufacturing plants. The commenter stated that,
depending on when 15 days of sampling were conducted, or which tire
component a mixer happened to be processing entirely or primarily
during emissions testing, the average THC concentration emitted could
be far higher or lower than what would be measured during a different
15-day interval. The commenter added that what each mixer will produce
or run, however, is entirely dependent on each tire plant's production
quota that it must meet, and it is nearly impossible to forecast more
than a couple of weeks in advance what each mixer will produce or run,
such that the results of a short-term testing at a mixer that was
running a certain combination of product formulation and pass may not
be representative or indicative of its emission levels at other times.
The commenter stated that impracticably lengthy and wide-ranging
testing would be required both to ensure that emission measurement at
such mixers can be used to set an emissions standard that the mixer can
meet at other times and to demonstrate compliance with such an
emissions standard.
Finally, the commenter noted that THC emissions are so variable
that the agency proposes in its RTR rule to not only require each mixer
to be equipped with a CEMS, but also use a dual-range calibration
system to capture the range of different emission levels. The commenter
stated that the need to install, operate, and maintain a THC CEMS
device at each mixer carries a heavy financial burden which underlines
the impracticability of measuring THC emissions at rubber mixers. The
commenter estimated that based on EPA's 2007 Cost Tool for CEMS,
adjusted with current vendor costs for continuous monitoring systems
and updated costs for labor, installing continuous THC monitors for all
mixers would impose a capital cost of millions of dollars per facility,
with annualized capital and operating costs of around $180,000 to $1.8
million per plant. The
[[Page 94895]]
commenter estimated that the cost may be as much as $9 million annually
for the rubber tire manufacturing industry to monitor THC emissions.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that
emissions of THC vary too widely to be practicably measured. While the
EPA acknowledges that manufacturing rubber tires, like many other
manufacturing processes, exhibits variable emissions. However, in phase
I of the 114 information collection request, data received showed all
known mixers within this source category have stacks where emissions
can be measured; as such, emissions measured at these point sources may
be used to set a numerical emission standard. The EPA collected from
the industry and then processed data that demonstrate this source
variability; the EPA obtained from industry test results from a variety
of mixers at different facilities that run different types of passes.
Data were gathered for 30 days per mixer to account for emissions
variability and show representative data during normal operation.
Additionally, the EPA set emission limits based on a 15-day average,
and the UPL for the mixers, which is an approach used by the EPA in
this and other standards, calculated from all 15-day averages in the
data from each mixer to account for variability in emissions.
Facilities may need to install and operate control devices, such as an
RTO or similar control technology, to account for variability while
ensuring the emission limit is met.
The Agency agrees with the commenter's assertions that THC CEMS are
necessary due to variability, as stressed by the commenter, but
disagrees that dual-range calibration systems are required, and further
disagrees that industry would be required to pay annualized costs of
between $180,000 to $1.8 million per plant. As mentioned earlier, given
the potential disparity between and among individual mixer emissions,
coupled with the lack of THC data from source owners or operators, the
EPA's ICR obtained at least 30 days of continuous THC data per mixer.
Source owners or operators may not have known their mixers' THC
emissions or potential emission limit during ICR testing; however, now
that the THC emission limit is known, source owners need not choose a
dual-range THC CEMS; rather they can select an instrument with a range
appropriate for the emission limit. Of course, should source owners or
operators believe additional calibrated ranges beyond the emission
limit are necessary, they are able to select and use multiple ranges--
but those additional range choices represent voluntary selection and
are not imposed by this rule. The EPA agrees that THC CEMS have the
ability to properly measure a wide range of emissions and that they
also provide those data continuously, which allows for ongoing
compliance demonstration, unlike the sporadic compliance demonstration
offered by periodic testing. As an aside, most THC CEMS include a
built-in variety of ranges, including site-developed and selected
ranges, so source owners or operators should have little trouble
narrowing their instruments' focus on a range appropriate to the THC
emission limit. EPA's Monitoring and Cost Analysis Tool shows the
initial cost of a THC CEMS is less than $145,000 and the annualized
cost would be less than $50,000. Finally, the EPA estimated the cost
for installing and operating a THC CEMS for each individual mixer.\11\
However, it is likely that facilities will choose to share THC CEMS
given that one THC CEMS should be able to serve 3 mixers--and perhaps
more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For calculations of the THC CEMS cost, see the memorandum
Final Rule--Rubber Processing Control Costs Emission Reductions, and
Cost Effectiveness, available in the docket for this rule (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter argued the EPA should establish work
practice standards under CAA section 112(h) instead of numerical
emission limits. The commenter stated that the unique characteristics
of mixing operations at tire manufacturing facilities imply that not
even multiple days of stack testing a single mixer would be sufficient
to produce organic HAP or THC emission rates that even that mixer would
have a high probability of not exceeding during other periods of
operation. The commenter cited Continental's 2019 engineering test at
Mixer 22, to argue that when processing a single worst-case rubber
formulation or compound most likely to generate highest emissions of
ethanol, the resulting THC emissions may be almost 2 times higher than
during any other time. The commenter continued by saying if this single
worst-case rubber formulation were processed 15 days in a row at Mixer
22, it would generate THC emissions at rates nearly 7 times higher than
the EPA's proposed THC emission limit for silica-containing category
for existing sources, even after RTO control--despite the fact that the
EPA identified Continental Mixer 22 as the best performing mixer among
those mixers for which the EPA has test data.
The commenter stated that it would be prohibitively costly and
time-consuming to conduct enough stack testing on individual mixers,
performed on enough mixers, to determine emission rates representative
of the ranges of operations of mixers at tire plants, which would be
needed to support establishment of emissions limitations that all
mixers would have to meet at all times. The commenter added that even
if stack testing could reasonably be accomplished to support emission
limitations, modifying dozens of mixers to allow compliance testing,
and then conducting enough stack tests on each of those mixers to be
assured that measured emissions fall below the emissions limitations,
would itself be impracticable.
The commenter argued that mixers, therefore, present a clear
example of a type of source for which the measurement of emissions is
not practicable due to technological or economic factors, and so work
practice standards are authorized and appropriate under CAA section
112(h). The commenter argues that the impracticability of measuring
(for purposes of establishing emission limitations, or for purposes of
determining compliance) emissions that vary widely over time and over
the variety of products manufactured is precisely the kind of situation
in which the EPA can and should use work practice standards. As an
example, the commenter refers to the EPA rulemaking setting MACT
standards for periodic [batch] brick kilns, where the EPA concluded
that work standards were appropriate due to the wide variety in
emissions over time and products manufactured.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the
EPA should recognize that conditions at rubber mixers warrant the
establishment of work practice standards in lieu of numerical emissions
limits. CAA section 112(h) provides, in pertinent part, that the EPA
may establish a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard if it is ``not feasible'' for EPA to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) further clarifies that the
phrase ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard''
includes situations in which ``a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit
or capture such pollutant . . .''
The EPA acknowledges that, like many other regulated source
categories, rubber processing is a ``batch'' process. However, as
stated in the 2020 RTR (85 FR 44752), rubber processing is a continuous
batch operation which generates more consistent emissions than other
batch processes.
[[Page 94896]]
Additionally, a 15-day average inherently reduces the effect of
emissions variability and allows owners and operators to determine
whether it is necessary to install and operate a control device, such
as an RTO, to ensure that the emission limit is met at all times. As
verified in the responses to phase I of the ICR, all mixers route to
stacks which can and should be used for testing and for emissions
measurements to establish appropriate emission limits for the rubber
processing subcategory. As such, since rubber processing operations
emissions are, or are capable of being, routed to stacks, these
operations do not satisfy the requirement described in CAA section
112(h)(2)(A).
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the test results at
Continental mixers 12 and 22 in 2019 support the need for a work
practice standard. The test results cited by commenters were obtained
over relatively short test runs of only 3 hours per test condition. The
EPA acknowledges that individual mixers will exhibit variable
emissions, depending on the material being mixed and the pass of the
material through the mixer, and this was also shown in the phase II
emissions testing conducted to support this rulemaking. However, the
EPA has specifically addressed the issue of emissions variability by
establishing the standards based on a 15-day average THC emission rate,
rather than on short-term testing.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that rubber
processing is comparable to periodic [batch] brick kilns. Unlike the
process of rubber tire production, brick kilns are truly batch
processes that may take from between several days to nearly a week (or
more) to complete, whereas rubber processing is a continuous batch
process where each batch takes only a few minutes, then another batch
is mixed allowing for more steady emissions. Therefore, the type of
scenario described by commentors (whereby they claim that the process
with the highest emissions could result in exceeding the limit seven-
fold) is not expected to occur during normal business operations. In
addition, the HAP of concern (and their potential surrogates) for
periodic brick kilns cannot be easily measured on a continuous basis,
whereas THC can be monitored continuously with a CEMS. Therefore, the
situations are not comparable.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's decision to
regulate organic HAP through the use of THC as a surrogate instead of
developing a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard
under CAA section 112(h) because measurement of organic HAP emissions
from mixing is infeasible. The commenter argued that the EPA ignored
process information and emissions testing, provided by USTMA members,
that showed THC is not an appropriate surrogate because it is affected
primarily by emissions of pollutants that are not classified as HAPs.
The commenter stated that organic HAP testing required by the EPA
through the ICR, as well as additional testing conducted at numerous
USTMA member mixers, demonstrated that organic HAP emissions are not
correlated with THC emissions and that HAP emissions are affected by
different factors. The commenter argued that, unlike the instances in
which the EPA's use of surrogate emission limitations has been upheld
by the court, in the Rubber Processing affected source subcategory,
even the ``MACT floor'' best performer mixers sometimes do not have
emission control technologies in place that reduce either organic HAPs
or THC, nor is there some aspect of the mixing process that can be
controlled that affects THC and organic HAPs similarly, such as how
controlling incomplete combustion in a boiler affects both carbon
monoxide and organic HAP emissions.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that THC
is not a viable surrogate for organic HAP. We have long recognized that
regulation by surrogate is appropriate, so long as controlling
emissions of the surrogate achieves the Act's requirement to limit
emissions of corresponding HAPs. See Sierra Club v EPA, 863 F.3d at 838
(D.C. Cir. 2017); U.S. Sugar v EPA, 830 F.3d at 628 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
EPA acknowledges the commenter provided additional data relevant to
a relationship between THC and volatile organic HAP. However, data
provided by the commenter only shows limited data, whereas historical
testing (e.g., HAP data collected by a predecessor rubber tire
manufacturing trade organization to support the development of AP-42
emission factors) shows over 40 organic HAP emitted from a bench scale
mixing operation.
Additionally, upon further review the data submitted relevant to
the relationship between THC and volatile organic HAP was done in short
3 run tests, unlike the 30 days of continuous THC data collected as
part of ICR. As the commenter has stated throughout their comment
document, emissions are variable, thus a simple 3 run test for THC is
not likely to take variability into account, unlike the 30-day
continuous THC data used to set the MACT floor. Additionally, the ICR
required concurrent testing for both semi-volatile organic compounds
and THC; however, the data supplied by the commenter were not collected
concurrently, greatly reducing, if not eliminating, their suitability
for showing a correlation between the datasets due to differing
operation conditions during data collection. Finally, the data
collected by the commenter were not certified according to the
requirements of the ICR. For these reasons, the EPA is unable to assess
the usefulness or suitability of the data collected and submitted by
the commenter regarding the relationship between THC and organic HAP.
The commenter is expecting a single shared correlation to exist
across all sources; however, the EPA believes each source will have its
own individual relationship between organic HAP and THC. The figure
below provides an example, showing the relationship between the
concurrently-collected organic HAP and THC data obtained from the best-
performing THC source (Continental Mt. Vernon Mixer 22). These data
were collected, certified, and submitted by that source.\12\ Note that
THC increases as organic HAP increases and that the relationship has an
R-squared value of 0.959, which indicates a very high correlation
between the THC and organic HAP measurements.\13\ Although the EPA only
has concurrent organic HAP and THC data from the best performing
source, we expect, based on the data before us, that the better
performing sources would exhibit similarly high correlations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See test reports for Continental Mixer 22, Goodyear Lawson
Mixer 1, Goodyear Fayetteville Mixer 8, Goodyear Danville Mixer 7,
Michelin Mixer 81, and Cooper Mixer 9. Note that Goodyear
Fayetteville Mixer 8 and Goodyear Lawson Mixer 1 data are separated
according to Belt, Tread, and Mixer categories.
\13\ R-squared values shows the relationship between two
variable (THC and organic HAP). Generally, R-squared values range
from 0 to 1. A value of 0 implies that there is no relationship,
while a value of 1indicates a direct relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94897]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.000
Figure 1. Relationship between Organic HAP and THC for the best
performing source.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ THC vs Organic HAP tables are available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case THC encompasses all relevant organic HAP emitted.
Additionally, by using a control device such as an RTO, which is
currently operated in the source category and which meets minimum
temperature, loading, and retention times, one can reasonably conclude
that the associated organic HAP is also being controlled. VOC
destruction (which includes organic HAP) efficiencies range from 95 to
99 percent, according to EPA's Air Pollution Control Technology Fact
Sheet.\15\ Although combustion is a complex process that can produce
some HAP, it is well documented that the use of an RTO is an effective
way to reduce organic HAP.\16\ While the use of RTOs does have
secondary impacts,\17\ the EPA expects few HAP emissions created as a
result of combustion in an RTO: the EPA's experience for any such
created HAP is that they are below current detection levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See EPA's Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA-452/
F-03-021, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1008OH5.PDF.
\16\ See EPA's Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA-452/F-03-022,
availabe at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020/11/documents/thermal.pdf.
\17\ See the memorandum Final Rule--Rubber Processing Control
Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness available in the
docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the EPA believes THC is both a reasonable and viable
surrogate to represent organic HAP emitted from rubber processing.
Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA cannot subcategorize an
industry category based on factors that are unrelated to HAP emissions,
including whether silica is an ingredient in the rubber compound being
mixed, whether the mixer has high emissions of a non-HAP (THC), or
whether the mixer already has a particular type of control technology.
The commenter stated that USTMA's supplemental testing shows that high
emissions of THC are not correlated with high emissions of organic
HAPs, and thus the EPA should not subcategorize mixers or set different
limitations for mixers where silica is used in the compound being mixed
based on the perception that this leads to higher THC emissions. The
commenter added that even if subcategorizing were appropriate because
of higher THC emissions associated with the silanization reaction when
mixing high-silica tread compounds and silane coupling agents under
certain operating conditions, the limits should apply only when silane
coupling agents are being introduced under such operating conditions.
The commenter argued subcategories should not be based solely on the
presence of silica as an ingredient, because the presence of silica as
an ingredient on its own (without silane coupling agents) is not
expected to contribute to higher THC or organic HAP emissions, and this
was confirmed by the emissions data the EPA collected through the ICR
testing and supplemental emission testing at USTMA member facilities.
The commenter argued that the EPA's derivation of MACT floor
emission limitations for THC fails to meet the statutory directive
because the EPA ignored ``emissions information'' that CAA section
112(d)(3) requires it to consider, which shows that less than 12
percent of existing mixers achieve an emission limitation reflective of
RTO controls, because only 4 percent of mixers are routed continuously
to an RTO. The commenter asserted that while additional mixers are
controlled intermittently with an RTO, RTO control does not represent
an ``emission limitation achieved'' by those additional mixers, since
an emission limitation, by statutory definition and as interpreted by
the Court and by the EPA, is only a level of control that is achieved
on a continuous basis.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's statement that an
increase in THC emissions is attributed to the addition of both silica
and the silane coupling agent (forms bonds between organic and
inorganic materials). Upon further evaluation, the EPA agrees there are
factors other than just the addition of silica, such as the inclusion
of a silane coupling agent, variations in raw materials used, and type
of rubber being processed, that create different emission profiles. In
response, the EPA decided to set a single standard for THC emissions
from mixers for the final rule.
[[Page 94898]]
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the EPA
selected separate standards based on what processes were currently
controlled. As stated in the proposal, the EPA determined it was
appropriate to set separate standards for silica-containing batches and
non-silica-containing batches due to expected different emission
profiles between the 2 processes that use different raw materials,
because the addition of silica leads to chemical reactions producing
additional organics. The expected increase in organics for silica-
containing batches is represented by higher levels of THC emissions
compared to non-silica batches.
Furthermore, the standard based on the application of RTOs as a
control technology satisfies the CAA's requirement that an emission
limitation or standard apply continuously. Commenters misstate the
statutory requirements, suggesting that a control technology must be
used continuously for an emission standard to be valid. This is
incorrect; commenter's position conflates the requirement that a
standard apply continuously with the notion that a control technology,
or tool used to achieve that standard, apply, or be operated
continuously. In this MACT Final Rule, the EPA determined that one
standard will apply to all units. The requirement to meet this standard
is ``continuous,'' in that regulated parties must demonstrate
compliance with the emission rate standards at all times (i.e., there
are no exceptions for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction).
However, a regulated party need not operate an RTO, if the regulated
party can demonstrate compliance with the emission rate standard. This
is consistent with other emission standards, in that a regulated party
is generally not required to conform to any specific control
technology, provided they demonstrate compliance with the emission
standard at all times.
The EPA disagrees that our MACT floor emissions limitation for THC
failed to meet the statutory directive. The CAA provides specific
guidance for setting MACT standards for source categories which include
setting the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing
12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has
emissions information). For this source category, the EPA only received
emissions data from 17 mixers, and data from only 12 mixers represented
actual THC emissions after the application of any controls (THC data
from five mixers were collected before an RTO and EPA was unable to
accurately estimate values for their emissions after being controlled
by an RTO); therefore, the EPA set the MACT standard for THC using the
actual THC emissions data from the 12 mixers that were made available
to the Administrator as the CAA requires.
Comment: One commenter stated that tire plants typically have a
number of mixers, which may be used for different purposes on different
days or even different portions of a day, and tire plants must have the
flexibility with the mixers to produce the rubber needed for various
processes within the Tire Production affected source, in the quantities
involved and on the time schedule involved.
The commenter argued that the proposed rule treats the mixers as if
each one operated entirely independently of other mixers at the plant
and would not recognize the interplay among mixer exhaust points,
requiring each mixer exhaust to demonstrate compliance with an
identical emission limitation.
The commenter recommended that instead, numerical emission
limitations for THC should be expressed as the overall average of
pounds of THC emissions per ton of rubber processed for all mixers at
the plant. The commenter suggested this would recognize that mixers are
used in an interrelated way, and it would allow tire plants to more
cost-effectively optimize controls to prevent excessive emissions
across the entire facility. The commenter noted that the EPA has taken
this approach for numerous other source categories and averaged
emissions would still reflect MACT.
The commenter added that expressing a THC numerical emission
limitation as an overall average for all mixers at a plant would allow
plants to optimize their investments by installing controls on units
where lower emissions can be most cost effective, facilitate pollution
prevention innovations, and facilitate tire plants developing measures
that reduce organic HAP emissions by taking advantage of the
interconnectedness of mixers in ways that might, for example, affect
emissions only from particular compounds or particular passes. Finally,
the commenter noted that emissions averaging may also allow for control
options that benefit the environment by minimizing energy use.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that a facility wide-
average emission limit for mixers is an appropriate approach to account
for variability in emissions among mixers and to provide flexibility in
demonstrating compliance. In response to the comment, the EPA has added
an alternative compliance option for THC that allows facilities to
average their emissions at all mixers at an individual facility to meet
the emission limit. (The EPA has allowed a similar option for
demonstrating compliance with the limits for fPM described below in
section IV.B. of this preamble.)
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule?
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88
FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in
section IV.A.3. of this preamble, we are finalizing the emission limits
for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP from rubber processing as
proposed, but with several changes since proposal. First, we are
establishing a single emission limit for THC without separate emission
limits for subcategories for mixing silica-containing and non-silica-
containing compounds to reflect the fact that variables other than
silica affect emissions, such as the inclusion of a silane coupling
agent, variations in raw materials used, and type of rubber being
processed. Therefore, the EPA determined it was not appropriate to
separate emission limits by silica and non-silica. Additionally, by
setting a single emission limit instead of two separate emission
limits, the compliance demonstration for facilities that mix multiple
compounds in the same mixer at different times will be significantly
simplified. Second, upon additional review of the data and new
knowledge of emission range that contributes to the calculation of
3xRDL, we are revising the THC emission limit for new and existing
rubber processing affected sources so that it is equal to the 3xRDL
value for THC emission measurements calculated from the available
testing data. The same 3xRDL value will apply to both new and existing
rubber processing affected sources, and the 3xRDL value in the final
rule is higher than the proposed THC emission limits for new and
existing sources for both silica-containing and non-silica-containing
batches. Third, in response to comments, we are allowing owners and
operators to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limit by
using facility-wide averaging among mixers within a single facility.
For each 15-day compliance period, the owner or operator would
demonstrate compliance using averaging by summing the mass of emissions
from the mixers included in the average over that period and dividing
that sum by the sum of the rubber produced from the same mixers over
the same period. This change results in reducing reporting burden and
[[Page 94899]]
accounts for additional variability across the source category.
B. Emission Standards for Unregulated Metal HAP Emissions From the
Rubber Processing Subcategory
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
Based on responses to the CAA section 114 information request, the
EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and of those metal HAP data from 5 of
the mixers. The EPA had no reason to assume a difference in fPM and
metal HAP emissions based on the mixing of silica-containing or non-
silica-containing compounds, as silica was expected to cause an
increase in organic emissions, which does not impact PM. Thus, a single
emission standard was proposed for mixing of all rubber compounds. For
each mixer, the EPA calculated the 99 percent UPL for both fPM and the
sum of the metal HAP that were measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
phosphorus, and selenium). The CAA requires the EPA to determine the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has information)
when establishing the MACT floor level of control. There are an
estimated 97 mixers in the source category, and the MACT floor is
calculated using data from the top performing 12 percent of mixers for
which we have data. At proposal, the EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and
of those metal HAP data for 5 of the mixers. The EPA calculated 12
percent of 7 mixers (fPM) and 12 percent of 5 mixers (metal HAP) which
results in 0.84 and 0.6, respectively. When determining the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources for the MACT floor pool, we
rounded the fractional amounts to the next whole number of mixers. In
this instance, we rounded up to one mixer for purposes of determining
the existing source MACT floors for both the fPM and metal HAP emission
limits.
When setting new source MACT floors, the emission limit is achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar source. As a result, the
MACT floors for both new and existing sources are based on the best
performing existing source. Based on responses to the CAA section 114
information request, all mixers in this subcategory are controlled by a
baghouse or similar control devices which control PM emissions.
To account for variability in the rubber processing operations and
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the PM
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL.
We calculated the MACT floor UPL emission rate for fPM as 1.7 g/Mg
(3,410 pounds per million tons (lb/Mton)) rubber produced, and a total
metal HAP UPL emission rate of 0.037 g/Mg (74.1 lb/Mton) rubber
produced. The lowest fPM emission rate and the lowest metal HAP
emission rate were measured at the same mixer, and the fPM and metal
HAP emissions were measured simultaneously. Because metal HAP are
emitted as fPM, the EPA proposed an emission limit for fPM as a
surrogate for metal HAP, and also an alternative emission limit for
total metal HAP itself. The baghouses that are used to capture fPM will
also reliably capture metal HAP, and the fPM emission limit accounts
for variability in individual metal HAP emission rates among different
batches of rubber compound being mixed.
Because the proposed standards for new and existing sources are
based on the best performing mixer, which is already controlled by a
baghouse, and no more effective controls than a baghouse for PM or
metal HAP are in use or were identified, we did not identify any
beyond-the-floor options to evaluate for either existing or new mixers.
2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
Since proposal, the EPA has received additional fPM data for 3
mixers (bringing the total to 10) and has recalculated the MACT floor
to include the additional data and has also recalculated the 3xRDL
values for fPM and metal HAP. (The EPA also received fPM data for a
fourth additional mixer in the public comments, but those data did not
include the production data needed to calculate emissions per mass of
rubber processed, so the fourth mixer could not be included in the
final rule MACT analysis.) The final rule limits for fPM and metal HAP
have been increased since proposal. The existing source MACT floor UPL
has been recalculated using the combined data from the 2 lowest
emitting mixers because they represent 12 percent of the 10 mixers for
which the Administrator now has fPM data. The EPA has also recalculated
the 3xRDL value to reflect the higher number of sources for which the
Administrator has data.
The final rule limits for fPM and metal HAP also include the option
of facility-wide averaging among mixers to demonstrate compliance.
3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should find that HAP
metals emissions from mixers are already controlled and are incidental
to the very efficient dust control measures that are an integral part
of mixing operations for materials recovery purposes and safety
reasons, and therefore there is no ``gap'' that is ``necessary'' for
the EPA to fill under CAA section 112(d)(6), as the EPA effectively
already recognized in the 2020 RTR rulemaking. The commenter asserted
it is inappropriate to impose additional costs for essentially no
benefit, since metals emissions from mixing are already low, often
below detection limits, and the EPA has already determined the residual
risk from metals emissions from all processes at tire plants is
acceptable. However, the commenter agreed that if the EPA nevertheless
imposes new limits on HAP metal emissions from mixing, then total fPM
is an appropriate surrogate, and establishing alternative emission
limitations for HAP metals as the EPA proposed is permissible under the
CAA.
The commenter also argued that the EPA should base the MACT floor
for fPM on more than just a single mixer and supplied additional
particulate test data from which the EPA could calculate a fPM emission
limitation substantially higher than what the EPA proposed.
Response: The EPA disagrees that there is no ``gap'' in the
standards for metal HAPs. While mixers operate baghouses to control
nuisance PM, the current MACT standard does not specifically regulate
emissions of metal HAP or the fPM surrogate from mixers. Metal HAPs
emitted during rubber processing include, antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
phosphorus, and selenium.
The court in National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34
(D.C. Cir. 2000), found that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA to set
emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted from each listed major
source category (or subcategory). The court in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479
F.3d 875, 878 (D.C. Cir. 2007) confirmed the prior holding in National
Lime Association that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA
[[Page 94900]]
to set emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted from each listed
major source category (or subcategory). Additionally, the LEAN decision
requires that when the EPA undertakes a 112(d)(6) technology review, it
must set a MACT standard for previously unregulated pollutants, even if
there is a prior risk assessment that identifies the risk from those
pollutants as ``low.'' \18\ This requirement, that the EPA address all
enumerated air toxic pollutants, is applicable to the EPA regardless of
any findings that the EPA has made regarding the risk posed by the
expected emission levels from those currently unregulated pollutants,
or other cited considerations from commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See LEAN, 955 F.3d 1088 at 109 (``We hold that . . . EPA's
section 112(d)(6) review of a source category's emission standard
must address all listed air toxics the source category emits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA does not authorize the EPA to decline to set the emission
limits required by 112(d)(1) because a risk assessment under 112(f)(2)
finds that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety. It
is clear that Congress intended the EPA to set technology-based
standards that address all emitted HAP, and the EPA does not agree that
the absence of such limits in an existing NESHAP justifies a decision
at this point not to address all emitted HAP from a major source.
Additionally, the CAA provides specific guidance for setting MACT
standards for source categories, which includes setting the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the
existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions
information). For this source category the EPA received fPM emissions
data from 7 mixers before proposal and from 3 more mixers since
proposal that could be used to calculate UPL values for each mixer.
Therefore, for the proposed rule, the EPA set the MACT standard using
the top 12 percent of the 7 mixers data (i.e., the best performing
mixer) that was made available to the administrator at proposal, as the
act requires. However, after proposal the EPA received additional fPM
data representing 4 more mixers, including 3 mixers with enough data to
calculate a UPL value. (The data for one mixer included only 2 runs.)
For the final rule, the EPA has recalculated the MACT floor for
existing sources using the data from the 2 best performing mixers, but
the MACT floor for new sources is still equal to the best performing
source. The MACT floor fPM UPL emission limit for existing sources from
the combined data for the 2 lowest emitters is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 x 10\3\
lb/Mton). However, the recalculated 3xRDL from the same 2 mixers is
equal to 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 x 10\3\ lb/Mton).
The EPA acknowledges the commenter agrees with the EPA that fPM is
an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals, noting that fPM contains HAP
metals and that fPM control devices such as baghouses also collect HAP
metals, just as THC emissions contain organic HAP and that THC control
devices such as thermal oxidizers also control organic HAP emissions.
This rule correctly applies statutory requirements, consistent with
past Agency practice, to select the best performing source and to
calculate appropriate emission limits. In keeping with regulatory
requirements and past Agency practice, this rule applies techniques to
ensure source owners or operators can determine compliance with the
rule on a continuous basis. While use of PM CEMS could provide this
information, the rule allows the use of bag leak detection system
(BLDS) parameter measurement to supply data upon which compliance can
be determined. The commenter's assertion that mixer emissions are too
variable and should escape regulation appears to disregard the use of a
15-day averaging period, which, as described earlier, smooths out
production and emissions spikes and dips. Contrary to the commenter's
view, BLDS parameters provide a better description of ongoing baghouse
operation than the typical baghouse continuous parameters of pressure
drop and flow rate, which typically only show catastrophic failure.
Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA must base the fPM
emission limitations on stack tests conducted while mixing
nonproductive rubber. The commenter stated that the EPA has long
recognized that the majority of emissions from rubber mixing occur
during nonproductive passes, such as in the documentation supporting
the AP-42 emission factors for rubber tire manufacturing. The commenter
noted that most of the raw materials are added during the nonproductive
passes, so one would expect that fPM emissions during nonproductive
passes are greater than during mixing of productive rubber. The
commenter noted that the available fPM emissions data from both the ICR
testing and the additional fPM stack testing data submitted by the
commenter show that fPM emissions were higher when mixing non-
productive passes: over twice as high on a concentration basis and over
5 times higher on a mass of fPM per mass of rubber processed basis.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The commenter cited the data presented on pages 4-6 of
Attachment 4 of docket item EPA&HQ-OAR-19-0132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter asserted that MACT floor emissions must represent an
emissions rate that the best performers can achieve under the worst-
case conditions,\20\ and an fPM emission limitation based on what the
best performers achieve during productive passes would not reflect what
those mixers can achieve during non-productive passes. The commenter
stated that a majority of mixers at major-source tire plants either are
presently used or could be used for non-productive passes, and non-
productive mixing is essential for processing rubber for rubber tire
components. The commenter added that the EPA would have to conduct
additional fPM emissions testing and data collection and re-propose if
the EPA wanted to create 2 subcategories of mixers for productive and
non-productive rubber fPM emission limitations. Thus, according to the
commenter, the EPA must establish fPM surrogate emissions limitations
based only on testing that occurred while mixing non-productive rubber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The commenter cited, e.g., National Ass'n of Clean Water
Agencies v . EPA, F.3d 1115, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (``[A]s we
explained in Sierra Club, it is reasonable to expect that the
incinerator on which the MACT floors are based should be able to `in
practice,' which it could not do unless `achieved in practice' meant
`achieved under the worst forseeable circumstancfes,' '') (internal
citations omitted); Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370
F.3d 1232 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (``[E]ven the best performing
sources occasionally have spikes, and under the standard, each
facility must meet the 400 ppm standard every day and under all
operating conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA disagrees that the final rule limit cannot be
achieved by sources during the mixing of non-productive rubber passes.
The emission standard was developed based on data submitted to EPA by
regulated parties, and the emission standard is therefore ``achieved in
practice'' by the best controlled similar source. See CAA section
112(d)(3). In the data provided by USTMA in Attachment 6 to their
comments, Goodyear Mt. Vernon Mixer #14 achieved an average emission
rate of 2.3 g/Mg while mixing non-productive rubber on all 3 passes. As
explained above in the response to comments in this same section, the
EPA has revised the fPM limit in the final rule to 3.0 g/Mg and added
facility wide averaging allowing for increased flexibility to account
for variability in emissions. Therefore, the final rule emission limits
are achievable during the mixing of non-productive rubber on
[[Page 94901]]
all passes.. For a detailed discussion of the EPA stance on worst-case
performance, see section IV.c. of the Response to Comments document
found in the docket for this rule.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule?
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88
FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in
section IV.B.3. of this preamble, we are promulgating emission limits
for fPM from rubber processing with several changes since proposal.
First, we are revising the emission limit for both fPM and metal HAP.
For fPM, we are basing the existing source MACT floor on the average
performance of the 2 lowest emitting sources instead of the single
lowest emitting source because we have more fPM data than at proposal.
We have fPM data for 10 mixers and 12 percent of 10 is 1.2, which is
rounded up to 2 mixers. The UPL calculated for the combined data for
the 2 lowest emitting mixers is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 x 10\3\ lb/Mton) rubber
produced.
We have also recalculated the 3xRDL value to reflect the higher
number of mixers for which the Administrator has data. The 3xRDL value
recalculated for the final rule is 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 x 10\3\ lb/Mton)
rubber produced. Because this value is higher than the revised UPL
value(s) for new and existing sources, the final rule is based on the
3xRDL values for fPM.
C. Emission Testing and Compliance Demonstrations
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
The EPA proposed that facilities demonstrate compliance with the
THC emission limits by monitoring the emissions from each mixer with a
CEMS and also monitoring production and calculating the emission rate
in grams THC per megagram rubber produced (g/Mg) on a 15-day rolling
average. The EPA proposed that compliance would be demonstrated for
each mixer separately.
The EPA also proposed that THC emissions would be measured at the
outlet for each RTO on a 5-year interval and during the testing
operating limits would be established for each RTO.
The EPA proposed that facilities could choose to comply with either
the emission limit for fPM or the alternative emission limit for total
metal HAP and, accordingly, measure fPM emissions using EPA Method 5 or
the metal HAP emissions using EPA Method 29. The fPM or metal HAP
measurements would be required every 5 years. For each baghouse, owners
and operators would need to install and operate a bag leak detection
system.
2. How did the analysis pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
change for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category?
The final rule will allow facilities to average among mixers to
demonstrate compliance with both the THC and fPM or metal HAP emission
limits. The final rule does not include the requirement to perform a
THC compliance test every 5 years and does not require the facility to
establish and comply with operating limits for the RTO, but instead
requires the use of THC CEMS. The other proposed emission testing and
monitoring compliance requirements have been retained in the final
rule.
3. What key comments did we receive on the analysis pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should not require
multiple THC CEMS at each mixer exhaust point instead of allowing for
measurement of THC emissions at the actual point at which they exhaust
to the atmosphere. The commenter suggested that this approach would
reduce the number of THC CEMS required and also eliminate the need for
continuous monitoring of RTO combustion temperature and a 5-year repeat
performance test using Method 25A. The commenter added that if the EPA
requires use of CEMS for compliance, then parameter monitoring, and a
5-year repeat performance test are not needed.
Response: The EPA recognizes that because sources will be operating
THC CEMS that will continuously record the THC concentration in the
emissions at the stack, there is no need to require operating limits
for the RTOs (e.g., operating temperature) if an RTO is being used for
compliance and there is similarly no need for a periodic (e.g., every 5
years) performance test of the RTO. Therefore, the operating limits for
RTOs and the periodic THC testing requirement have been removed from
the final rule.
In addition, as explained above in section IV.A., the final rule
will allow for demonstrating compliance with facility-wide emission
limits for THC, which will also allow for use of a single THC CEMS at
the exhaust point for combined mixer exhausts and reduce the number of
THC CEMS needed.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the proposal to require BLDS
as the continuous compliance demonstration method for the proposed PM
emission limit for rubber processing because they were not justified by
the current fPM and metal HAP from particulate controls on mixers and
the EPA has not justified them as a beyond-the-floor technology.
The commenter reported that no BLDS are currently installed at
rubber processing facilities, and over 100 BLDS will need to be
installed as a result of the proposed requirement, resulting in
additional capital costs not only for the monitors and data acquisition
and handling system, but also for stack/duct modifications to
accommodate a monitor. The commenter noted that the EPA has estimated
that the proposed standards will result in a reduction of only 318 lb
of metal HAP per year and asserted that installation of a complicated
monitoring system that is not currently in use in the industry is not
reasonable for the expected HAP reduction. The commenter stated that
facilities currently employ pressure drop and/or visible emissions
observations along with a program of regular internal and external
inspections and maintenance of the duct work and baghouse to ensure
compliance with PM limits in their air permits.
The commenter recommended that the EPA should replace the
requirement for BLDS with the use of baghouse pressure drop or twice
daily visible emissions monitoring to ensure baghouses are operating
properly as the continuous compliance determination method.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to rely
on continuous parameter monitoring other than that associated with
BLDS; those other parameters--including visible emissions, flow rate,
or pressure drop--do not provide relevant information quickly enough to
correct problems before emission limits may be compromised. For
example, the commenter mentions twice daily visible emission checks;
such an approach is not continuous and detection with the human eye is
only possible at 5 percent opacity and above. As a result, lower
opacities may yield fPM values that exceed the emission limits but
would occur undetected by visible emission checks. As mentioned
earlier, flow rate and pressure drop across baghouses can indicate
catastrophic failures, but not provide information to preclude baghouse
problems before exceedances occur. Of course, owners or operators could
use PM CEMS in lieu of BLDS; PM CEMS would provide direct, continuous
measurement of the
[[Page 94902]]
pollutant of concern and would enable source owners or operators to
forgo any type of fPM control device parameter monitoring. Using the
process in the NESHAP general provisions, mentioned earlier, owners or
operators could request--and expect to receive--approval from the EPA
for use of PM CEMS for rule compliance purposes.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final rule?
For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (88
FR 78692, November 16, 2023), and in the comment responses above in
section IV.C.3. of this preamble, we are finalizing emission testing
and compliance demonstration requirements as proposed, but with several
changes since proposal.
First, the EPA has removed the requirement for a periodic THC
compliance test and compliance with THC operating limits and monitoring
(e.g., RTO operating temperature) because THC emissions will be
continuously monitored by a THC CEMS. The final rule will also allow
for demonstrating compliance with facility-wide emission limits for
THC, which will also allow for use of a single THC CEMS at the exhaust
point for combined mixer exhausts and reduce the number of THC CEMS
needed.
Second, the EPA believes requiring BLDS will provide significantly
more accurate and continuous feedback on the operation of a baghouse
and can provide an earlier indication of potential bag leaks compared
to the requested visible emission inspections.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
As listed in CFR 63.5982 (b)(4), the rubber processing affected
source is the collection of all rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys
and associated drop mills) that either mix compounds or warm a rubber
compound before the compound is processed into components of rubber
tires. The mixed rubber compound itself is also included in the rubber
processing affected source. Among the 15 major sources that are subject
to the NESHAP, 12 facilities perform rubber processing, while 3
facilities do not perform rubber processing and use rubber that is
processed at other facilities.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
This action proposes first-time MACT floor-based emission standards
for THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP), metal HAP, and fPM from
rubber processing. These first-time MACT standards will limit HAP
emissions and require, in some cases, the installation of additional
controls at rubber tire manufacturing plants that are major sources of
HAP. We estimate that the rubber tire manufacturing industry will
comply with the final standards for THC, metal HAP, and fPM through the
installation and operation of control devices.
For THC, we estimate that the installation of RTOs or similar
control devices will achieve annual reductions of THC of 94 Mg (104
tons) across the source category.
For fPM and metal HAP, we estimate that the replacement or upgrade
of baghouses will achieve annual reductions of fPM of 61 Mg (67 tons)
or 0.073 Mg (160 lb) of total metal HAP (antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
phosphorous, and selenium) across the source category.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased energy usage associated with the operation of
control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria
pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts are due to use of natural
gas needed to operate control devices and other equipment. We conclude
that the secondary impacts of this action are minimal, resulting from
the operation of the control device, and would comprise CO2
and methane (CH4) emissions from the combustion of the
natural gas required to operate an RTO. For purposes of assessing the
projected disbenefits, we estimate that the monetized disbenefits would
be no greater than $8.1 million in any year, with estimates ranging
from $2.7 million to $8.1 million per year depending on the discount
rate assumption.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This range of disbenefit estimates is presented in 2022
dollars and was calculating by multiplying the social cost of carbon
(SC-CO2) by 17,536 metric tons of CO2e reductions for
each year in the timeframe of 2027 to 2036. We applied near-term
Ramsey discount rates of 2.5 percent, 2.0 percent, and 1.5
percent,and found that the largest disbenefit estimate was 2036 when
using a 1.5 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate. Additional
information on the social cost of carbon and an EPA workbook for
applying SC-CO2 estimates is found here: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final rule, we estimate that 8 new RTOs would be needed and
each RTO would consume about 29,800 thousand standard feet (mscf) per
year of natural gas and 1.33 million kilowatt hours per year of
electricity. For all 8 new RTOs, the indirect greenhouse gas emissions
of CO2 and CH4 from the combustion of the natural
gas and the generation of electricity would be equivalent to 19,330
tons (17,536 Mg) of CO2 emissions.
C. What are the cost impacts?
This action proposes MACT floor-based emission limits for new and
existing sources in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category,
specifically the rubber processing subcategory. Although the action
contains requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new
sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years and we are
not aware of any new additional mixers to existing facilities.
Consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. We
estimate the total annualized cost of the final rule to existing
sources in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category to be $13.3
million per year. The costs are a combination of the annualized capital
and annual operating costs for installing and operating RTOs or similar
control devices to control THC and organic HAP; baghouses and
associated BLDSs to control fPM and metal HAP; and THC CEMS to monitor
THC emissions. The capital and annual costs are summarized in table 2.
Table 2--Summary of Capital and Annual Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Total capital equipment and
Cost element investments operation and
(million) maintenance
costs (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTOs (8 new).......................... $25.0 $4.9
[[Page 94903]]
THC CEMS (97 CEMS).................... 14.0 4.2
---------------------------------
Total Annual RTO and CEMS Costs... .............. 9.1
New Baghouses (46 mixers)............. 19.6 2.0
Retrofitted Baghouses (new bags; 34 .............. 0.5
mixers)..............................
BLDS and PM Testing (114 BLDS)........ 2.54 1.7
Total Annual Baghouse, BLDS, and .............. 4.2
PM Testing Costs.................
---------------------------------
Totals............................ .............. 13.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated annual costs are based on operation and maintenance
of the added control systems. A memorandum titled Final Rule Rubber
Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, And Cost Effectiveness,
includes details of our cost assessment, and is included in the docket
for this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for the final rule in
the report titled Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Amendments, Final, which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). The economic impacts of the final
rule are calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs
incurred by affected ultimate parent owners compared to their revenues.
This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate
parent owners of facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We
estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by this final
rule will incur total annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of their
revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies
and the industry impacted by the final rule, and there will not be
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. We lack the
information necessary to independently assess the downtime loss of
production due to capital improvements or deferred maintenance that
would be associated with these controls for each affected facility. The
costs of the final rule are not expected to result in a significant
market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the
purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
The benefits of this rule include any benefits relating to the
reduction of emissions of organic HAP and fPM. The rule is projected to
reduce emissions of THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP, and fPM, as a
surrogate for metal HAP, through the installation and operation of
control devices. The reduction in fPM can also result in associated
reduction in PM-related mortality and morbidity.
The EPA is currently unable to monetize most benefits associated
with HAP reductions. The potential benefits from reducing THC were not
monetized and are therefore not reflected in the benefit estimates
associated with this rulemaking. However, we estimate that the final
rule amendments would reduce THC emissions by 104 tons/yr and metal HAP
emissions by 160 lb/yr and thus lower risk of serious adverse health
effects from exposure to certain HAPs in communities near rubber tire
manufacturing plants. It is reasonable to expect that emissions
reductions from this rule will improve air quality and public health
for populations exposed to emissions from rubber tire manufacturing
facilities. Due to methodology and data limitations, we could not
monetize the health benefits of HAP reductions for this final
rulemaking.
Although we are unable to quantify the benefits of reducing HAPs
from this rulemaking, we are providing a qualitative assessment of the
benefits of reducing both organic and metal HAPs. This is detailed in
section 4 of Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Amendments, Final, which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392). These HAPs include, but are not
limited to, the following: organic HAPs such as 2-butanone,
acetophenone, cumene, hexane, isooctane, methylene chloride, phenol,
toluene, and xylene, and metal HAPs such as antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
phosphorus, and selenium.
The control measures are expected to reduce fPM by 66.7 tons/yr for
the source category. Any monetization of PM-related health benefits
would require the EPA to assume the percentage of fPM that is
PM2.5. As the percentage of the fPM reductions that is
PM2.5 is unknown, it is too uncertain to estimate the PM-
related benefit impacts of this rule. For purposes of assessing the
economic significance of these benefits, we can determine that if all
of the fPM were PM2.5, the annual benefits would be
estimated to be no greater than $24 million, occurring in 2028.\22\
Therefore, this action is not economically significant based on benefit
impacts. This rule is expected to limit emissions of directly emitted
PM2.5, which may will in turn reduce ambient concentrations
of PM2.5 and in turn benefit public health. Though EPA
neither quantified nor monetized these benefits, we anticipate reducing
PM2.5 concentrations will reduce the incidence or premature
death, non-fatal heart attacks, cases of aggravated asthma, lost days
of work and school and other adverse effects (U.S. EPA, 2022).\23\ This
rule is also expected to
[[Page 94904]]
reduce emissions of Hg. Methylmercury (MeHg), which is formed by
microbial action in the top layers of sediment and soils, after mercury
has precipitated from the air and deposited into waterbodies or land,
can cause a number of adverse effects when impacting fishes associated
with recreational or commercial consumption and present at sufficiently
elevated levels. Though not quantified here, these effects include IQ
loss measured by performance on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on
tests of attention, fine motor-function, language, and visual spatial
ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This estimate is based on the use of a ``benefit-per-ton''
(BPT) approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking assuming
that all fPM2.5 These BPT estimates provide the estimated
monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and
premature mobidity) of reducing one tone of the PM2.5 from a
specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the
estimates from the ``Synthetic Organic Chemicals'' sector by the
corresponding emission reductions. The method used to derive these
estimates is described in the BPT Technical Support Document on
Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5
\23\ U.S. EPA, 2022. Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits. Office of Air and Radiation, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential environmental
justice concerns if it could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts
on communities with EJ concerns; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; or (3)
present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns through this action under development.
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared
to the baseline?'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis'', U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 3-
Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical/guidance/assessing-environmental/justice/regulatory/analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the
potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of
such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this
action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory
factors the EPA is required to consider under this section.
We did not conduct any new demographic analyses for this final
rule. There were no known changes to the population of Rubber Tire
Manufacturing facilities nor any known changes to our estimates of HAP
emissions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities since proposal.
Therefore, the EPA relied on the demographic analysis performed for the
2020 proposal for this final rulemaking.
In the 2020 proposal, we conducted a baseline proximity analysis
and baseline risk-based analysis (i.e., before implementation of any
controls promulgated by this action). The baseline proximity
demographic analysis is an assessment of individual demographic groups
in the total population living within 5 kilometers (km) (approximately
3.1 miles) and 50 km (approximately 31 miles) of the facilities. The
baseline risk-based demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups in the population living within 5 km and
50 km of the facilities prior to the implementation of any controls
promulgated by this action. The results of the proximity demographic
analysis and the risk-based demographic analysis for populations living
within 5 km and 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the
docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392-0069).
The results of the proximity analysis conducted for the 2020
proposal indicated that a total of approximately 516,000 people live
within 5 km of the 21 Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities. The percent
of the population that is Black (24 percent, 124.000 people) is double
the national average (12 percent). The percent of people living below
the poverty level (21 percent, 108,000 people) and the percent of
people over the age of 25 without a high school diploma (16 percent,
83,000 people) are higher than the national averages (14 percent and 14
percent, respectively). The results of the baseline proximity analysis
indicate that the proportion of other demographic groups living within
5 km of Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities is similar to or below the
national average.
The baseline risk-based demographic analysis conducted for the 2020
proposal, indicated that emissions from the source category, prior to
the controls we are proposing, expose approximately 4,500 people living
near 21 facilities to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million (maximum
individual risk is 4-in-1 million) and expose no people to a chronic
noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) greater than 1
(maximum noncancer HI is 0.2). The percent of the baseline population
with estimated cancer risks great than or equal to 1-in-1 million that
are Black (25 percent, 1,000 people) is more than 2 times the average
percentage of the national population (12 percent). The percent of the
population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category emissions
prior to the proposed controls that is Below the Poverty Level (21
percent, 1,000 people) is above the national average (14 percent).
As indicated in section V.B. of this preamble, this final action is
projected to reduce HAP emissions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing
facilities by setting first time emission limits on the mixing
operation. As a result, we expect risk for all exposed individuals and
communities will also be reduced. See section V.B. of this preamble for
more details.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
In the July 24, 2020, final Rubber Tire Manufacturing RTR rule (85
FR 44752), the EPA conducted a residual risk assessment and determined
that risk from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source category was
acceptable, and the standards provided an ample margin of safety to
protect public health (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392-0013).
There are no known changes that would increase risk, thus the EPA
relied on the 2020 demographic analysis for this rulemaking. In
addition, this action promulgates first-time emissions standards for
THC and fPM and metal HAP, including mercury and lead which are known
to cause particular impacts to children's health and/or from early life
exposure, for the rubber processing subcategory, which will further
reduce emissions. Specifically, we estimate that the new emission
limits will reduce THC and fPM emissions by 94 Mg/yr and 61 Mg/yr,
respectively.
This action's health and risk assessments are protective of the
most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we
determine exposure and through the health
[[Page 94905]]
benchmarks that we use. Specifically, the risk assessments we perform
assume a lifetime of exposure, in which populations are conservatively
presumed to be exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence
continuously, 24 hours per day for a 70-year lifetime, including
childhood. With regards to children's potentially greater
susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the assessments rely on the
EPA's (or comparable) hazard identification and dose-response values
that have been developed to be protective for all subgroups of the
general population, including children. For further details on the
health and risk assessments can be found in the document ``Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category Operations,''
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0392).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a `` significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis is briefly
summarized in section V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic
Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted. This analysis, `` Economic
Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Amendments, Final'' (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392), is also available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned
EPA ICR number 1982.06. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket
for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The final rule ICR describes changes to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP
associated with the incorporation of reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the new and existing source MACT standards
for THC, fPM, and metal HAP.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of rubber tire
manufacturing facilities conducting rubber processing operations that
are major sources.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXX).
Estimated number of respondents: 12.
Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, annually.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next 3 years from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
estimated to be 1,162 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $2.12 million per year. This includes labor costs of
$149,000 per year and non-labor capital and operations and maintenance
costs of $1.97 million per year for monitoring systems for the final
rubber processing amendments when they are fully implemented.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The Agency
has determined that none of the 4 ultimate parent companies owning the
potentially affected facilities are small entities, as defined by the
U.S. Small Business Administration. Details of this analysis are
presented in `` Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Amendments, Final,'' which is located in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any rubber tire
manufacturing facilities owned or operated by Indian Tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094), and because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The risks due
to HAP emissions from this source category were found to be acceptable
for all populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer risks less than or
equal to 4-in-1 million for all populations and non-cancer hazard
indexes are less than 1). The methodology and the results of the
demographic analyses are included in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0392). The first-
[[Page 94906]]
time emission standards for THC and fPM (or metal HAP) promulgated by
this action, will further reduce emissions and thereby protect
children's health.
However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action.
Information on how the Policy was applied is available under ``What
analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct'' in section
V.G. of this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. In this final action, the EPA is
setting emission standards for two previously unregulated pollutants.
This does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP through the
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA
Methods 5, 25A, 29, SW-846, M0010, SW-846 M3542, SW-846, M8270E, M204,
PS 8A, and QA Procedure 2. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to that of the EPA's referenced
method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements
of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA referenced
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for any particular VCS.
Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test
methods for this final rule. The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Part 10
of Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 3B (the manual portion only and not the instrumental portion).
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6784-16--Standard Test Method
for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) D6784-16 was
revised and approved in 2016 to include better quality control than the
earlier 2008 version. It is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods
101A and Method 29 (portion for particulate mercury only) as a method
for measuring mercury. [Note: this acceptability applies to
concentrations between approximately 0.5 and 100 micrograms per normal
cubic meter ([mu]g/Nm\3\)].
The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981-Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' a method for
quantitatively determining the gaseous constituents of exhausts
resulting from stationary combustion and includes a description of the
apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with
Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 for the
manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. The manual
method segment of the oxygen determination is performed through the
absorption of oxygen. This VCS may be obtained from Two Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10016-5990; phone: (800) 843-2763; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.asme.org.
The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16,
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and
Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario
Hydro Method)'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(particulate portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring
mercury concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 to 100 [mu]g/
Nm\3\. This test method describes equipment and procedures for
obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and
procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for calculating
results. VCS ASTM D6784-16 allows for additional flexibility in the
sampling and analytical procedures for the earlier version of the same
standard VCS ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008).
The EPA is also incorporating by reference EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This document provides
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak
detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures. The
document is reasonably available and can be viewed or downloaded at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF.
Detailed information on the VCS search and determination can be
found in the memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Amendments,'' which is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0329). The two VCS may be
obtained from https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters at 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
19428-2959. The standards are available to everyone at a cost
determined by ASTM. The costs of obtaining these methods are not a
significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and
adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns. The risks due to HAP
emissions from this source category were found to be acceptable for all
populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer risks less than or equal to
4-in-1 million for all populations and non-cancer hazard indexes are
less than 1). The methodology and the results of the demographic
analyses are included in a technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392).
The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. We expect this final rule to achieve reductions in
HAP emissions. This final rule will provide additional
[[Page 94907]]
benefits to all populations, including these demographic groups that
have a greater representation in the 50 km radius of modeled
facilities, by establishing new emission limits for rubber processing.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in section V.F. of this preamble.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action does not meet the criteria under 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40
CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 63.14 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (i)(105), and
(o)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981; Sec. Sec.
63.116(c) and (h); 63.128(a); 63.145(i); 63.309(k); 63.365(b);
63.457(k); 63.490(g); 63.772(e) and (h); 63.865(b); 63.997(e);
63.1282(d) and (g); 63.1450(a), (b), (d), (e), (g); 63.1625(b); table 5
to subpart EEEE; Sec. Sec. 63.3166(a); 63.3360(e); 63.3545(a);
63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 63.4766(a); 63.4965(a); 63.5160(d);
table 4 to subpart UUUU; tables 5, 16, and 17 to subpart XXXX; table 3
to subpart YYYY; table 4 to subpart AAAAA; Sec. 63.7322(b); table 5 to
subpart DDDDD; Sec. Sec. 63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b);
63.8000(d); table 4 to subpart JJJJJ; table 4 to subpart KKKKK;
Sec. Sec. 63.9307(c); 63.9323(a); 63.9621(b) and (c);table 4 to
subpart SSSSS; tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU; table 1 to subpart
ZZZZZ; Sec. Sec. 63.11148(e); 63.11155(e); 63.11162(f); 63.11163(g);
table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ; Sec. Sec. 63.11410(j); 63.11551(a);
63.11646(a); 63.11945.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(105) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1450(d); 63.9621; table 5 to subpart AAAAA;
table 17 to subpart XXXX; table 5 to subpart UUUUU; appendix A to
subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(4) EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,
September 1997; IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.548(e); 63.864(e);
63.6012(c); 63.7525(j); 63.8450(e); 63.8600(e); 63.9632(a); 63.9804(f);
63.11224(f); 63.11423(e). (Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf).
* * * * *
Subpart XXXX--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.5981 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5981 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) Rubber tire manufacturing includes rubber processing, the
production of rubber tires and/or the production of components integral
to rubber tires, the production of tire cord, and the application of
puncture sealant. Components of rubber tires include, but are not
limited to, rubber compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord
and liners. Other components often associated with rubber tires but not
integral to the tire, such as wheels, inner tubes, tire bladders, and
valve stems, are not components of rubber tires or tire cord and are
not subject to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.5982 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), and (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5982 What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The tire production affected source is the collection of all
processes that use or process cements and solvents as defined in Sec.
63.6022, located at any rubber tire manufacturing facility. It
includes, but is not limited to: Storage and mixing vessels and the
transfer equipment containing cements and/or solvents; wastewater
handling and treatment operations; tread and cement operations; tire
painting operations; ink and finish operations; undertread cement
operations; process equipment cleaning materials; bead cementing
operations; tire building operations; green tire spray operations;
extruding, to the extent cements and solvents are used; cement house
operations; marking operations; calendar operations, to the extent
solvents are used; tire striping operations; tire repair operations;
slab dip operations; other tire building operations, to the extent that
cements and solvents are used; and balance pad operations.
* * * * *
(4) The rubber processing affected source is the collection of all
rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys and associated drop mills) that
either mix compounds or warm rubber compound before the compound is
processed into components of rubber tires. The mixed rubber compound
itself is also included in the rubber processing affected source. On
and before November 29, 2024, there are no emission limitations or
other requirements for the rubber processing affected source. The
emission limitations for the rubber processing affected source are
effective after November 29, 2024.
(c) An affected source that is not a rubber processing affected
source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source
commenced after October 18, 2000, and it met the applicability criteria
of Sec. 63.5981 at the time construction commenced. An affected source
that is a rubber processing affected source is a new affected source if
construction of the affected source commenced after November 16, 2023,
and it met the applicability criteria of Sec. 63.5981 at the time
construction commenced.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.5983 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5983 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) If you own or operate an existing affected source that is not a
rubber processing affected source, you must comply with the emission
limitations for existing sources no later than July 11, 2005. If you
own or operate a rubber processing affected sources that began
construction or reconstruction before
[[Page 94908]]
November 16, 2023, you must comply with the emission limitations for
existing rubber processing existing sources no later than November 29,
2027.
* * * * *
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.6016
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.6016 and in subpart A of this
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the date you
are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
0
6. Amend Sec. 63.5990 by revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5990 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Before January 21, 2021, you must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limitations specified in tables 1 through 4 to this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction if you are using a control device to comply with an
emission limit. After January 20, 2021, you must be in compliance with
the applicable emission limitations specified in tables 1 through 4 to
this subpart at all times. After November 29, 2024, you must be in
compliance with the applicable emission limitations for rubber
processing specified in tables 15 and 16 to this subpart at all times
according to the compliance dates in Sec. 63.5983.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Before January 21, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.
63.8(d). After January 20, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.
63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or operator shall keep these written
procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to
be made available for inspection by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection by the
Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec. 63.5992 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5992 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
If you use a control system (add-on control device and capture
system) to meet the emission limitations, you must also conduct a
performance test at least once every 5 years following your initial
compliance demonstration to verify control system performance and
reestablish operating parameters or operating limits for control
systems used to comply with the emissions limits. The requirements of
this paragraph do not apply to the measurement of THC emissions that
are monitored with a continuous emission monitoring system for
demonstrating compliance with the THC emission limitations for rubber
processing in Sec. 63.6009. When complying with the emission limits
for rubber processing in Sec. 63.6009 for fPM or metal HAP based on
averaging to comply with the facility-wide average alternatives, the
subsequent performance tests must begin no later than 5 years after the
first test of the averaged mixers is performed.
0
8. Revise and republish Sec. 63.5993 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5993 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
(a) If you use a control system to meet the emission limitations,
you must conduct each performance test in table 5 to this subpart that
applies to you, except that for the rubber processing affected source,
you must conduct performance tests according to table 17 instead of
table 5.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
specific conditions specified in table 5 to this subpart, except that
for the rubber processing affected source, you must conduct performance
tests according to table 17 instead of table 5.
(c) Before January 21, 2021, you may not conduct performance tests
during periods startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(1). After January 20, 2021, performance tests shall be
conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the
owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected
source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude
periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator
or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent the entire range
of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum
emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum production.
The owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
(d) Before January 21, 2021, you must conduct three separate test
runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified
in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) unless otherwise specified in the test method. Each
test run must last at least 1 hour. After January 20, 2021, you must
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in
this section, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless
otherwise specified in the test method. Each test run must last at
least 1 hour.
(e) If you are complying with the emission limitations using a
control system, you must also conduct performance tests according to
the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section as
they apply to you. The provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3)
of this section do not apply to the rubber processing subcategory.
(1) Determining capture efficiency of permanent or temporary total
enclosure. Determine the capture efficiency of a capture system by
using one of the procedures in Table 5 to this subpart.
(2) Determining capture efficiency of an alternative method. As an
alternative to constructing a permanent or temporary total enclosure,
you may determine the capture efficiency using any capture efficiency
protocol and test methods if the data satisfy the criteria of either
the Data Quality Objective or the Lower Confidence Limit approach in
appendix A to subpart KK of this part.
(3) Determining efficiency of an add-on control device. Use Table 5
to this subpart to select the test methods for determining the
efficiency of an add-on control device.
0
9. Amend Sec. 63.5996 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5996 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits for tire production affected sources?
* * * * *
(b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6016(e).
0
10. Amend Sec. 63.5999 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
[[Page 94909]]
Sec. 63.5999 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits for tire cord production affected sources?
* * * * *
(b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6016(e).
0
11. Amend Sec. 63.6002 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6002 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits for puncture sealant application affected sources?
* * * * *
(b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6016(e).
0
12. Amend Sec. 63.6004 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6004 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits for tire production affected sources?
* * * * *
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an
emission limit in table 1 to this subpart. You must also report each
instance in which you did not meet the applicable requirements in table
10 to this subpart. These instances are deviations from the emission
limits in this subpart. The deviations must be reported in accordance
with the requirements in Sec. 63.6017(e).
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 63.6006 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6006 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits for tire cord production affected sources?
* * * * *
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an
applicable emission limit in table 2 to this subpart. You must also
report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable
requirements in table 12 to this subpart. These instances are
deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations
must be reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.6017(e).
0
14. Amend Sec. 63.6008 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6008 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations for puncture sealant application affected sources?
* * * * *
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an
applicable emission limit in table 3 to this subpart. You must also
report each instance in which you did not meet the applicable
requirements in table 14 to this subpart. These instances are
deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. The deviations
must be reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.6017(e).
0
15. Add undesignated center heading ``Emission Limits for Rubber
Processing Affected Sources'' immediately following Sec. 63.6008.
0
16. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 63.6013 through 63.6015 as Sec. Sec.
63.6020 through 63.6022 and transfer undesignated center ``Other
Requirements and Information'' to immediately before newly redesignated
Sec. 63.6020.
0
17. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 63.6009 through 63.6012 as Sec. Sec.
63.6016 through 63.6019 and transfer undesignated center heading
``Notifications, Reports, and Records'' to immediately before newly
redesignated Sec. 63.6016.
0
18. Add new Sec. Sec. 63.6009 through 63.6015, undesignated center
heading ``Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources''
before new Sec. Sec. 63.6009, undesignated center heading ``Testing
and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected
Sources'' immediately following new Sec. 63.6010, and undesignated
center heading ``Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber
Processing Affected Sources'' immediately following new Sec. 63.6013
to read as follows:
Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources
Sec. 63.6009 What emission limits must I meet for rubber processing
affected sources?
Sec. 63.6010 What are my alternatives for meeting the emission
limits for rubber processing affected sources?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing
Affected Sources
Sec. 63.6011 How do I conduct tests and procedures for rubber
processing affected sources?
Sec. 63.6012 What are my rubber processing monitoring installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements?
Sec. 63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?
Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected
Sources
Sec. 63.6014 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing
affected sources?
Sec. 63.6015 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?
Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources
Sec. 63.6009 What emission limits must I meet for rubber processing
affected sources?
(a) You must meet the emission limit for total hydrocarbons (THC)
and either total metal HAP or the alternative emission limit for
filterable particulate matter (fPM) in table 15 to this subpart that
applies to you. You may choose to comply with each emission limit for
each rubber processing mixer separately or for a group of rubber
processing mixers routed to the same control device or stack, or with
an alternative for all mixers combined based on a facility-wide
average.
(b) You must also meet each operating limit in table 16 to this
subpart that applies to you.
Sec. 63.6010 What are my alternatives for meeting the emission limits
for rubber processing affected sources?
(a) You must comply with the applicable emission limit for THC in
table 15 of this subpart for each rubber processing mixer or a group of
rubber processing mixers routed to the same control device, or you must
demonstrate compliance by averaging among all mixers and comply with
the limit as a facility-wide emission limit.
(b) You must demonstrate compliance with either the emission limit
for fPM or the alternative emission limit for total metal HAP in table
15 of this subpart; if you demonstrate compliance with the alternative
fPM emission limit, you do not have to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for metal HAP. You must comply with the applicable
emission limit for fPM or metal HAP in table 15 of this subpart for
each rubber processing mixer or group of rubber processing mixers
routed to the same control device, or you must demonstrate compliance
by averaging among all mixers and comply with the limit as a facility-
wide emission limit.
(c) For each rubber processing mixer, you must show that the
control device and capture system meet the operating limits in table 16
to this subpart.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing
Affected Sources
Sec. 63.6011 How do I conduct tests and procedures for rubber
processing affected sources?
(a) Conduct any required compliance demonstration according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.5993 (b), (c), and (d).
(b) You must use the methods in table 17 of this subpart and
according to
[[Page 94910]]
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section to measure emissions
and stack gas flow rates and characteristics to determine THC and fPM
or metal HAP mass emission rates in grams per day.
(1) You must operate a THC CEMS in accordance with the requirements
in Sec. 63.6012 and Performance Specification 8A in appendix B to 40
CFR part 60. For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality
assurance evaluations for CEMS, the reference method (RM) is Method 25A
of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60. Owners or operators are responsible
for ensuring their instruments provide appropriate data continuously.
If a THC monitor will be used for an emission stream that could have a
wide variability in THC concentrations because of mixing both high-
emitting and low-emitting compounds at different times, then a dual-
span monitor should be considered for use. If the THC monitor is used
for emissions that are relatively constant, then a dual-span monitor
may not be needed, but it remains the responsibility of source owners
or operators to make that determination. Owners and operators cannot
discard from the compliance determination THC concentration data that
exceed the calibration range of the monitor.
(2) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the
first 15 mixer operating days after the applicable compliance date for
each mixer. All THC values must be used as they are recorded by the THC
CEMS, except that negative values equal to or greater than to -5 should
be treated as zeros, and values less than (i.e., more negative than) -5
cannot be used as valid compliance data in the calculations.
(3) To convert the THC concentration measurements to mass emission
rates, you must measure the volumetric flow rate in the same duct or
stack in which the THC concentration is monitored no less frequently
than once every 5 years. You may use the same flow rate measurements
that are completed for demonstrating compliance with the emission
limits for fPM or total metal HAP according to table 17 of this
subpart. If you change operations in a way that would likely result in
a change to volumetric flow rate, you must conduct an additional
measurement of the new volumetric flow rate.
(c) You must monitor mixed rubber compound processed in each mixer
in Mg per day during the testing for THC. During the testing for fPM or
total metal HAP, you must monitor the mixed rubber compound processed
in each mixer in Mg for the same periods that fPM or total metal HAP
testing runs are performed, excluding the mass of rubber processed
during the time between fPM or metal HAP sampling runs.
(d) You must use the methods in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of
this section to calculate the THC emission rate for the 15-day initial
compliance period to demonstrate initial compliance. You must use the
average THC emission rate obtained during the first 15 mixer operating
days after the applicable compliance date to determine initial
compliance for each mixer, group of mixers routed to the same control
device or stack, or all mixers combined if complying with the facility-
wide average alternative.
(1) Use Equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1) of this section to calculate
the 15-day average THC emission rate in grams THC per megagram of mixed
rubber compound processed. This emission rate is calculated for each
rubber mixer separately, group of mixers routed to the same control
device or stack, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with
the facility-wide average alternative.
Equation 1 to Paragraph (d)(1)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.001
Where:
E15 days = Emission rate of the THC emitted per total
mass of mixed rubber compounds processed per 15-day period, grams
THC per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed.
THCi = Daily THC emissions for each day during the 15-day
compliance period, grams/day, using the methods in paragraph (b) of
this section. These THC emission values are calculated for each
rubber mixer separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer
separately, or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the
facility-wide average alternative. If you are demonstrating
compliance for two or more mixers routed to the same control device
or stack, then these THC emission values are calculated using the
data for the combined mixer emissions at the common stack.
RPi = Daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for
each day i during the 15-day compliance period, megagrams/day. These
rubber mass processed values are calculated for each rubber mixer
separately if compliance is demonstrated for each mixer separately,
or for all rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-
wide emission average alternative. If you are demonstrating
compliance for two or more mixers that are routed to the same
control device or stack, then these rubber mass values are
calculated for the combined mass processed for the mixers that share
the common stack.
(2) Use Equation 2 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section to calculate
the THC emission rate in grams per day THC as propane for each day i in
the 15-day initial compliance period for rubber processing for each
rubber mixer emission stack.
Equation 2 to Paragraph (d)(2)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.002
Where:
THCi = Daily THC emissions from rubber processing, grams/
day for each rubber mixer emission stack.
THCj = Daily average THC concentration, parts per million
by volume, for each day during the 15-day compliance period for
rubber processing for each rubber mixer emission stack, as measured
by the THC CEMS.
Q = Average volumetric flow rate of gas, dry standard cubic feet per
minute, dscfm, for each rubber mixer emission stack from the most
recent available emissions test.
H = Hours per day that rubber processing is performed in at least
one of the mixers vented to the rubber mixer emission
[[Page 94911]]
stack for which emissions are being calculated.
(e) You must use Equation 3 to this paragraph to calculate the fPM
emission rate in grams per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed
or use Equation 4 to of this paragraph to calculate the metal HAP
emission rate in grams per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed
to demonstrate initial compliance. The rubber mass processed at each
mixer must be recorded for the exact same period of time as the fPM or
metal HAP emissions are measured at each mixer. If you are
demonstrating compliance with the facility-wide emission average
alternative, the relevant measurement of fPM or metal HAP, as
appropriate, at each mixer does not need to be done simultaneously for
all mixers, but all tests of mixers to be averaged must be done within
the same 3-month period.
Equations 3 and 4 to Paragraph (e)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29NO24.003
Where:
EfPM = Emission rate of the fPM emitted in grams of fPM
per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed.
fPMi = Total grams of fPM emitted during the performance
test, measured using EPA method 5. These fPM emission values are
calculated for each rubber mixer i separately if compliance is
demonstrated for each mixer separately, and it is summed for all
rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average
alternative.
RPj = Total megagrams of mixed rubber compound mass
processed rate recorded during the fPM (Eq. 3A) or total metal HAP
emissions test (Eq. 3B).
EMHAP = Emission rate of the total metal HAP in grams of
metal HAP per megagram of mixed rubber compound processed.
MHAPi = Total grams of total metal HAP emitted during the
performance test, measured using the methods specified in table 17
to this subpart. These total metal HAP emission values are
calculated for each rubber mixer separately if compliance is
demonstrated for each mixer separately, and it is summed for all
rubber mixers combined if complying with the facility-wide average
alternative.
N = Number of mixers included if complying with the facility-wide
average alternative.
Sec. 63.6012 What are my rubber processing monitoring installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install and operate a THC continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) according to Sec. 63.8 (b) and (c) and comply
with the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the
monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
(1) On each stack used to exhaust emissions from a rubber
processing mixer to the atmosphere, you must install, operate, and
maintain a THC CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and comply with all of the requirements
for CEMS found in the general provisions, subpart A of this part. The
THC CEMS must be installed downstream of any organic vapor control
device (such as a thermal oxidizer), if present. A single THC CEMS may
be used to monitor the combined emissions from multiple rubber mixers.
(2) You must operate and maintain each CEMS according to the
quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to 40 CFR
part 60. Where a dual range analyzer is used, the daily calibration
drift check must be performed for each operating range. For THC CEMS
certified under Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to 40 CFR
part 60, conduct the relative accuracy test audits required under
Procedure 1 in accordance with Performance Specification 8, sections 8
and 11 using Method 25A in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 as the
reference method; the relative accuracy must meet the criteria of
Performance Specification 8, section 13.2.
(b) Parameter monitoring requirements. If you have an operating
limit that requires the use of a continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to
the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section by the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.5983. Standard
operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan
required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(2) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all
times that the mixer is operating.
(3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded readings.
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(c) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any
applicable requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this
section. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the
monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
(1) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting fPM emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter or less.
(2) The sensor on the BLDS must provide output of relative fPM
emissions.
(3) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record
the output signal from the sensor.
(4) The BLDS must have an alarm that will sound automatically when
it detects an increase in relative fPM emissions greater than a preset
level.
(5) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant
personnel will be able to hear it.
(6) For a positive-pressure fabric filter baghouse, each
compartment or cell must have a bag leak detector (BLD). For a
negative-pressure or induced-air fabric filter baghouse, the BLD must
be installed downstream of the fabric filter. If multiple BLD are
required (for either type of fabric filter baghouse), the detectors may
share the system instrumentation and alarm.
(7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated,
operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
63.14). Other types of bag leak
[[Page 94912]]
detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained according to the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated
into the monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
(8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways in
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii), according to section 5.0 of the EPA-454/
R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 63.14):
(i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
(ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted
except as specified in the monitoring plan required by Sec.
63.5990(e). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100
percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period,
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as
defined in section 5.2 of the EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 63.14). You
must record each adjustment.
(10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(d) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution
control device, you must inspect each capture/collection and closed
vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system
vents captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution
air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling
temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter. You must record the
results of each inspection.
Sec. 63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limit that applies to you according to table 17 to this subpart.
(b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6016(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements for Rubber Processing Affected
Sources
Sec. 63.6014 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing
affected sources?
(a) You must monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits for rubber processing affected
sources as specified in table 18 to this subpart.
(b) You must monitor and collect data according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.6012.
Sec. 63.6015 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits for rubber processing affected sources?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each applicable
emission limit in table 15 and each operating limit in table 16 to this
subpart using the methods specified in table 18 to this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet an
applicable emission limit in table 15 or operating limit in table 16 to
this subpart. You must also report each instance in which you did not
meet the applicable requirements in table 18 to this subpart. These
instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart.
The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 63.6017(e).
0
19. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 63.6016 by revising paragraphs (e)
and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6016 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in
tables 5 through 8 and table 17 to this subpart, you must submit a
Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
The Notification must contain the information listed in table 20 to
this subpart for compliance reports. The Notification of Compliance
Status must be submitted according to the following schedules, as
appropriate:
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in tables 6
through 8 and table 17 to this subpart that does not include a
performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) Before January 21, 2021, for each initial compliance
demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 and table 17 to this
subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the
requirements in table 5 to this subpart, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.
63.10(d)(2). After January 20, 2021, for each initial compliance
demonstration required in tables 6 through 8 to this subpart that
includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in
table 5 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance
Status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec. Sec. 63.10(d)(2) and 63.6017(h)(1)
through (3).
* * * * *
(k) You must submit to the Administrator notification reports of
the following recorded information. Beginning on January 21, 2021, or
once the reporting form has been available on the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website for 1-year,
whichever date is later, you must submit all subsequent notification of
compliance status reports required in Sec. Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs
(d) through (i) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI
interface can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov). You must use the appropriate electronic report
form (i.e., template) on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date on
which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI
website. If the reporting form for the notification of compliance
status report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the
time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the
Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. Once
the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin
submitting all subsequent notification of compliance status reports via
CEDRI. The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business
information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be
claimed to be CBI. Although we
[[Page 94913]]
do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to
assert a CBI, if you claim that some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate electronic reporting form found on the CEDRI
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX CEDRI as described earlier in
this paragraph. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of
submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not
entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. Where applicable,
you may assert a claim of the EPA system outage, in accordance with
Sec. 63.6017(i), or force majeure, in accordance with Sec.
63.6017(j), for failure to timely comply with this requirement.
0
20. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 63.6017 by:z
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (c) introductory
text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(11);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(2), (g), and (h)
introductory text; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.6017 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each applicable report in table 20 to this
subpart.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in table 20 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) The compliance report must contain information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section.
* * * * *
(11) For each rubber processing affected source, whether you are
complying with the particulate matter or total metal HAP emission limit
alternative in table 15 to this subpart.
(d) Before January 21, 2021, for each deviation from an emission
limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an
affected source where you are not using a CPMS to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source is operating. After
January 20, 2021, for each deviation from an emission limitation
(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source
where you are not using a CPMS to comply with the emission limitations
in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of process,
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment when the affected
source is operating.
* * * * *
(2) Before January 20, 2021, information on the number, duration,
and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable) and
the corrective action taken. After January 20, 2021, for each failure
to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the cause
of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), affected
sources or equipment, whether the failure occurred during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(g) Before July 24, 2021, or once the reporting form has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever date is later, if
acceptable to both the Administrator and you, you may submit reports
and notifications electronically. Beginning on July 24, 2021, or once
the reporting form has been available on the CEDRI website for 1-year,
whichever date is later, you must submit compliance reports required in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section, as applicable, to the
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). You must use the appropriate
electronic report form on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date on
which the report form becomes available will be listed on the CEDRI
website. If the reporting form for the compliance report specific to
this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is
due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate
addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the form has been available in
CEDRI for 1-year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via
CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this
subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted.
The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available
to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot
later be claimed to be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert
a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI, if you claim that some
of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
The report must be generated using the appropriate electronic reporting
form found on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc,
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX
CEDRI as described earlier in this paragraph. All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section
114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and
requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available.
(h) After January 20, 2021, if you use a control system (add-on
control device and capture system) to meet the emission limitations,
you must also conduct a performance test at least once every 5 years
following your initial compliance demonstration to verify control
system performance and reestablish operating parameters or operating
limits for control systems used to comply with the emissions limits.
Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (3) of this section. The provisions of this
[[Page 94914]]
paragraph (h) and (h)(1) and (h)(3) do not apply to control devices and
capture systems to control THC emissions from rubber processing when
monitored by a THC CEMS.
* * * * *
(k) For each THC CEMS, within 60 days after the reporting period
ends, you must report all of the calculated 15-day rolling average
values derived from the THC CEMS for THC emissions in grams of THC per
megagram (g/Mg) of rubber processed, either for each mixer
individually, or for all mixers that use a single control device or
stack, or that are averaged to comply on the basis of the facility-wide
average alternative.
0
21. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 63.6018 by redesignating paragraph
(e) as paragraph (f) and adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6018 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(e) For each rubber processing affected source, you must keep the
records specified in table 19 to this subpart to show continuous
compliance with each emission limit that applies to you.
* * * * *
0
22. Revise newly redesignated Sec. 63.6020 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6020 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 22 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
0
23. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 63.6021 by revising paragraph (c)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6021 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.5981 through 63.5984, 63.5986, 63.5988, and 63.6009.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 63.6022 by adding the definitions
``Bag leak detector system (BLDS)'' and ``Particulate matter (PM)
detector'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6022 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Bag leak detector system (BLDS) is a type of PM detector used on
fabric filters to identify an increase in PM emissions resulting from a
broken filter bag or other malfunction and sound an alarm.
* * * * *
Particulate matter (PM) detector means a system that is
continuously capable of monitoring PM loading in the exhaust of a
fabric filter in order to detect bag leaks, upset conditions, or
control device malfunctions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. A PM
detector system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other effects to continuously monitor relative particulate loadings. A
BLDS is a type of PM detector.
* * * * *
0
25. Revise tables 1 through 3 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Tire Production
Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.5984, you must comply with the emission
limits for each new, reconstructed, or existing tire production
affected source in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1--HAP constituent a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21
option. to this subpart must not exceed
1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2
pounds per ton) of total cements
and solvents used at the tire
production affected source, and b.
Emissions of each HAP not in table
21 to this subpart must not exceed
10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20
pounds per ton) of total cements
and solvents used at the tire
production affected source.
2. Option 2--production-based Emissions of HAP must not exceed
option. 0.024 grams per megagram (0.00005
pounds per ton) of rubber used at
the tire production affected
source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Tire Cord
Production Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.5986, you must comply with the emission
limits for tire cord production affected sources in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1.a (production-based Emissions must not exceed 280 grams
option)--Existing tire cord HAP per megagram (0.56 pounds per
production affected source. ton) of fabric processed at the
tire cord production affected
source.
2. Option 1.b (production-based Emissions must not exceed 220 grams
option)--New or reconstructed HAP per megagram (0.43 pounds per
tire cord production affected ton) of fabric processed at the
source. tire cord production affected
source.
3. Option 2 (HAP constituent a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21
option)--Existing, new or to this subpart must not exceed
reconstructed tire cord 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2
production affected source. pounds per ton) of total coatings
used at the tire cord production
affected source, and
b. Emissions of each HAP not in
table 21 to this subpart must not
exceed 10,000 grams HAP per
megagram (20 pounds per ton) of
total coatings used at the tire
cord production affected source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94915]]
Table 3 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Puncture
Sealant Application Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.5988(a), you must comply with the emission
limits for puncture sealant application affected sources in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1.a (percent reduction Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as
option)--Existing puncture volatile organic compounds (VOC))
sealant application spray booth. emissions by at least 86 percent by
weight.
2. Option 1.b (percent reduction Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as
option)--New or reconstructed VOC) emissions by at least 95
puncture sealant application percent by weight.
spray booth.
3. Option 2 (HAP constituent a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21
option) Existing, new or to this subpart must not exceed
reconstructed puncture sealant 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2
application spray booth. pounds per ton) of total puncture
sealants used at the puncture
sealant affected source, and
b. Emissions of each HAP not in
table 21 to this subpart must not
exceed 10,000 grams HAP per
megagram (20 pounds per ton) of
total puncture sealants used at the
puncture sealant affected source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Revise table 5 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
As stated in Sec. 63.5993, you must comply with the requirements
for performance tests in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
If you are using . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer.............. a. Measure total HAP i. Method 25 or 25A (1). Measure total HAP
emissions, determine performance test and emissions and determine
destruction data from the the destruction efficiency
efficiency of the temperature of the control device
control device, and monitoring system. using Method 25 (40 CFR
establish a site- part 60, appendix A-7).
specific firebox You may use Method 25A (40
secondary chamber CFR part 60, appendix A-7)
temperature limit at if: an exhaust gas
which the emission volatile organic matter
limit that applies to concentration of 50 parts
the affected source per million (ppmv) or less
is achieved. is required to comply with
the standard; the volatile
organic matter
concentration at the inlet
to the control system and
the required level of
control are such that
exhaust volatile organic
matter concentrations are
50 ppmv or less; or
because of the high
efficiency of the control
device exhaust, is 50 ppmv
or less, regardless of the
inlet concentration.
(2). Collect firebox
secondary chamber
temperature data every 15
minutes during the entire
period of the initial 3-
hour performance test, and
determine the average
firebox temperature over
the 3-hour performance
test by computing the
average of all of the 15-
minute reading.
2. A carbon adsorber (regenerative) a. Measure total i. Method 25 or Method (1). Measure total HAP
organic HAP 25A performance test emissions using Method 25.
emissions, establish and data from the You may use Method 25A, if
the total carbon bed an exhaust gas volatile
regeneration mass or temperature organic matter
volumetric flow, and monitoring device. concentration of 50 ppmv
establish the or less; or because of the
temperature of the high efficiency of the
carbon bed within 15 control device, exhaust is
minutes of completing 50 ppmv or less is
any cooling cycles. required to comply with
The total the standard; the volatile
regeneration mass, organic matter
volumetric flow, and concentration (VOMC) at
carbon bed the inlet to the control
temperature must be system and the required
those at which the level of control are such
emission limit that that exhaust VOMCs are 50
applies to the ppmv or less; or because
affected source is of the high efficiency of
achieved. the control device,
exhaust is 50 ppmv or
less, regardless of the
inlet concentration.
(2). Collect carbon bed
total regeneration mass or
volumetric flow for each
carbon bed regeneration
cycle during the
performance test.
(3). Record the maximum
carbon bed temperature
data for each carbon bed
regeneration cycle during
the performance test.
(4). Record the carbon bed
temperature within 15
minutes of each cooling
cycle during the
performance test.
(5). Determine the average
total regeneration mass or
the volumetric flow over
the 3-hour performance
test by computing the
average of all of the
readings.
(6). Determine the average
maximum carbon bed
temperature over the 3-
hour performance test by
computing the average of
all of the readings.
(7). Determine the average
carbon bed temperature
within 15 minutes of the
cooling cycle over the 3-
hour performance test.
3. Any control device other than a Determine control EPA-approved methods Conduct the performance
thermal oxidizer or carbon device efficiency and and data from the test according to the site-
adsorber. establish operating continuous parameter specific plan submitted
parameter limits with monitoring system. according to Sec.
which you will 63.7(c)(2)(i).
demonstrate
continuous compliance
with the emission
limit that applies to
the affected source.
4. All control devices............. a. Select sampling Method 1 or 1A of 40 Locate sampling sites at
ports' location and CFR part 60, appendix the inlet and outlet of
the number of A. the control device and
traverse ports. prior to any releases to
the atmosphere.
[[Page 94916]]
b. Determine velocity Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
and volumetric flow 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
rate. part 60, appendix A.
c. Conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
analysis. 40 CFR part 60
appendix A; as an
alternative to the
manual portion of
Method 3B, you may
use ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981
(incorporated by
reference; see Sec.
63.14).
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR
content of the stack part 60, appendix A.
gas.
5. A permanent total enclosure Measure the face Method 204 of CFR part Capture efficiency is
(PTE). velocity across 51, appendix M. assumed to be 100 percent
natural draft if the criteria are met
openings and document
the design features
of the enclosure.
6. Temporary total enclosure (TTE). Construct a Method 204 and the
temporarily installed appropriate
enclosure that allows combination of
you to determine the Methods 204A-204F of
efficiency of your 40 CFR part 51,
capture system and appendix M.
establish operating
parameter limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Initial Compliance With the
Emission Limits for Puncture Sealant Application Affected Sources
0
27. Revise the heading of table 8 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as
set forth above.
0
28. Redesignate tables 15 through 17 to subpart XXXX of part 63 as
tables 20 through 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63.
0
29. Add new tables 15 through 17 and tables 18 and 19 to subpart XXXX
of part 63 to read as follows:
Table 15 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Emission Limits for Rubber
Processing Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.6009(a), you must comply with the emission
limits for each new, reconstructed, or existing rubber processing
affected source in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing rubber processing a. THC emissions, measured as
affected sources. propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg
mixed rubber compound processed,
based on a 15-day rolling average.
b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0
grams/Mg mixed rubber compound
processed, or metal HAP emissions
must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg
mixed rubber compound processed.
2. New or reconstructed rubber a. THC emissions, measured as
processing affected sources. propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg
mixed rubber compound processed,
based on a 15-day rolling average.
b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0
grams/Mg mixed rubber compound
processed, or metal HAP emissions
must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg
mixed rubber compound processed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Operating Limits for Rubber
Processing Control Devices
As stated in Sec. 63.6009(b) you must comply with the operating
limits for rubber processing affected sources in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For each rubber processing a. Inspect each emission capture
mixer. system or enclosure and closed vent
system at least once each calendar
year to ensure that each system or
enclosure vents captured emissions
through a closed system, except
that dilution air may be added to
emission streams for the purpose of
controlling temperature at the
inlet to a fabric filter. You must
record the results of each
inspection.
2. Each mixer equipped with a a. Maintain and operate the fabric
fabric filter. filter such that the BLDS detector
alarm condition does not exist for
more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month period;
and comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.6012(c). Standard
operating procedures must be
incorporated into the monitoring
plan required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Initial Compliance With the
Emission Limits for Rubber Processing Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.6011, you must show initial compliance with
the emission limits for the rubber processing affected source and
conduct performance tests according to the following table:
[[Page 94917]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following emission limit .
. . You must do the following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The applicable THC emission a. Continuously measure THC
limit in table 15 to this subpart. emissions using a THC CEMS and mass
of mixed rubber compounds processed
over a period of not less than 15
days.
b. Use the applicable methods in
item 2 in this table to measure
exhaust flow rate in dry standard
cubic feet per minute to determine
THC mass emissions in grams per day
using the equations and procedures
in Sec. 63.6011.
c. Demonstrate that you have
achieved the applicable THC
emission limits in table 15 to this
subpart according to the applicable
procedures in Sec. 63.6011.
2. The applicable fPM emission a. Conduct the performance test
limit in table 15 to this subpart. according to the site-specific plan
submitted according to Sec.
63.7(c)(2)(i).
b. Measure fPM and the mass of mixed
rubber compound processed for at
least 3 runs lasting at least 1
hour per run.
c. Use Method 5 in appendix A-3 to
40 CFR part 60 to measure fPM
emissions.
d. Select sampling ports' location
and the number of traverse ports
according to Method 1 or 1A of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-1.
e. Determine velocity and volumetric
flow rate according to Method 2,
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2.
f. Conduct the gas analysis
according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2; as an
alternative to the manual portion
of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 63.14).
g. Measure moisture content of the
stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-3.
h. Demonstrate that you have
achieved the applicable fPM
emission limit in table 15 to this
subpart according to the applicable
procedures in Sec. 63.6011.
i. Install, operate, and maintain
the BLDS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.6012(c)
at the time of the initial
compliance test. Standard operating
procedures for the BLDS must be
incorporated into the monitoring
plan required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
3. The applicable metal HAP a. Conduct the performance test
alternative emission limit in according to the site-specific plan
table 15 to this subpart. submitted according to Sec.
63.7(c)(2)(i).
b. Measure metal HAP emissions and
mass of mixed rubber compound
processed for at least 3 runs
lasting at least 1 hour per run.
c. Use Method 29 in appendix A-8 to
40 CFR part 60 to measure metal HAP
emissions. As an alternative to
Method 29 for mercury only, you may
use the particulate mercury portion
of ASTM D6784-16 to measure
particulate mercury emissions
(incorporated by reference; see
Sec. 63.14).
d. Select sampling ports' location
and the number of traverse ports
according to Method 1 or 1A of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-1.
e. Determine velocity and volumetric
flow rate according to Method 2,
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2.
f. Conduct the gas analysis
according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2; as an
alternative to the manual portion
of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 63.14).
g. Measure moisture content of the
stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-3.
h. Demonstrate that you have
achieved the applicable metal HAP
emission limit in table 15 to this
subpart according to the applicable
procedures in Sec. 63.6011.
i. Install, operate, and maintain
the BLDS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.6012(c)
at the time of the initial
compliance test. Standard operating
procedures for the BLDS must be
incorporated into the monitoring
plan required by Sec. 63.5990(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the
Emission Limitations for Rubber Processing Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.6014(a), you must show continuous compliance
with the emission limitations for rubber processing affected sources
according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each THC continuous emissions a. Continuously monitoring and
monitoring system installed in a record the THC concentration and
rubber processing mixer affected calculate the daily THC emissions
source. in grams per day.
2. Each rubber processing affected a. Continuously monitor the daily
source. mass of mixed rubber compound
processed for each mixer in
megagrams per day.
3. Each rubber processing affected a. Maintain and operate the fabric
source fabric filter. filter so that the alarm on the
BLDS is not activated and an alarm
condition does not exist for more
than 5 percent of the total
operating time in each 6-month
reporting period; and continuously
recording the output from the BLDS
detection system; and
b. Each time the alarm sounds and
the owner or operator initiates
corrective actions within 1 hour of
the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time
will be counted (if the owner or
operator takes longer than 1 hour
to initiate corrective actions,
alarm time will be counted as the
actual amount of time taken by the
owner or operator to initiate
corrective actions); if inspection
of the fabric filter system
demonstrates that no corrective
actions are necessary, no alarm
time will be counted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94918]]
Table 19 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Minimum Data for Continuous
Compliance With the Emission Limitations for Rubber Processing Affected
Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.6018(e), you must maintain minimum data to
show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for rubber
processing affected sources according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must maintain . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rubber processing affected a. Records of the annual inspections
sources using an emission capture of the enclosure and closed vent
system or enclosure to capture system specified in table 16 to
emissions and performing the this subpart.
inspections specified in table 16
to this subpart.
2. Rubber processing affected a. Records of each THC concentration
sources using a continuous measurement and each inspection,
emissions monitoring system to calibration, and validation check.
comply with the THC limits in b. Records of each flow rate
table 15 to this subpart. measurement.
3. Rubber processing affected a. Records of daily mass of mixed
sources subject to the THC rubber compound processed for each
emission limit in table 15 to mixer, in megagrams per day.
this subpart. b. Records of each calculated 15-day
rolling average THC emission rate,
in grams THC per Mg rubber
processed for each mixer separately
or for all mixers combined and
complying with the facility-wide
emission limit.
4. Rubber processing affected a. Records of applicable periodic
sources subject to the fPM or fPM or metal HAP performance tests.
metal HAP emission limits in b. Records of mass of mixed rubber
table 15 to this subpart. compound processed during the
periodic fPM or metal HAP
performance test.
c. Records of the calculated fPM or
metal HAP emission rate, in grams
fPM or metal HAP per Mg rubber
processed for each mixer separately
or for all mixers combined and
complying with the facility-wide
emission limit.
d. Records of each inspection,
calibration, and validation check
of the bag leak detection system.
e. Records of each bag leak
detection system alarm, the amount
of time taken to initiate
corrective action after the alarm,
and the response and corrective
action taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
30. Revise newly redesignated table 20 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to
read as follows:
Table 20 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
As stated in Sec. 63.6017, you must submit each report that
applies to you according to the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit a(n) contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report.......... a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to
emission limitations the
that apply to you, a requirements in
statement that there Sec.
were no deviations 63.6017(b),
from the emission unless you meet
limitations during the
the reporting period. requirements
If there were no for annual
periods during which reporting in
the CPMS was out-of- Sec.
control as specified 63.6017(f) for
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the tire
a statement that production
there were no periods affected source
during which the CPMS only.
was out-of-control
during the reporting
period.
b. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to
emission limitation the
during the reporting requirements in
period at an affected Sec.
source where you are 63.6017(b),
not using a CPMS, the unless you meet
report must contain the
the information in requirements
Sec. 63.6010(d). If for annual
the deviation reporting in
occurred at a source Sec.
where you are using a 63.6017(f) for
CMPS or if there were the tire
periods during which production
the CPMS were out-of- affected source
control as specified only.
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must
contain the
information required
by Sec.
63.5990(f)(3).
c. Before January 21, Before January
2021, If you had a 21, 2021,
startup, shutdown, semiannually
and malfunction according to
during the reporting the
period and you took requirements in
actions consistent Sec.
with your startup, 63.6017(b),
shutdown, and unless you meet
malfunction plan, the the
compliance report requirements
must include the for annual
information in Sec. reporting in
63.10(d)(5)(i). After Sec.
January 20, 2021, 63.6017(f).
this information is After January
no longer required. 20, 2021, this
information is
no longer
required.
[[Page 94919]]
2. Before January 21, 2021, a. Before January 21, Before January
immediate startup, shutdown, 2021, actions taken 21, 2021, by
and malfunction report if you for the event. After fax or
had a startup, shutdown, and January 20, 2021, telephone
malfunction during the this report is no within 2
reporting period that is not longer required. working days
consistent with your startup, after starting
shutdown, and malfunction actions
plan. After January 20, 2021, inconsistent
this report is no longer with the plan.
required. After January
20, 2021, this
report is no
longer
required.
b. Before January 21, Before January
2021, the information 21, 2021, by
in (Sec. letter within 7
63.10(d)(5)(ii)). working days
After January 20, after the end
2021, this report is of the event
no longer required. unless you have
made
alternative
arrangements
with the
permitting
authority (Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)
). After
January 20,
2021, this
report is no
longer
required.
3. Performance Test Report.... If you use a control Conduct a
system (add-on performance
control device and test at least
capture system) to once every 5
meet the emission years following
limitations. your initial
compliance
demonstration
according to
the
requirements in
Sec. 63.5993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
31. Amend newly redesignated table 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text to the first table (that applies
before January 21, 2021); and
0
b. Revising the second table (that applies after January 20, 2021).
The revisions read as follows:
Table 22 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to This Subpart XXXX
Before January 21, 2021, as stated in Sec. 63.6020, you must
comply with the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements
according to the following table:
* * * * *
After January 20, 2021, as stated in Sec. 63.6020, you must comply
with the applicable General Provisions (GP) requirements according to
the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart XXXX?
Brief description of -------------------------------------------
Citation Subject applicable sections Using a control Not using a control
device device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1............ Applicability..... Initial applicability Yes............... Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions;
notifications.
Sec. 63.2............ Definitions....... Definitions for part 63 Yes............... Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3............ Units and Units and abbreviations Yes............... Yes.
Abbreviations. for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4............ Prohibited Prohibited activities; Yes............... Yes.
Activities. compliance date;
circumvention;
severability.
Sec. 63.5............ Construction/ Applicability; Yes............... Yes.
Reconstruction. applications;
approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)......... Applicability..... GP apply unless Yes............... Yes.
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).. Compliance Dates Standards apply at Yes............... Yes.
for New and effective date; 3
Reconstructed years after effective
Sources. date; upon startup; 10
years after
construction or
reconstruction
commences for CAA
section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)...... Notification...... Must notify if Yes............... Yes.
commenced construction
or reconstruction
after proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)...... [Reserved]........
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)...... Compliance Dates ....................... No................ No.
for New and
Reconstructed
Area Sources that
Become Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).. Compliance Dates Comply according to Yes............... Yes.
for Existing date in subpart, which
Sources. must be no later than
3 years after
effective date; for
CAA section 112(f)
standards, comply
within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).. [Reserved]........
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)...... Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes............... Yes.
for Existing Area become major must
Sources that comply with major
Become Major. source standards by
date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time period
(for example, 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)......... [Reserved]........
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)- Operations and ....................... No. See Sec. No. See Sec.
(ii). Maintenance. 63.5990(a). 63.5990(a).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)- Operation and Operate to minimize Yes............... Yes.
(2). Maintenance. emissions at all
times; correct
malfunctions as soon
as practicable; and
operation and
maintenance
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operation and
maintenance
requirements were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)...... Startup, Shutdown, ....................... No................ No.
and Malfunction
Plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)...... Startup, Shutdown, ....................... No. See Sec. No.
and Malfunction 63.5990(a).
Exemption.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).. Methods for Compliance based on Yes............... Yes.
Determining performance test;
Compliance. operation and
maintenance plans;
records; inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).. Alternative Procedures for getting Yes............... Yes.
Standard. an alternative
standard.
[[Page 94920]]
Sec. 63.6(h)......... Opacity/Visible ....................... No................ No.
Emissions (VE)
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)......... Compliance Procedures and criteria Yes............... Yes.
Extension. for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)......... Presidential President may exempt Yes............... Yes.
Compliance source category from
Exemption. requirement to comply
with rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).. Performance Test ....................... No................ No.
Dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)...... CAA section 114 Administrator may Yes............... No.
Authority. require a performance
test under CAA section
114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)...... Notification of Must notify Yes............... No.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)...... Notification of If rescheduling a Yes............... No.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date
of rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)......... Quality Assurance/ Requirement to submit Yes............... No.
Test Plan. site-specific test
plan 60 days before
the test or on date
Administrator agrees
with: test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; and
internal and external
quality assurance
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)......... Testing Facilities Requirements for Yes............... No.
testing facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)...... Conditions for Performance tests must No. See Sec. No.
Conducting be conducted under 63.5993(c).
Performance Tests. representative
conditions; cannot
conduct performance
tests during startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)...... Conditions for Must conduct according Yes............... No.
Conducting to rule and the EPA
Performance Tests. test methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)...... Test Run Duration. Must have three test Yes............... No.
runs of at least 1
hour each; compliance
is based on arithmetic
mean of three runs;
and conditions when
data from an
additional test run
can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f)......... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes............... No.
Method. Administrator can
grant approval to use
an alternative test
method.
Sec. 63.7(g)......... Performance Test Must include raw data Yes............... No.
Data Analysis. in performance test
report; must submit
performance test data
60 days after end of
test with the
Notification of
Compliance Status
report; and keep data
for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h)......... Waiver of Tests... Procedures for Yes............... No.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)...... Applicability of Subject to all Yes............... Yes.
Monitoring monitoring
Requirements. requirements in
standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)...... Performance Performance Yes, if using a Yes, if using a CEMS.
Specifications. Specifications in CEMS.
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)...... [Reserved]........
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)...... Monitoring with ....................... No................ No.
Flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)...... Monitoring........ Must conduct monitoring Yes............... Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).. Multiple Effluents Specific requirements Yes............... Yes.
and Multiple for installing
Monitoring monitoring systems;
Systems. must install on each
effluent before it is
combined and before it
is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise; if more
than one monitoring
system on an emission
point, must report all
monitoring system
results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)...... Monitoring System Maintain monitoring Applies as Applies as modified by
Operation and system in a manner modified by Sec. Sec. 63.5990(e) and
Maintenance. consistent with good 63.5990(e) and (f).
air pollution control (f).
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)... Routine and ....................... No................ No.
Predictable
Startup,
Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).. Startup, Shutdown, ....................... No................ No.
and Malfunction
not in Startup,
Shutdown, and
Malfunction Plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii). Compliance with How the Administrator No................ No.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements; review
of source operation
and maintenance
procedures, records,
manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations, and
inspection of
monitoring system.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).. Monitoring System Must install to get Yes............... Yes.
Installation. representative
emission and parameter
measurements; must
verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)...... CMS Requirements.. ....................... Applies as Applies as modified by
modified by Sec. Sec. 63.5990(f).
63.5990(f).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)...... Continuous Opacity ....................... No................ No.
Monitoring
Systems Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)...... CMS Requirements.. ....................... Applies as Applies as modified by
modified by Sec. Sec. 63.5990(e).
63.5990(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8).. CMS Requirements.. Out-of-control periods, Yes............... Yes.
including reporting.
[[Page 94921]]
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2).. CMS Quality ....................... Applies as Applies as modified by
Control. modified by Sec. Sec. 63.5990(e) and
63.5990(e) and (f).
(f).
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)...... Written Procedures ....................... No. See Sec. No. See Sec.
for CMS. 63.5990(f)(2).. 63.5990(f)(2).
Sec. 63.8(e)......... CMS Performance Performance evaluation Yes............... Yes.
Evaluation. of continuous
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).. Alternative Procedures for Yes............... Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)...... Alternative to Requesting an Yes............... Yes.
Relative Accuracy alternative to the
Test. relative accuracy test
for a CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)......... Data Reduction.... How to reduce CMS data. Applies as Applies as modified by
modified by Sec. Sec. 63.5990(f).
63.5990(f).
Sec. 63.9(a)......... Notification Applicability and state Yes............... Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5).. Initial Submit notification 120 Yes............... Yes.
Notifications. days after effective
date; notification of
intent to construct/
reconstruct,
notification of
commencement of
construct/reconstruct,
notification of
startup; and contents
of each.
Sec. 63.9(c)......... Request for Can request if cannot Yes............... Yes.
Compliance comply by date or if
Extension. installed best
available control
technology or lowest
achievable emission
rate.
Sec. 63.9(d)......... Notification of For sources that Yes............... Yes.
Special commence construction
Compliance between proposal and
Requirements for promulgation and want
New Source. to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)......... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes............... No.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)......... Notification of VE/ ....................... No................ No.
Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g)......... Additional Additional notification Yes............... Yes.
Notifications requirements for
When Using CMS. sources with
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.9(h)......... Notification of Contents; due 60 days Yes............... Yes.
Compliance Status. after end of
performance test or
other compliance
demonstration, except
for opacity/VE, which
are due 30 days after;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i)......... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes............... Yes.
Submittal Administrator to
Deadlines. approve change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)......... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 Yes............... Yes.
Information. days after the change.
Sec. 63.9(k)......... Notification...... Electronic reporting Yes, as specified Yes, as specified in
procedures. in Sec. 63.9(j). Sec. 63.9(j).
Sec. 63.10(a)........ Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes............... Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority; procedures
for owners of more
than 1 source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)..... Recordkeeping/ General Requirements; Yes............... Yes.
Reporting. keep all records
readily available; and
keep for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i) Records related to ....................... No................ No.
and (iv-v). Startup,
Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii). Recordkeeping of ....................... No. See 63.6017
failures to meet for recordkeeping
a standard. of (1) date,
time, cause, and
duration; (2)
listing of
affected source
or equipment,
whether the
failure occurred
during startup,
shutdown, or
malfunction, an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated
pollutant emitted
over the standard
and the method
used to estimate
the emissions;
and (3) actions
to minimize
emissions and
correct the
failure.
Sec. CMS Records....... Malfunctions, Yes............... Yes.
63.10(b)(2)(iii), inoperative, out-of-
(vi), and (x)-(xi). control; calibration
checks; adjustments,
maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)- Records........... Measurements to Yes............... Yes.
(ix). demonstrate compliance
with emission
limitations;
performance test,
performance
evaluation, and VE
observation results;
and measurements to
determine conditions
of performance tests
and performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii) Records........... Records when under Yes............... Yes.
waiver.
Sec. Records........... Emission levels Yes............... Yes.
63.10(b)(2)(xiii). relative to the
criterion for
obtaining permission
to use an alternative
to the relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) Records........... All documentation Yes............... Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)..... Records........... Applicability Yes............... Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(14) Records........... Additional Yes............... Yes.
recordkeeping
requirements for
sources with
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).... Use of SSM plan... ....................... No................ No.
[[Page 94922]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)..... General Reporting Requirement to report.. Yes............... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)..... Report of When to submit to Yes............... No.
Performance Test Federal or State
Results. authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)..... Reporting Opacity ....................... No................ No.
or VE
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)..... Progress Reports.. Must submit progress Yes............... Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)..... Startup, Shutdown, See Sec. 63.6017(d) No................ No.
and Malfunction for malfunction
Reports. reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)........ Additional CMS Additional reporting Yes............... Yes.
Reports. requirements for
sources with
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.10(f)........ Waiver for Procedures for Yes............... Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11........... Flares............ ....................... No................ No.
Sec. 63.12........... Delegation........ State authority to Yes............... Yes.
enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13........... Addresses......... Addresses where Yes............... Yes.
reports,
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14........... Incorporation by Test methods Yes............... Yes.
Reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15........... Availability of Public and confidential Yes............... Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-26895 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P