78692 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1 88 FR 65908 (Sept. 26, 2023). 

2 88 FR 70412 (Oct. 11, 2023). 

please contact the Copyright Office 

using the contact information below for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov or telephone at 202–707– 

8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 26, 2023, the U.S. Copyright 

Office issued a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking seeking comments 

from the public on questions regarding 

the applicability of the derivative works 

exception to termination rights under 

the Copyright Act to the new statutory 

mechanical blanket license established 

by the Music Modernization Act and 

other matters relevant to identifying the 

proper payee to whom the mechanical 

licensing collective must distribute 

royalties.1 The supplemental notice set 

an October 26, 2023 deadline for 

submitting initial comments and a 

November 13, 2023 deadline for reply 

comments. On October 11, 2023, the 

Office extended these deadlines to 

November 8, 2023 and November 28, 

2023, respectively.2

To ensure that members of the public 

have sufficient time to prepare 

responses to the Office, and to ensure 

that the Office can proceed on a timely 

basis with its inquiry of the issues 

identified in its supplemental notice 

with the benefit of a complete record, 

the Office is further extending the reply 

comment period deadlines as set forth 

here. Reply comments will now be due 

by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, 

December 5, 2023. 

Dated: November 13, 2023. 

Suzanne V. Wilson, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25341 Filed 11–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392; FRL–5949.1– 

01–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT07 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

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 proposing 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: Comments must be received on 

or before January 2, 2024. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before December 18, 2023. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

November 21, 2023, we will hold a 

virtual public hearing. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

information on requesting and 

registering for a public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0392, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2019–0392 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0392. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0392, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact 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: smith.korbin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. To request a virtual public 

hearing, contact the public hearing team 

at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the hearing will be held via 

virtual platform on December 1, 2023. 

The hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m. 

Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 

3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a 

session 15 minutes after the last preregistered speaker has testified if there 

are no additional speakers. The EPA 

will announce further details at https:// 

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after a request has been received. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubbertire-manufacturing-national-emissionstandards-hazardous or contact the 

public hearing team at (888) 372–8699 

or by email at SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to 

speak at the hearing will be November 

28, 2023. Prior to the hearing, the EPA 

will post a general agenda that will list 

pre-registered speakers at: https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 4 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to smith.korbin@epa.gov. The EPA also 

recommends submitting the text of your 

oral testimony as written comments to 

the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78693 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

While the EPA expects the hearing to go 

forward as set forth above, please 

monitor our website or contact the 

public hearing team at (888) 372–8699 

or by email at SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov to determine if there are any 

updates. The EPA does not intend to 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by November 24, 2023. The EPA may 

not be able to arrange accommodations 

without advance notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0392. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed in the Submitting CBI section 

of this document. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and should be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in the Instructions 

section of this document. If you submit 

any digital storage media that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

digital storage media clearly that it does 

not contain CBI and note the docket ID. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol, or other online file sharing 

services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, 

Google Drive). Electronic submissions 

must be transmitted directly to the 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described earlier in this preamble, 

should include clear CBI markings and 

note the docket ID. If assistance is 

needed with submitting large electronic 

files that exceed the file size limit for 

email attachments, and if you do not 

have your own file sharing service, 

please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to 

request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0392, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

OAQPS, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. 

Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this 

preamble 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: 

acfm actual cubic feet per minute 

BDL below detection limit 

BLDS baghouse leak detection system 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEDRI compliance and emissions data 

reporting interface 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DLL detection level limited 

DRE destruction and removal efficiency 

dscfm dry standard cubic feet per meter 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT electronic reporting tool 

fPM filterable particulate matter 

g gram 

g/Mg grams per megagram 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

ICR information collection request 

km kilometer 

lb pound 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78694 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

lb/hr pounds per hour 

lb/Mton pounds per million tons 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

Mg megagram 

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic 

meter 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

O&M operations and maintenance 

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 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

ppmvd parts per million by volume dry 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RDL representative detection level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer 

RTR risk and technology review 

scfm standard cubic feet per minute 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

THC total hydrocarbons 

ton/hr tons per hour 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

mg microgram 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

VOC volatile organic compound 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision 

Making 

A. Total Hydrocarbons 

B. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

C. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What are the results of our analyses of 

unregulated pollutants and how did we 

set MACT standards? 

B. What performance testing, monitoring, 

and recordkeeping and reporting are we 

proposing? 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

D. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. 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) 

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 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

and associated regulated industrial 

source categories that are the subject of 

this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to 

be exhaustive but rather provides a 

guide for readers regarding the entities 

that this proposed action is likely to 

affect. The proposed standards, once 

promulgated, will be directly applicable 

to the affected sources. Federal, State, 

local, and Tribal government entities 

would not be affected by this proposed 

action. As defined in the ‘‘Initial List of 

Categories of Sources Under Section 

112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’ (see 57 FR 

31576; July 16, 1992) and 

Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List, Final 

Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030; July 

1992), the ‘‘Tire Production’’ source 

category ‘‘is any facility engaged in 

producing passenger car and light duty 

truck tires, aircraft tires, and 

miscellaneous other tires.’’ This source 

category has been referred to as the 

‘‘Rubber Tire Manufacturing’’ source 

category since the EPA first proposed 

NESHAP requirements for this source 

category in 2000. (See 65 FR 62414; 

October 18, 2000.) 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS code 1

Rubber Tire Manufacturing ............................................ 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX .................................... 326211, 326212, 314992 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubbertire-manufacturing-national-emissionstandards-hazardous. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same 

website. 

A memorandum showing the rule 

edits that would be necessary to 

incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart XXXX, proposed in this 

action is available in the docket (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA also will post a 

copy of this document to https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

This action proposes to amend the 

NESHAP for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78695 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 112 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.). In 

the first stage of the CAA section 112 

standard-setting process, the EPA 

promulgates technology-based standards 

under CAA section 112(d) for categories 

of sources identified as emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are 

either major sources or area sources, and 

CAA section 112 establishes different 

requirements for major source standards 

and area source standards. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit or have the 

potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) 

or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAP. All 

other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For 

major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) 

provides that the technology-based 

NESHAP must reflect the maximum 

degree of emission reductions of HAP 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements, and non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts). These standards are 

commonly referred to as MACT 

standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also 

establishes a minimum control level for 

MACT standards, known as the MACT 

‘‘floor.’’ In certain instances, as 

provided in CAA section 112(h), the 

EPA may set work practice standards in 

lieu of numerical emission standards. 

The EPA must also consider control 

options that are more stringent than the 

floor. Standards more stringent than the 

floor are commonly referred to as 

‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ standards. 

CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the 

EPA to review standards promulgated 

under CAA section 112 and revise them 

‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less often 

than every 8 years. While conducting 

this review, which we call the 

‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not 

required to recalculate the MACT floors 

that were established during earlier 

rulemakings. Nat. Resources Def. 

Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Ass’n of Battery 

Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider 

cost in deciding whether to revise the 

standards pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(6). 

CAA section 112(f) requires the EPA 

to determine whether promulgation of 

additional standards is needed to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health or to prevent an 

adverse environmental effect. This 

review is known as the ‘‘residual risk 

review,’’ and it must occur within 8 

years after promulgation of the 

standards. When the EPA conducts the 

‘‘technology review’’ together with the 

‘‘residual risk review,’’ the combined 

review is known as a ‘‘risk and 

technology review’’ (RTR). 

The EPA initially promulgated the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP on 

July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45588). These 

standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXXX. 

In 2016, a coalition of environmental 

advocacy groups filed a lawsuit to 

compel the EPA to fulfill its statutory 

duty to conduct the CAA sections 

112(d) and 112(f)(2) reviews of 13 

NESHAPs, including the NESHAP for 

the Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category. Blue Ridge Environmental 

Defense League v. McCarthy, No. 1:16– 

cv–00364. As a result of that litigation, 

the EPA was required to complete its 

review of the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category. The 

resulting residual RTR conducted for 

the Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 24, 2020 (85 FR 44752) (2020 

RTR). 

In an April 2020 decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit, the court held that the 

EPA has an obligation to address 

unregulated HAP emissions from a 

source category when the Agency 

conducts the 8-year technology review 

required by CAA section 112(d)(6). 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d, at 1098–99 

(D.C. Cir. 2020) (‘‘LEAN decision or 

LEAN’’). The parties in the Blue Ridge 

Environmental Defense League case 

filed a joint motion for an extension of 

the deadline to allow the EPA to revise 

the 2020 final rule to comply with the 

LEAN opinion. The court granted the 

motion, setting a new deadline for this 

rule of October 27, 2022. Blue Ridge 

Environmental Defense League, Order 

(Apr. 15, 2021). This deadline was 

subsequently extended to November 13, 

2024. Id., Order (Mar. 14, 2022). 

In light of this litigation history, this 

proposed rule includes proposed new 

emission standards to address currently 

unregulated emissions of HAP from the 

rubber processing subcategory of Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing, pursuant to the 

LEAN decision and CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (d)(3). 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

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 facilities. The 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category is 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. 

The 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing source category 

established emission limits on a 

subcategory basis as follows. 

1. Rubber Processing 

There are currently no emission limits 

for the rubber processing subcategory. 

2. Tire Production 

There are 2 equivalent standards for 

the tire production subcategory, and 

sources can choose to comply with 

either standard. The first standard, 

which is based on HAP materials 

purchased and used in the process, is an 

emission limit that requires that 

emissions of each HAP in table 16 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 16 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire 

production process not exceed 10,000 g 

HAP per Mg (20 lb/ton) of total cements 

and solvents used at the tire production 

affected source. 

The second standard is a productionbased emission-limit option. For this 

option, emissions of HAP must not 

exceed 0.024 g/Mg (0.00005 lb/ton) of 

rubber used at the tire production 

affected source. 

3. Tire Cord Production 

There are 3 equivalent 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. 

The second standard is a productionbased emission-limit option for new or 

reconstructed tire cord production 

affected sources. As part of this 

standard, emissions must not exceed 

220 g HAP per Mg (0.43 lb/ton) of fabric 

processed at the tire cord production 

affected source. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78696 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

The third standard is a HAP 

constituent emission-limit option 

available to both existing and new or 

reconstructed tire cord production 

affected sources. 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. 

6. Recent Actions Relating to the 

NESHAP for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Source Category 

In the 2020 RTR, the EPA found that 

the risk associated with air emissions 

from rubber tire manufacturing was 

acceptable and that the current NESHAP 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. The EPA 

determined that there were no 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technologies that warranted 

revisions to the standards. 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 data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

To inform this current action, the EPA 

sent an information request pursuant to 

CAA section 114 (hereinafter ‘‘CAA 

section 114 information request’’) to all 

5 parent companies that operate major 

source rubber tire facilities (15 major 

source facilities) within the United 

States. The CAA section 114 

information request was conducted in 2 

phases. 

The first phase was sent to the parent 

companies in June 2022. It consisted of 

a questionnaire relating to rubber tire 

manufacturing processes. The 

questionnaire requested the following 

information from rubber tire facilities: 

facility information, including facility 

location and production background; 

process and control information from 

each mixer at the facility, including 

ingredients added and associated tire 

component for each combination of 

ingredients; available mixer emissions 

data for filterable particulate matter 

(fPM) HAP and VOC HAP; mixing 

schematics; and emission controls in 

use at the facility. 

The second phase of the CAA section 

114 information request sought 

emissions data on mixers through stack 

testing and required each company that 

received the request to submit the data 

and associated documentation via an 

EPA-developed response template. Draft 

emission factors developed by the U.S. 

Rubber Tire Manufacturers Association 

(USTMA) in 2008, and available in the 

Mixing 30800111 tab in the Emission 

Factors Tables excel file at https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-andquantification/ap-42-fifth-editionvolume-i-chapter-4-evaporation-loss-0, 

were reviewed and those compounds 

whose unit risks were assessed to 

provide risks near or above 1-in-1 

million were selected for emissions 

testing. Those compounds included 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs)—aniline, dibenzofuran, 

hydroquinone, naphthalene, and otoluidine. In addition, HAP metals, fPM, 

and total hydrocarbons (THC) were 

required to be collected using EPA test 

methods. The second phase of the CAA 

section 114 information request 

specified the emission testing 

procedures and methods to be followed, 

the process information to be collected 

during emission testing, how to report 

and submit the data to the EPA, and 

required contact information for the 

facility. 

The measured HAP were reported in 

units of nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter (ng/dscm) and rates in 

pounds per hour (lb/hr). The amount of 

rubber processed in units of tons per 

hour (ton/hr) was recorded, and the 

HAP data were also reported in units of 

lb/ton rubber processed. For HAP 

testing, one 3-run test was conducted for 

each mixer when organic HAP 

emissions were expected to be highest. 

THC measured in parts per million by 

volume dry (ppmvd) as propane were 

also collected during the second phase. 

For THC, data were also collected over 

a minimum 30-day period. Emissions of 

fPM and metal HAP were measured in 

units of milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter (mg/dscm) and lb/hr, and 

data were collected per parent company 

for a minimum of six runs. The amount 

of rubber processed was recorded and 

the fPM and metal HAP data were 

reported in the units of lb/ton rubber 

processed. For units and facilities, the 

testing runs were split between mixing 

silica-containing compounds and nonsilica-containing compounds, due to an 

expected difference in emission profiles. 

Other parameters measured during 

testing included: gas flow rate, 

measured in actual cubic feet per 

minute (acfm); oxygen (O2) and carbon 

dioxide (CO2), measured in dry percent 

volume; and moisture, measured in 

percent volume. The measured flow 

rates were converted to standard cubic 

feet per minute (scfm) and dry standard 

cubic feet per minute (dscfm). The THC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78697 

1For more information regarding the general use 

of the UPL and why it is appropriate for calculating 

MACT floors, see the memorandum Use of Upper 

Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors, 

which is available in the docket for this action. 

measurements were converted to 

ppmvd. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

In November of 2022, the USTMA 

voluntarily provided to the EPA test 

reports containing metals and 

particulate matter (PM) data. Of the test 

reports provided, only 1 report 

(pertaining to Mixer #5 and #7 of the 

Goodyear Danville, Virginia facility) 

contained the fPM and corresponding 

rubber production data needed to 

calculate a production-based emission 

limit (pounds of fPM per ton of rubber 

produced). As a result, we considered 

fPM data from Mixer #5 and #7 from the 

Goodyear Danville facility when setting 

the MACT standard for fPM. 

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision 

Making 

The current Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP does not 

contain any emission limits for the 

rubber processing subcategory. For the 

HAP emitted from this subcategory, we 

are proposing to establish MACT 

emission limits pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). The results and 

proposed decisions based on the 

analyses performed pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) are 

presented in section IV of this preamble. 

We discuss these emissions in the 

following 3 groupings: THC, PAH, and 

PM & metal HAP. 

A. Total Hydrocarbons 

In response to the CAA section 114 

information request, we received THC 

emissions data from the rubber 

processing subcategory that we did not 

have in 2002 when subpart XXXX was 

first promulgated nor when we 

conducted the 2020 RTR. The emissions 

data received indicate that THC is 

emitted from the rubber processing 

subcategory. Measured THC includes 

organic HAP, including but not limited 

to 2-butanone, acetophenone, cumene, 

hexane, isooctane, methylene chloride, 

phenol, toluene, and xylene, which are 

the compounds identified by the rubber 

manufacturing association (now 

USTMA) as being emitted during rubber 

processing in original testing to 

determine emission factors for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP. 

Draft emission factors developed by the 

U.S. Rubber Tire Manufacturers 

Association (USTMA) in 2008 are 

available in the Mixing 30800111 tab in 

the Emission Factors Tables excel file at 

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-fifthedition-volume-i-chapter-4-evaporationloss-0. 

The THC emissions data also includes 

PAHs and other VOCs that are not HAP, 

such as ethanol. Because the THC 

measurements, by definition, include all 

relevant organic HAP (as well as nonHAP), and considering the significant 

difficulty of measuring numerous 

individual, speciated organic HAP 

compounds, we are proposing a MACT 

standard in accordance with CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) to limit THC 

emissions as a surrogate for organic 

HAP emissions, as described further in 

section IV.A.2 of this preamble. We 

solicit 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. As 

explained below, we consider the use of 

THC as a surrogate to be an appropriate 

alternative to testing mixers to identify 

all individual, speciated, organic HAP 

emitted during rubber processing, and 

subsequently setting separate standards 

and monitoring requirements for each 

specific identified HAP. 

B. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PAHs are a group of over 100 different 

chemicals that are formed during the 

incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, 

garbage, or other organic substances. 

PAHs are usually found as a mixture 

containing 2 or more of these 

compounds, such as soot. Additives to 

rubber provide characteristics important 

for tire performance; included in those 

additives is carbon black, which, 

depending on its origin, includes many 

PAHs. In response to the CAA section 

114 information request, the EPA 

received PAH emissions data from the 

rubber processing subcategory that we 

did not have in 2002 when subpart 

XXXX was first promulgated nor in 

2020 when we conducted the RTR. We 

used this new emissions data to develop 

the proposed MACT standards in 

accordance with CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (d)(3). Specifically, we are 

proposing to use THC emissions as a 

surrogate for PAH and all organic HAP 

emissions, as discussed further in 

section IV.A.1 of this preamble. 

C. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP 

PM, specifically fPM, is a criteria 

pollutant created and emitted by many 

activities, including addition of carbon 

black to rubber while mixing. Filterable 

particulate matter contains a number of 

compounds including filterable metals, 

which are HAP. Baghouses, or fabric 

filters, employed at tire manufacturing 

facilities control and collect fPM and its 

inherent filterable metals, and, in some 

instances, the collected fPM is 

reintroduced into the mixers. In 

response to the CAA section 114 

information request, the EPA received 

fPM and metal HAP emissions data from 

rubber processing that we did not have 

in 2002 when subpart XXXX was first 

promulgated nor in 2020 when we 

conducted the 2020 RTR. The emissions 

data received indicate that fPM and 

metal HAP are emitted from rubber 

processing. Pursuant to this data and 

information, we are proposing a MACT 

standard in accordance with CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) to limit fPM 

emissions as a surrogate for metal HAP 

emissions, as described further in 

section IV.A.3 of this preamble. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

When developing MACT standards, 

the MACT ‘‘floor’’ for existing sources is 

calculated based on the average 

performance of the best performing 

sources in each category or subcategory. 

The MACT floor for new sources is 

based on the single best performing 

source. The MACT floor for new sources 

cannot be less stringent than the 

emissions performance that is achieved 

in practice by the best controlled similar 

source. To account for variability in the 

rubber processing operations and 

resulting emissions, we calculated the 

MACT floors using the 99 percent 

Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) approach 

with available stack test data.1

The UPL approach addresses 

emissions data from the best performing 

source or sources in setting MACT 

standards. The UPL also accounts for 

uncertainty associated with emission 

values in a dataset, which can be 

influenced by factors such as the 

number of samples available for 

developing MACT standards and the 

number of samples that will be collected 

to assess compliance with the emission 

limit. The UPL approach has been used 

in many environmental science 

applications. As explained in more 

detail in the memorandum, Use of 

Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating 

MACT Floors, available in the docket for 

this action, the EPA uses the UPL 

approach to reasonably estimate the 

emissions performance of the best 

performing source or sources to 

establish MACT floor standards. 

In addition, under CAA section 

112(d)(2), the EPA must examine more 

stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ regulatory 

options to determine the appropriate 

level for the MACT standards. Unlike 

the MACT floor minimum stringency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78698 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

2https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846- 

compendium. 

3The International Union of Pure and Applied 

Chemistry defines congeners as chemical 

substances ‘‘related to each other by origin, 

structure, or function.’’ 

requirements, the EPA must consider 

various impacts of the more stringent 

regulatory options in determining 

whether MACT standards are to reflect 

beyond-the-floor requirements. These 

impacts include the cost of achieving 

emission reductions beyond those 

achieved by the MACT floor, and any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements that would result from 

imposing controls beyond the MACT 

floor. If the EPA concludes that the 

more stringent regulatory options are 

not reasonable, the EPA sets the 

standards at the MACT floor level. 

However, if the EPA concludes that 

impacts associated with beyond-thefloor levels of control are reasonable in 

light of the additional considerations, 

the EPA selects those levels as MACT. 

Data submitted to the EPA in response 

to the CAA section 114 information 

request included air emissions test 

results from 12 rubber processing 

mixers at 6 facilities in the source 

category. The responses also included 

the types of materials being processed 

and the types of controls in use at 

mixers within the source category. The 

types of tires produced included 

passenger and light truck tires, off road 

tires, truck tires, earth moving tires, and 

aircraft tires, which are representative of 

the major types of tires produced by 

facilities in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category. 

Similarly, all of the tire component 

types of rubber compounds (inner liner, 

ply coat, belt coat, base/sidewall, apex, 

tread) were represented. The types of air 

emission controls included fPM controls 

(e.g., fabric filter baghouses, cartridge 

dust collectors, and scrubbers) on all 

mixers and regenerative thermal 

oxidizers (RTOs) on 3 mixers at 3 

facilities (in addition to the fPM 

controls). 

Due to issues with availability of 

testing equipment and due to 

unforeseen issues with some of the 

emissions testing, not all data for the 

second phase of the CAA section 114 

information request was timely 

submitted. The EPA received some data 

after the requested deadline, and some 

of the late-submitted data was not 

submitted in time for us to consider it 

for the proposal. The EPA anticipates 

incorporating these additional data, 

which includes data from 6 additional 

mixers (Continental Mt Vernon Mixer 

19 and 21, Cooper Texarkana Mixer 1, 

5, and 8, and Titan Tire Mixer 6 (just 30- 

day THC data)) when we develop the 

final rule. Three of these mixers 

(Continental Mt Vernon Mixer 19 and 

21, Cooper Texarkana Mixer 8) operate 

RTOs, with the two mixers from 

Continental (Mixer 19 and 21) operating 

RTOs continuously for all batch types 

and Cooper (mixer 8) operating only 

when utilizing silica containing 

compounds. Although we have not had 

adequate time to evaluate the data from 

these mixers it is possible that the 

mixers (especially those that operate 

RTOs) may be among the top performing 

mixers tested, and thus be the new basis 

of the MACT floor calculations. 

Additionally, we anticipate that the 

addition of data for these 6 mixers will 

change the number of mixers used to 

calculate the MACT floors both for 

mixers using silica-containing 

compounds and for mixers using nonsilica-containing compounds, thus 

resulting in a change of the proposed 

calculated MACT floor emission limits. 

All the CAA section 114 data, including 

the late-submitted data are available at 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

We are specifically requesting comment 

on the late-submitted data, which was 

not received in time for us to consider 

for proposal. 

The CAA provides that MACT 

standards for existing sources may be no 

less stringent, but may be more 

stringent, than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of the existing 

sources (or best performing 5 sources in 

the category or subcategory where there 

are fewer than 30 sources) for which the 

Administrator has information. Since 

there are over 29 mixers for each of the 

silica-containing and non-silicacontaining compounds, the MACT 

floors are calculated using the top 12 

percent of data available. For this 

proposal, the EPA was able to use THC 

data for 11 mixers, and 12 percent of 11 

mixers is 1.32 mixers. 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 purposes of determining 

the existing source MACT floor. As 

previously mentioned, we received latesubmitted data for an additional 6 

mixers that were not provided in time 

to consider for this proposal, but which 

we intend to consider for the final rule; 

when the data from the additional 6 

mixers are included, the number of 

mixers identified as the best performers 

is expected to change from 2 to 3 (i.e., 

17 mixers, and 12 percent of 17 mixers 

is 2.04, which rounds up to 3 mixers). 

It is possible that the fPM and metal 

HAP MACT floor may change when 

including the new data. For additional 

information on the data collected in the 

CAA section 114 information request, 

please see the memorandum, Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Analysis for the Rubber Processing 

Subcategory in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry, available in the 

docket for this action. 

A. What are the results of our analyses 

of unregulated pollutants and how did 

we set MACT standards? 

1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

The EPA received data from five 

facilities for 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 

using Method 3542, and analyzed using 

Method 8270E.2

Many of the measured emissions were 

below the detection limit of the 

approved testing method, and others 

were detection level limited (DLL). 

Results are considered below detection 

limit (BDL) when every measured result 

for a compound in a test run is less than 

the laboratory’s reported detection level. 

Data are considered DLL when the 

results in a given test run are a mixture 

of values less than and greater than the 

laboratory’s reported detection level for 

that compound. All of the test results for 

hydroquinone and dibenzofuran were 

BDL. The test results for aniline, 

naphthalene, and o-toluidine included 

values that were above the detection 

level. 

Reported levels of two PAH 

compounds—dibenzofuran and 

hydroquinone—are below current 

detection levels at each facility; 

therefore, the EPA is not proposing 

emission limits for dibenzofuran or 

hydroquinone. Moreover, because the 

World Health Organization recognizes 

17 dioxin-like congeners 3 (7 

polychlorinated dioxins and 10 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans), the 

USTMA emission factor data contain no 

polychlorinated dioxins or 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and 

measured unpolychlorinated 

dibenzofuran values are BDL, the EPA is 

proposing that no emission limits for 

dioxin-like compounds are needed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78699 

The remaining PAH species—aniline, 

naphthalene, and o-toluidine—are also 

organic HAP and hydrocarbons and so 

will be accounted for in THC 

measurements. Therefore, the EPA is 

not proposing a separate emission limit 

for PAHs and is instead proposing a 

limit for THC emissions. Total THC 

results include the effect of PAH, 

organic HAP, and VOC contained in 

exhaust streams and are well suited to 

serve as surrogates for these 

compounds. We are soliciting comment 

on the use of THC as a surrogate in 

place of setting emission limits for 

PAHs, specifically. 

A detailed description of the analysis 

of the PAH data is included in the 

memorandum, 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 

We received long-term (30 days or 

longer) THC emissions test results from 

5 facilities and a total of 11 mixers in 

response to the second phase of the 

CAA section 114 information request. 

From 5 mixers, we also received shortterm THC data (e.g., 3 to 11 runs lasting 

from 20 minutes to 3 hours per run). 

The following were monitored 

continuously for each mixer over a 

period of at least 30 days: uncorrected 

THC as propane measured in parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) using EPA 

Method 25A, oxygen volume (percent), 

moisture volume (percent), the quantity 

of rubber processed, and the start and 

stop timestamps for each batch of rubber 

processed. Additional data collected 

during these tests included the tire 

component processed and whether the 

processed tire component contained 

silica. Although all rubber mixing 

operations produce THC emissions, the 

addition of silica, which is used to 

create longer wearing and more fuelefficient tread rubber compounds, reacts 

with other compounds during the 

mixing operation, leading to increased 

THC emissions during the mixing 

operation. Some facilities vent mixer 

exhaust to an RTO to reduce emissions 

when mixing silica-containing 

compounds, and 1 tested facility 

exhausts the mixing of all rubber 

compounds to an RTO. 

Flow rate was measured during shortterm testing (3 to 11 runs with 20- to 

360-minute run duration) over several 

runs for five mixers. For the remaining 

six mixers for which 30-day THC 

monitoring was performed, flow rate 

data were not available. However, the 

six mixers without flow-rate data are 

located at facilities that included at least 

one other mixer with available flow-rate 

data, and the flow rates were 

comparable among mixers at different 

facilities. The flow rate data were used 

to estimate the hourly mass emissions of 

THC from the THC concentration data. 

The THC concentration (ppmv) was 

corrected for each measurement to a dry 

basis (ppmvd) if a simultaneous 

moisture content measurement was 

available. If a moisture content 

measurement was not available, then 

the as-measured concentration (ppmv) 

was used. Moisture in the air was 

typically less than 2 percent, so 

adjusting the THC measurements using 

a default moisture content for those 

concentrations without moisture would 

not have a significant effect on 

emissions. The oxygen concentrations 

were always close to ambient levels, so 

the THC concentrations were not 

corrected to a standard oxygen 

concentration. The ppmvd (or ppmv) 

values were combined with the exhaust 

flow (dscfm) to calculate the lb/hr THC 

emission rates. If the THC 

measurements were made upstream 

from an RTO (i.e., THC levels were 

measured before reaching the control 

device), then the emission rates were 

corrected to account for the measured 

destruction and removal efficiency 

(DRE) of the RTO. We are soliciting 

comment on this approach regarding the 

30-day THC data. 

The CAA section 114 information 

request required that, during the THC 

monitoring, facilities record the amount 

of rubber produced for silica-containing 

and non-silica-containing rubber, 

including the start and end times of 

each batch and whether the batch was 

silica-containing or non-silica 

containing. The information request 

sought data that was separated into 

silica-containing and non-silicacontaining batches, due to differences in 

raw ingredients, resulting in different 

expected emission profiles when silica 

is added. The EPA expected different 

emission profiles between the two 

processes that use different raw 

materials, because the addition of silica 

leads to chemical reactions producing 

additional organics. The expected 

increase in organics, is represented by 

higher levels of THC emissions, 

compared to non-silica batches. The 

data received in the CAA section 114 

information request confirmed that THC 

emissions from silica batches are higher, 

resulting in the EPA determination that 

it is appropriate to set two separate 

standards for silica-containing and nonsilica-containing batches. EPA seeks 

comment on its approach to propose 

two separate standards, based on those 

material-based processes exhibiting 

markedly different emission profiles. 

The time data were used to match the 

THC and production data to calculate 

daily THC emissions and production in 

pounds per hour of THC and rubber for 

silica-containing and non-silicacontaining rubber. The THC lb/hr 

emissions data were combined with the 

hourly production data to calculate the 

daily THC emission rate in terms of 

grams of THC emitted per megagram (g/ 

Mg) of rubber produced for each mixer. 

The EPA calculated separate values for 

silica-containing and non-silicacontaining rubber compounds. 

For several mixers, responses to the 

CAA section 114 information request 

showed negative THC concentration 

values for significant periods of time. 

Individual THC values (i.e., those 

recorded every minute) that were more 

negative than –5 ppmv were excluded 

from the dataset on the assumption that 

they represented faulty THC monitoring 

measurements and were not replaced. 

Individual THC measurements between 

0 and –5 ppmv were kept in the data but 

were treated as a 0 ppmv value when 

calculating the daily average THC 

concentration in ppmv. We are 

soliciting comment on the proposed 

approach to addressing negative THC 

values. 

From these THC values and 

production data for silica-containing 

and non-silica-containing rubber 

compounds, we calculated UPL values 

for each mixer for 7-day and 15-day 

rolling averages in terms of grams of 

THC emitted per megagram (g/Mg) of 

silica-containing or non-silicacontaining rubber produced. Separate 

UPL values were calculated for silicacontaining and non-silica-containing 

compound production. Consistent with 

the approach we have developed to set 

MACT standards, we also determined 

the representative detection level (RDL) 

for THC values, as well as 3 times the 

RDL (3xRDL) for THC values and 

compared the 3xRDL values to the UPL 

values. When the 99-percent UPL values 

exceed 3xRDL values, the EPA uses the 

99-percent UPL values for emission 

limit setting purposes, but when 3xRDL 

values exceed the 99-percent UPL 

values, the EPA uses 3xRDL values for 

emission limit setting purposes because 

the standard needs to be established at 

a level that sources can demonstrate 

with reasonable confidence. 

The RDL process for THC values is 

determined at 6 percent of the high end 

of the measurement range appropriate 

for the best performing sources. This 

means that once the EPA determines the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78700 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

THC parts per million (ppm) values 

from the best performers, the EPA 

selects an appropriate instrument range, 

which may not necessarily be the range 

used in a particular instance by a 

particular source. For instance, if the 

best performers had THC ppm values 

from 1 to 67 ppm, then an appropriate 

instrument range would be 0 to 100 

ppm, even though one or more of the 

best performers may have used an 

instrument with a range of 0 to 1,000 

ppm. Note that common instrument 

ranges include 0 to 10 and 0 to 100 

ppm; furthermore, many instruments 

allow custom ranges, so ranges from 0 

to 50 ppm and 0 to 500 ppm are 

available. Also note that dual range 

instruments are available in the 

commerce stream such that a primary 

(low) range and secondary (high) range 

can be used as needed for THC 

measurements. 

The EPA considered 7- and 15-day 

rolling averages for both silicacontaining and non-silica-containing 

compounds because they are more 

representative of emissions over time 

due to the variability across the mixing 

operation compared to a 1-day emission 

limit, considering that mixers may not 

mix both silica-containing and nonsilica-containing materials in a single 

day. 

The EPA is proposing a 15-day rolling 

average THC emission limit for mixers 

of both silica-containing and non-silicacontaining compounds, rather than a 7- 

day rolling average THC emission limit, 

because emissions begin to normalize 

after 15 days with fewer significant 

deviations in the rolling-average THC 

values compared to a 7-day rolling 

average. We believe a 15-day rolling 

average THC emission limit better 

represents actual emissions from mixers 

and better encompasses variability due 

to batch type. In addition, separate 15- 

day rolling average THC emission limits 

are being proposed for mixers of silicacontaining and non-silica-containing 

compounds due to differences in 

emissions profiles of the mixtures, 

which results in distinct THC ranges for 

these 2 types of compounds. 

The EPA is proposing an emission 

limit for THC as a surrogate for organic 

HAP emitted from rubber mixers for 

silica-containing and non-silicacontaining compounds. Total quantities 

of THC emitted from rubber processing 

invariably contain organic HAP. 

Because EPA Method 25A measures the 

carbon content of compounds, as 

opposed to mass of individual 

compounds, THC values are not 

speciated into specific compounds; 

rather, total THC results include the 

effect of, and therefore encompass the 

emissions of PAH, organic HAP, and 

VOC contained in exhaust streams. As 

such, THC serves as a form of 

categorical ‘‘umbrella,’’ capturing 

various pollutants, and is therefore well 

suited to serve as a surrogate for these 

compounds. The destruction of THC, 

will indiscriminately result in the 

destruction of organic HAP. Therefore, 

and based on our understanding of the 

processes at these facilities, we believe 

that there is an expected relationship 

between controlling THC emissions and 

controlling organic HAP emissions. 

Data gathered from responses to the 

CAA section 114 information request 

identified that the primary control 

device utilized for organic compound 

emissions control on rubber tire mixers 

is an RTO, and destruction of THC will 

reliably indicate destruction of organic 

HAP. Because multiple organic HAP 

may be emitted from the mixers, it is 

more practical to monitor and measure 

THC emissions than to monitor and 

measure individual organic HAP. 

Furthermore, EPA is not aware of any 

evidence that there is any emission 

control device (other than an RTO), that 

would directly regulate organic HAP 

and be as, or more, effective at reducing 

organic HAP than simply regulating 

THC emissions themselves. As 

discussed above, it is expected that 

lower aggregate THC emissions are 

associated with lower total organic HAP 

emissions. It is also more practical to 

establish an emission limit for THC than 

for individual organic HAP because a 

THC emission limit accounts for 

variability in individual organic 

emission rates among different batches 

of rubber compound being mixed. 

Based on responses to the CAA 

section 114 information request, the 

EPA determined that 97 mixers are 

located at major sources of rubber tire 

manufacturing. The EPA has THC data 

for 11 mixers, and 3 of these mixers are 

equipped with RTOs. For one mixer 

controlled by an RTO (Continental, 

Mount Vernon, Illinois, Mixer #22), the 

emissions are continuously routed to 

the RTO, and the THC emissions were 

measured at the outlet of the RTO for 

silica and non-silica emissions. For the 

other two mixers equipped with RTOs 

(Goodyear, Fayetteville, North Carolina, 

Mixer #8; and Goodyear, Danville, 

Virginia, Mixer #110), THC emissions 

are only routed to the RTOs when the 

mixers are running batches that contain 

silica, such as tread rubber. For these 

two mixers, the THC emissions were 

required to be measured at the outlet of 

the mixer, but before the RTO. This 

sampling location was selected because 

several mixers share the tested RTO; 

therefore, to get data representative of a 

single mixer, it was necessary to test at 

the outlet of the mixer prior to the 

combined stream at the RTO. The most 

recent measured DREs provided by the 

facilities for these mixers were applied 

to determine the controlled THC 

emission rate in g/Mg rubber produced. 

a. THC Existing Source Standard for 

Silica-Containing Compounds 

The EPA determined the existing 

source MACT floor THC emission limit 

for silica-containing compounds based 

on the top two performing mixers. As 

discussed in section IV of this preamble, 

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 information) when establishing the 

MACT floor level of control. Based on 

responses to the CAA section 114 

information request, there are an 

estimated 56 mixers that use silica, and 

the MACT floor is calculated using the 

available data for the top performing 12 

percent of mixers. The EPA has THC 

data for 11 mixers, and 12 percent of 11 

mixers is 1.32 mixers. 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 purposes of determining 

the existing source MACT floor. The 

existing source MACT floor THC 

emission limit for silica-containing 

compounds is based on the average 15- 

day emission rate achieved by the two 

lowest emitting mixers. For these 2 

mixers, the EPA included each mixer’s 

daily average THC emission rate in a 

list, and then calculated 15-day rolling 

averages from the daily averages. 

The proposed 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 controlled 

by RTOs, and represents the average 

performance of the 2 mixers. 

Based on these data, we are proposing 

an existing source MACT floor THC 

limit for mixing silica-containing 

compounds of 9.4 g/Mg rubber 

produced (18,840 pounds per million 

tons (lb/Mton)), based on a 15-day 

rolling average. The maximum THC 

ppm value from the best performers is 

385 ppm, so an appropriate instrument 

range would be 0 to 500 ppm, which 

leads to an RDL value of 30 ppm and a 

3xRDL value of 90 ppm. When this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78701 

3xRDL value is combined with the 

average flow rate, percent removal, and 

production of the best performers, the 

result is 7.7 g/Mg rubber processed 

(15,430 lb/Mton). Since the 3xRDL 

value is less than the UPL value of 9.4 

g/Mg rubber processed (18,840 lb/ 

Mton), the UPL value is the basis for the 

proposed existing source MACT floor 

for mixing silica-containing compounds. 

We request comment on the proposed 

MACT floor THC emission limit for 

mixing silica-containing compounds. 

b. THC Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for 

Existing Source Standard for SilicaContaining Compounds 

In addition to determining the MACT 

floor level of control, the EPA must 

examine more stringent ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ regulatory options to determine 

MACT. 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 MACT standards 

are to reflect beyond-the-floor 

requirements. If the EPA concludes that 

the more stringent regulatory options 

are not reasonable, then the EPA selects 

the MACT floor as MACT. However, if 

the EPA concludes that the beyond-thefloor levels of control are reasonable in 

light of additional emissions reductions 

achieved, then the EPA selects those 

levels as MACT. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we identify control options or 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve emission reductions beyond the 

MACT floor level of control. The EPA 

did not identify any new control options 

or techniques other than those which 

are currently used by existing facilities. 

However, the EPA performed an 

illustrative analysis, estimating costs 

associated with requiring mixers to meet 

the current emission limit achieved by 

the single best performing mixer, as a 

potential beyond-the-floor option. The 

existing source MACT floor limit for 

mixing silica-containing compounds is 

based on the combined UPL for the 2 

lowest emitting mixers controlled by an 

RTO. We evaluated the cost 

effectiveness of going beyond the floor 

to adopt the single lowest emitting 

mixer controlled by an RTO. The UPL 

for the single lowest emitting mixer 

controlled by an RTO and mixing silicacontaining compounds is 9.4 g/Mg 

rubber produced (18,840 lb/Mton), 

based on a 15-day rolling average. 

To comply with such a standard, we 

estimate that existing mixers that use 

silica-containing compounds would be 

required to use an RTO or similar 

control device. In order to achieve this 

standard, RTOs would likely need to 

have a higher DRE than that required for 

the existing source emission limit to 

achieve the level of emission reduction 

of the best performing source. To 

increase the DRE, we estimate that RTOs 

would need to increase their operating 

temperature. To represent this increase, 

we calculated the estimated cost of 

increasing the operating temperature of 

an RTO from 1400 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) to 1600 °F. The beyond-the-floor 

standard would achieve an additional 

8.7 Mg per year (9.6 tpy) of THC 

reductions. The incremental costeffectiveness, compared to the MACT 

floor level of control, would be about 

$35,000 per additional Mg ($32,000/ton) 

of THC reduced beyond the MACT floor 

level of control, due to the increased 

fuel consumption to operate the RTO at 

a higher temperature and achieve a 

higher DRE. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the cost of setting THC emission limits 

beyond the MACT floor for silicacontaining compounds existing sources 

is not reasonable when considering cost. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to set 

THC emission limits for silicacontaining compounds existing sources 

at the MACT floor level of control. We 

request comment on our approach to 

considering beyond-the-floor controls. 

For additional information see the 

memorandum, Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry, available in the docket for this 

action. 

c. THC Existing Source Standard for 

Non-Silica-Containing Compounds 

For the existing source THC MACT 

floor emission limit for non-silicacontaining compounds, the EPA has 

THC data from 1 mixer that is controlled 

by an RTO for non-silica-containing 

compounds and from 10 other mixers 

that use non-silica-containing 

compounds and are not equipped with 

an RTO. As discussed in the beginning 

of section IV of this preamble, 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 information) when establishing the 

MACT floor level of control. There are 

an estimated 41 mixers that do not use 

silica, and the MACT floor is calculated 

using data from the top performing 12 

percent of mixers for which we have 

data. The EPA has THC data for 11 

mixers, and 12 percent of 11 mixers is 

1.32 mixers. 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 purposes of 

determining the existing source MACT 

floor. 

To determine the MACT floor 

emission limit for non-silica-containing 

compounds, the EPA combined the THC 

emissions data from the one mixer with 

an RTO controlling the mixing of nonsilica-containing compounds 

(Continental, Mount Vernon, Illinois, 

Mixer #22) and the emissions data from 

the next best performing mixer 

(Goodyear, Lawton, Texas, Mixer #1). 

The UPL was then calculated from the 

15-day averages for the combined 

Goodyear and Continental mixers for 

non-silica-containing compounds and 

determined to be 16.4 g/Mg rubber 

produced (32,870 lb/Mton). 

The maximum THC value from the 

best performers is 37 ppm, so an 

appropriate instrument range would be 

0 to 50 ppm, which leads to an RDL 

value of 3 ppm and a 3xRDL value of 

9 ppm. When this 3xRDL value is 

combined with the average flow rate 

and production of the best performers, 

the result is 45.4 g/Mg rubber processed 

(91,000 lb/Mton). Since the 3xRDL 

value is greater than the UPL value of 

16.4 g/Mg rubber processed (32,870 lb/ 

Mton), the 3xRDL value is the basis for 

the proposed existing source MACT 

floor for mixing non-silica-containing 

compounds. The proposed existing 

source MACT floor THC emission limit 

for mixing non-silica-containing 

compounds is 45.4 g/Mg rubber 

produced (91,000 lb/Mton), based on a 

15-day rolling average. For additional 

information see the memorandum, 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Analysis for the 

Rubber Processing Subcategory in the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry, 

available in the docket for this action. 

We request comment on our proposed 

approach to setting the existing source 

MACT floor THC emission limit for 

non-silica-containing compounds from 

mixers and the proposed MACT floor 

emission limit. 

d. THC Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for 

Existing Source Standard for Non-SilicaContaining Compounds 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

as part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, 

we identify control options or 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve emission reductions beyond the 

MACT floor level of control. The EPA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78702 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

did not identify any new control options 

or techniques other than what is 

currently used. However, the EPA 

evaluated the beyond-the-floor option of 

requiring mixers to meet the current 

emission limit of the single best 

performing mixer. The EPA has THC 

data from one facility that operates an 

RTO at all times (Continental, Mt. 

Vernon, Illinois, Mixer #22). As 

explained below, the 15-day UPL for 

mixing non-silica-containing 

compounds from that mixer, measured 

at the outlet of the RTO, is 13.4 g/Mg 

(26,860 lb/Mton), while its 3xRDL value 

is 17.2 g/Mg (34,470 lb/Mton), based on 

a 15-day rolling average. 

Based on data collected in response to 

the CAA section 114 information 

request, of the mixers for which we have 

data, we expect that three mixers (25 

percent) of the 12 mixers for which we 

have data, would be able to comply with 

the existing source UPL for non-silicacontaining compounds without 

requiring an RTO or similar control 

device. We expect all mixers would 

need to operate an RTO or similar 

control device to achieve the level of 

emission reduction of the best 

performing source. We assume that if an 

additional 25 percent of mixers needed 

to install RTOs, as many as four 

additional RTOs would be needed (25 

percent of 41 = 10.25, which would 

round up to 11 mixers; an average of 3 

mixers per RTO would require at least 

4 new RTOs for those 11 mixers) to meet 

a beyond-the-floor emission limit. The 

total annual cost of those four additional 

RTOs would be $2.2 million per year. 

Additionally, in order to establish 

MACT standards that achieve emissions 

reductions beyond the MACT floor level 

of control, RTOs would likely need to 

have a higher DRE compared to the 

existing source emission limit to meet 

the lower new source emission limit. To 

increase the DRE, we estimate that RTOs 

would have to increase their operating 

temperature. To represent this increase, 

we calculated the estimated cost of 

increasing the operating temperature of 

an RTO from 1400 °F to 1600 °F. The 

annual cost difference to operate one 

RTO at 1600 degrees F compared to 

1400 degrees F is estimated to be 

$16,000 per year, due to higher gas and 

electricity costs. The total annual cost 

for 14 RTOs would be $226,000 per 

year. The total combined cost for new 

RTOs and increased RTO operating 

temperature would be $2.4 million per 

year. 

The beyond-the-floor emission limit 

would achieve an additional 57.5 Mg 

(63.2 tpy) of THC reductions at an 

added cost of approximately $42,000/ 

Mg of THC reduced ($38,000/ton), based 

on the installation of four additional 

RTOs and the increased fuel 

consumption to operate the RTOs at a 

higher temperature to achieve a higher 

DRE. For additional information see the 

memorandum, Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry, available in the docket for this 

action. 

We propose to conclude that setting 

THC emission limits beyond the MACT 

floor for non-silica-containing 

compounds existing sources is not 

reasonable when considering cost. 

Therefore, we are proposing to set THC 

emission limits for non-silica-containing 

compounds existing sources at the 

MACT floor level of control. We request 

comment on our approach to 

considering beyond-the-floor control. 

e. THC New Source Standard 

The THC MACT emission limits for 

new sources are based on the emission 

limitation achieved by the best 

controlled similar source. For both 

silica-containing and non-silicacontaining compounds, the best 

controlled source were mixers that 

operate an RTO. One mixer 

(Continental, Mount Vernon, Illinois, 

Mixer #22), routes all emissions (silica 

and non-silica) to an RTO. This mixer 

serves as the best performing source for 

non-silica-containing compounds. 

There are 3 mixers that operate silicacontaining compounds that are 

controlled by RTOs for which the EPA 

has data (Goodyear, Fayetteville, North 

Carolina, Mixer #8, Continental, Mount 

Vernon, Illinois, Mixer #22, and 

Goodyear, Danville, Virginia, Mixer 

#110). 

We calculated the 15-day UPL rolling 

average emission rate for the mixers 

controlled by RTOs that control the 

mixing of silica-containing compounds 

and the one mixer controlled by an RTO 

that also controls the mixing of nonsilica-containing compounds. 

f. THC New Source Standard for SilicaContaining Compounds 

For mixing silica-containing 

compounds, the proposed new source 

UPL is 2.1 grams of THC per megagram 

(g/Mg) of rubber produced (4,210 lb/ 

Mton). The maximum THC value from 

the best performers is 37 ppm, so an 

appropriate instrument range would be 

0 to 100 ppm, which leads to an RDL 

value of 6 ppm and a 3xRDL value of 

18 ppm. When this 3xRDL value is 

combined with the average flow rate, 

percent removal, and production of the 

best performers, the result is 1.8 g/Mg 

rubber processed (3,610 lb/Mton). Since 

the 3xRDL value is less than the UPL 

value of 2.1 g/Mg rubber processed 

(4,210 lb/Mton), the UPL value is the 

basis for the proposed new source 

MACT floor for mixing silica-containing 

compounds. For additional information 

see the memorandum, Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Analysis for the Rubber Processing 

Subcategory in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry, available in the 

docket for this action. 

g. THC New Source Standard for NonSilica-Containing Compounds 

For mixing non-silica-containing 

compounds, the proposed new source 

UPL is 13.4 grams of THC per megagram 

(g/Mg) of rubber produced (26,860 lb/ 

Mton). The maximum THC value from 

the best performers is 2 ppm, so an 

appropriate instrument range would be 

0 to 10 ppm, which leads to an RDL 

value of 0.6 ppm and a 3xRDL value of 

1.8 ppm. When this 3xRDL value is 

combined with the average flow rate 

and production of the best performers, 

the result is 17.2 g/Mg rubber processed 

(34,470 lb/Mton). Since the 3xRDL 

value is greater than the UPL value of 

13.4 g/Mg rubber processed (26,860 lb/ 

Mton), the 3xRDL value is the basis for 

the proposed new source MACT floor 

for mixing silica-containing compounds. 

For additional information see the 

memorandum, Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry, available in the docket for this 

action. 

The proposed new and existing 

source THC MACT floor limits are 

summarized in table 3. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED THC MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING RUBBER PROCESSING SOURCES

Rubber compound type 

New source MACT floor limit 

THC per rubber produced 

[primary THC instrument range, ppm] 

Existing source MACT floor limit 

THC per rubber produced 

[primary THC instrument range, ppm] 

Silica-Containing ................................................ 2.1 g/Mg (4,200 lb/Mton) [0–100] .................... 9.4 g/Mg (18,800 lb/Mton) [0–500]. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78703 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED THC MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING RUBBER PROCESSING SOURCES—Continued 

Rubber compound type 

New source MACT floor limit 

THC per rubber produced 

[primary THC instrument range, ppm] 

Existing source MACT floor limit 

THC per rubber produced 

[primary THC instrument range, ppm] 

Non-Silica-Containing ........................................ 17.2 g/Mg (34,400 lb/Mton) [0–10] .................. 45.4 g/Mg (90,800 lb/Mton) [0–50]. 

A detailed description of the analysis 

of THC data, and the controls necessary 

to reduce THC emissions, is included in 

the document, Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry, available in the docket for this 

action. 

3. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP 

Based on responses to the CAA 

section 114 information request, the 

EPA has fPM data from seven mixers 

and metal HAP data from five mixers. 

The EPA had no reason to assume a 

difference in fPM and metal HAP 

emissions based on the mixing of silicacontaining or non-silica-containing 

compounds, as silica is known to cause 

an increase in organic emissions, which 

does not impact PM; thus, a single 

emission standard was calculated for 

both classes of 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). As 

discussed in the beginning of section IV 

of this preamble, 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) 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. The EPA has fPM 

data from 7 mixers and metal HAP data 

for 5 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 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 one mixer for purposes of 

determining the existing source MACT 

floor for fPM and metal HAP. 

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 

fabric filter baghouse or similar control 

devices that control PM emissions. 

The EPA calculated the MACT floor 

for fPM as 3,410 lb/Mton rubber 

produced (1.7 grams of fPM per 

megagram (g/Mg) of rubber produced) 

and a total metal HAP emission rate of 

74.1 lb/Mton rubber produced (0.037 g/ 

Mg). 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 the 

metal HAP are emitted as fPM, the EPA 

is proposing to use fPM as a surrogate 

for metal HAP and also 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 fabric filter 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 is proposing to require 

facilities to measure fPM using EPA 

Method 5 and the metal HAP will be 

measured using EPA Method 29. 

Facilities may choose either the 

emission limit for fPM or the alternative 

emission limit for total metal HAP to 

comply. We request comment on our 

proposal to use fPM as a surrogate for 

metal HAP emission limits at the MACT 

floor level and on our MACT floor 

calculations. 

All existing mixers in the subcategory 

are already controlled by fabric filter 

baghouses to recover raw materials in 

the form of fPM and recycle them back 

to the process and to minimize nuisance 

emissions. The proposed emission 

limits for new and existing sources are 

based on the use of a fabric filter 

baghouse. As part of our beyond-thefloor analysis, we identify control 

options and techniques that have the 

ability to achieve an emission limit 

more stringent than the MACT floor. No 

control options or techniques were 

identified that would achieve HAP 

reductions greater than the best 

performing mixer. Because the proposed 

standards for new and existing sources 

are based on the best performing mixer, 

which is already controlled by a fabric 

filter baghouse, and no more effective 

controls than a fabric filter baghouse for 

fPM 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. We 

request comment on whether there are 

any beyond-the-floor control options 

that the EPA should consider for 

controlling fPM emissions from the 

rubber processing subcategory. 

The rubber processing operations and 

resulting emissions, the stack test data 

were used to calculate the fPM MACT 

floor limits based on the 99 percent 

UPL. Because the UPL value exceeds the 

3xRDL value, the UPL value was used 

to establish the MACT floor. The fPM 

MACT floor limits were calculated 

based on concentration of fPM, in units 

of g/Mg (lb/Mton) of rubber produced. 

The new and existing source fPM and 

metal HAP MACT floor limits are 

summarized in table 4. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED FPM MACT FLOOR LIMITS AND TOTAL METAL HAP ALTERNATIVE FOR NEW AND EXISTING RUBBER

PROCESSING SOURCES

Pollutant New source MACT floor limit 

(g/Mg rubber produced) 

Existing source MACT floor limit 

(g/Mg rubber produced) 

fPM ..................................................................... 1.70 (3,400 lb/Mton rubber produced) ............. 1.70 (3,400 lb/Mton rubber produced). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78704 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

4Association 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)). 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED FPM MACT FLOOR LIMITS AND TOTAL METAL HAP ALTERNATIVE FOR NEW AND EXISTING RUBBER

PROCESSING SOURCES—Continued 

Pollutant New source MACT floor limit 

(g/Mg rubber produced) 

Existing source MACT floor limit 

(g/Mg rubber produced) 

Alternative: Total Metal HAP ............................. 0.037 (74 lb/Mton rubber produced) ................ 0.037 (74 lb/Mton rubber produced). 

A detailed description of the analysis 

of fPM and metal HAP, and the control 

devices to reduce fPM and metal HAP 

emissions, is included in the 

memorandum, Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry,’’ available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0392). 

B. What performance testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and 

reporting are we proposing? 

1. Performance Testing 

We are proposing, based on the new 

and existing source limits for rubber 

processing, that new sources 

demonstrate initial compliance within 

180 days after startup, and existing 

sources demonstrate initial compliance 

within 3 years after the promulgation of 

the final rule. We are proposing that the 

initial performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with the MACT standards of 

tables 3 and 4 of this preamble are 

conducted using the methods identified 

in table 5. Subsequent performance 

testing will be required every 5 years, 

using the methods identified in table 5. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED

TEST METHODS

Pollutant or parameter EPA 

method 

Velocity/Volumetric Flow Rate ...... 1 and 2 

Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide ........ 3B 

Moisture ........................................ 4 

PM ................................................ 5 

Metal HAP .................................... 29 

Additionally, consistent with the 

existing performance testing 

requirements of the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 

63.5992), owners or operators must 

operate and maintain their dual range 

THC continuous emission monitoring 

system (CEMS) in accordance with 

Performance Specification (PS) 8A and 

40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 

2. Note that as an alternative to using a 

dual range THC CEMS, owners or 

operators may choose to use more than 

one THC CEMS. 

2. Parameter Monitoring 

Under this proposal, sources would 

be required to maintain continuous 

compliance with the emission limits, 

which, for fPM or metals, would be 

demonstrated through control device 

parameter monitoring coupled with 

periodic emissions testing described 

earlier in this preamble, and, for THC, 

via use of THC CEMS. 

We are proposing to amend the 

parametric monitoring currently 

specified in the rule to add table 16 to 

the NESHAP to include parameter 

monitoring requirements for fPM 

control devices that we expect would be 

used to comply with the standards for 

fPM from rubber processing, as 

surrogates for metal HAP. Proposed 

additional requirements include the 

following: 

For fPM controls, continuously 

operate a baghouse leak detection 

system (BLDS). We propose that owners 

or operators would install, operate, and 

maintain BLDS such that, among other 

things: concentrations of 1.0 milligram 

per dry standard cubic meter can be 

detected; sensors can provide output of 

relative fPM loadings; the BLDS has 

alarm systems that indicate when an 

increase in relative loading occurs; and 

the BLDS is installed an operated 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance’’ (see EPA– 

454/R–98–015). These requirements are 

consistent with those for a BLDS in our 

Mineral Wool Production and 

Ferroalloys Production MACT 

standards. 

3. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Under this proposal, and consistent 

with existing requirements in the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP, a 

source owner or operator will be 

required to submit semiannual 

compliance summary reports 

electronically; these reports document 

both compliance with the requirements 

of the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

NESHAP and any deviations from 

compliance with any of those 

requirements. 

Owners and operators would be 

required to maintain the records 

specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in 

addition, would be required to maintain 

records of all inspection and monitoring 

data, in accordance with the Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 

63.6011). 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing to update 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. 

D. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

Amendments to the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP proposed 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.4 In determining what 

compliance period is as ‘‘expeditious as 

practicable,’’ we consider the amount of 

time needed to plan and construct 

projects and change operating 

procedures. As provided in CAA section 

112(i), all new affected sources would 

comply with these provisions by the 

effective date of the final amendments 

to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is 

later. 

The EPA projects that many existing 

sources would need to install add-on 

controls to comply with the proposed 

emission limits, including new RTOs 

and new or upgraded fabric filter 

baghouses. These sources would require 

time to construct, conduct performance 

testing, and implement monitoring to 

comply with the revised provisions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78705 

Sources would also be required to 

install THC CEMS and conduct 

performance testing. Therefore, we are 

proposing to allow 3 years for existing 

sources to comply with the new 

emission standards. 

All affected facilities would have to 

continue to meet the current provisions 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until 

the applicable compliance date of the 

amended rule. The final action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2), so the effective date of the final 

rule will be the promulgation date as 

specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). 

For all affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction on or before November 

16, 2023, we are proposing that it is 

necessary to provide 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, 

we are proposing that owners and 

operators comply with the provisions by 

the effective date of the final rule (or 

upon startup, whichever is later). 

We solicit comment on these 

proposed compliance periods, and we 

specifically request submission of 

information from sources in this source 

category regarding specific actions that 

would need to be undertaken to comply 

with the proposed amended provisions 

and the time needed to make the 

adjustments for compliance with any of 

the revised provisions. We note that 

information provided may result in 

changes to the proposed compliance 

dates. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

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. One rubber 

tire major source is now closed but has 

a currently active title V permit. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

This action proposes first-time MACT 

floor emission standards for THC (as a 

surrogate for organic HAP), metal HAP, 

and fPM from rubber processing. These 

first-time MACT floor emission 

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 proposed 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 909.6 Mg (996 tons) across the 

source category. 

For fPM and metal HAP, we estimate 

that the replacement or upgrade of 

fabric filter baghouses will achieve 

annual reductions of fPM of 7.92 Mg 

(8.72 tons) or 0.14 Mg (318 pounds) of 

metal HAP 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 propose to conclude that the 

secondary impacts of this action are 

minimal, resulting from the operation of 

the control device, and would comprise 

CO2 and fugitive methane (CH4) 

emissions from the combustion of the 

natural gas required to maintain an 

RTO. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

This action proposes MACT floor 

emission limits for new and existing 

sources in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category, 

specifically the rubber processing 

subcategory. Although the action 

contains proposed requirements for new 

sources, we are not aware of any new 

sources being constructed now or 

planned in the next 3 years, and, 

consequently, we did not estimate any 

cost impacts for new sources. We 

estimate the total annualized cost of the 

proposed rule to existing sources in the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category to be $20.8 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 PM and 

metal HAP; and THC CEMS to monitor 

THC emissions. The capital and annual 

costs are summarized in table 6. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS

Cost element 

Total capital 

investments 

(million) 

Annualized 

equipment and 

operation and 

maintenance 

costs 

(million) 

RTOs (23 new) ............................................................................................................................................ $71.9 $12.7 

Baghouses (39 new and 29 upgraded) ....................................................................................................... 13.7 1.8 

THC CEMS (97 new) ................................................................................................................................... 14.0 4.2 

BLDS and PM Testing ................................................................................................................................. 2.2 1.4 

Recordkeeping and Reporting Costs .......................................................................................................... .............................. 0.7 

Totals .................................................................................................................................................... 101.8 20.8 

The estimated annual costs are based 

on operation and maintenance of the 

added control systems. A memorandum 

titled 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78706 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

5https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. 

6See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

technical-guidance-assessing-environmentaljustice-regulatory-analysis. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The EPA conducted economic impact 

analyses for the proposed rule, as 

detailed in the memorandum, Economic 

Impact and Small Business Analysis for 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Amendments, Proposal, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2019–0392). The economic impacts of 

the proposed rule are calculated as the 

percentage of total annualized costs 

incurred by affected ultimate parent 

owners 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 proposed 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 proposed rule, and there will not 

be substantial impacts on the markets 

for affected products. The costs of the 

proposed 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 HAP or surrogates of HAP. 

Reduction of emissions of PM2.5 will 

result in associated reduction in PM2.5- 

related mortality and morbidity. 

Ecosystem effects related to deposition 

of sulfur will also be avoided. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

The EPA defines environmental 

justice as ‘‘the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ 5 The EPA 

further defines fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ In recognizing that 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns often bear an unequal burden 

of environmental harms and risks, the 

EPA continues to consider ways of 

protecting them from adverse public 

health and environmental effects of air 

pollution. For purposes of analyzing 

regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon 

its June 2016 Technical Guidance for 

Assessing Environmental Justice in 

Regulatory Analysis,6 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 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; 

(2) exacerbate existing disproportionate 

impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or Indigenous 

peoples; or (3) present opportunity to 

address existing disproportionate 

impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or Indigenous 

peoples through this action under 

development. 

The demographic analysis was 

conducted for the 2020 RTR. There are 

no known changes that would increase 

demographic risk, thus the EPA relied 

on the 2020 demographic analysis for 

this rulemaking. The methodology and 

the results of the demographic analysis 

are presented in a technical report, Risk 

and Technology Review—Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Source Category Operations, made 

available in the 2020 action; see Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. 

In the 2020 RTR, the EPA examined 

the potential for the 21 source category 

facilities to pose concerns to 

communities living in proximity to 

facilities. Specifically, the EPA analyzed 

how demographics and risk are 

distributed pre-control, enabling us to 

address the core questions that are 

posed in the EPA’s 2016 Technical 

Guidance for Assessing Environmental 

Justice in Regulatory Analysis. 

To examine the potential for 

environmental justice concerns, the EPA 

conducted a baseline proximity analysis 

and baseline risk-based analysis (i.e., 

before implementation of any controls 

proposed 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 riskbased 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 proposed by this action. 

The results of the proximity analysis for 

populations living within 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. 

Under the risk-based demographic 

analysis, the total population, 

population percentages, and population 

count for each demographic group for 

the entire U.S. population are shown in 

the column titled ‘‘Nationwide Average 

for Reference’’ in table 7 of this 

document. These national data are 

provided as a frame of reference to 

compare the results of the proximity 

analysis and the baseline risk-based 

analysis. 

The results of the proximity analysis 

indicate 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 

African American (24 percent) is double 

the national average (12 percent). The 

percent of people living below the 

poverty level and the percent of people 

over the age of 25 without a high school 

diploma are higher than the national 

averages. 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, which 

focuses on populations that have higher 

cancer risks, suggests that African 

Americans and people living below the 

poverty level are overrepresented at all 

cancer risk levels greater than 1-in-1 

million. At all risk levels, in most cases, 

populations living around facilities 

where the percentage of the population 

below the poverty level is 1.5 to 2 times 

the national average also are above the 

national average for African American, 

Native American, Hispanic/Latino, or 

Other/Multiracial. 

a. Baseline Proximity Analysis 

The column titled ‘‘Baseline 

Proximity Analysis for Pop. Living 

within 5 km of Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Facilities’’ in table 7 of 

this preamble shows the share and 

count of people for each of the 

demographic categories for the total 

population living within 5 km 

(approximately 3.1 miles) of Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing facilities. These are the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78707 

results of the baseline proximity 

analysis. 

Approximately 516,000 people live 

within 5 km of the 21 Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing facilities assessed. The 

results of the proximity demographic 

analysis indicate that the percent of the 

population that is African American (24 

percent, 124,000 people) is double the 

national average (12 percent). The 

percent of the people living below the 

poverty level (21 percent, 108,000 

people) and 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 

baseline proximity analysis indicates 

that the proportion of other 

demographic groups living within 10 

km of Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

facilities is similar to or below the 

national average. 

b. Baseline Risk-Based Demographics 

The baseline risk-based demographic 

analysis results are shown in the 

furthest right column of table 7 of this 

preamble. This analysis focused on the 

populations living within 5 km 

(approximately 3.1 miles) of the Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing facilities with 

estimated cancer risks greater than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from 

source category emissions (table 7 of 

this preamble). The risk analysis 

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 

and expose no people to a chronic 

noncancer target organ-specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) greater than 1. 

In baseline, there are 4,500 people 

living around 21 Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing facilities with a cancer 

risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1- 

million resulting from Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category 

emissions. The percent of the baseline 

population with estimated cancer risks 

great than or equal to 1-in-1 million who 

are African American (25 percent, 1,000 

people) is more than 2 times the average 

percentage of the national population 

that is African American (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 similar to that 

in the baseline proximity analysis (21 

percent, 108,000 people). 

TABLE 7—SOURCE CATEGORY: COMPARISON OF BASELINE DEMOGRAPHICS OF POPULATIONS WITH CANCER RISK GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1-IN-1 MILLION RESULTING FROM RUBBER TIRE MANUFACTURING SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS LIVING WITHIN 5 km OF FACILITIES TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographic group Nationwide average for reference 

(million or ‘‘M’’) 

Baseline proximity analysis for 

pop. living within 5 km of rubber 

tire manufacturing facilities 

(thousand or ‘‘K’’) 

Cancer risk ≥1-in-1 million within 

5 km of rubber tire manufacturing 

facilities 

(‘‘baseline’’) 

Total Population ............................. 328 M ............................................ 515,800 ......................................... 4,524. 

Race and Ethnicity by Percent: 

White ....................................... 60 percent [197M] ........................ 63 percent [325K] ......................... 66 percent [3K]. 

Minority ................................... 40 percent [131M] ........................ 37 percent [191K] ......................... 34 percent [2K]. 

Race and Ethnicity by Percent: 

African American .................... 12 percent [40M] .......................... 24 percent [124K] ......................... 25 percent [1K]. 

Native American ..................... 0.7 percent [2M] ........................... 0.7 percent [4K] ............................ 0 percent [0]. 

Hispanic or Latino (includes 

white and nonwhite).

19 percent [62M] .......................... 5 percent [26K] ............................. 3 percent [100]. 

Other and Multiracial .............. 8 percent [27M] ............................ 8 percent [41K] ............................. 6 percent [300]. 

Income by Percent: 

Below Poverty Level ............... 13 percent [44M] .......................... 21 percent [108K] ......................... 21 percent [1K]. 

Above Poverty Level ............... 87 percent [284M] ........................ 79 percent [407K] ......................... 79 percent [4K]. 

Education by Percent: 

Over 25 and without a High 

School Diploma.

12 percent [40M] .......................... 16 percent [83K] ........................... 12 percent [500]. 

Over 25 and with a High 

School Diploma.

88 percent [288M] ........................ 84 percent [433K] ......................... 88 percent [4K]. 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent: 

Linguistically Isolated .............. 5 percent [18M] ............................ 2 percent [10K] ............................. 1 percent [50]. 

Notes: Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census’s 2015–2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 

block group averages. Total population count within 10 km is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population. 

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 proposes first-time 

emissions standards for THC and 

filterable PM & metal HAP) for the 

rubber processing subcategory, which 

will further reduce emissions. 

Specifically, we estimate that the new 

emission limits will reduce THC and 

filterable PM emissions by 996 tpy and 

8.72 tpy, 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78708 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

developed to be protective for all 

subgroups of the general population, 

including children. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments 

on this proposed action, we are 

interested in additional data that may 

improve the analyses. We are 

specifically interested in receiving any 

information regarding developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that reduce HAP emissions 

for the rubber processing sub-category 

within the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions data used 

in setting MACT standards for THC and 

fPM/Metal HAP as emitted from the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category are available at https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/rubber-tire-manufacturingnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. Your 

data should be prepared using our 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), whose 

instructions are available at the internet 

address https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert, and your ERT files 

should be submitted to our Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). Be sure to include a complete 

copy of the relevant test reports as a 

portable document format (PDF) file as 

an attachment to your ERT file. 

For information on how to submit 

comments, including the submittal of 

data corrections, refer to the instructions 

provided in the introduction of this 

preamble. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, and was 

therefore not subject to a requirement 

for Executive Order 12866 review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1982.06. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. 

We are proposing changes to the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP by 

incorporating the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with the new and existing source MACT 

standards proposed for the rubber 

processing subcategory source. 

Respondents: Rubber tire 

manufacturing facilities conducting 

rubber processing operations. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

XXXX). 

Estimated number of respondents: 12. 

Frequency of response: Initially, 

semiannually, annually. 

Estimated Annual burden: The 

average annual burden to industry over 

the next 3 years from the proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements is estimated to be 2,121 

hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Estimated Annual cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for all 

facilities to comply with all of the 

requirements in the NESHAP is 

estimated to be $2.13 million per year. 

This includes labor costs of $258,000 

per year and non-labor capital and O&M 

costs of $1.87 million per year for 

monitoring systems for the proposed 

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. Submit 

your comments on the Agency’s need 

for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden to the EPA using the 

docket identified at the beginning of this 

rule. The EPA will respond to any ICRrelated comments in the final rule. You 

may also send your ICR-related 

comments to OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

using the interface at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. OMB must 

receive comments no later than 

December 18, 2023. 

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 four 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 and 

Small Business Analysis for the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Amendments, Proposal,’’ 

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 

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal 

agencies to include an evaluation of the 

health and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 78709 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. 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, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action proposes emission 

standards for a currently unregulated 

emission source; therefore, the rule 

should result in health benefits to 

children by reducing the level of HAP 

emissions emitted from the rubber tire 

manufacturing process. 

However, EPA’s Policy on Children’s 

Health applies to this action. 

Information on how the Policy was 

applied is available under ‘‘Children’s 

Environmental Health’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP through the 

Enhanced National Standards Systems 

Network Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute. 

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 voluntary consensus standards 

were identified as acceptable 

alternatives to EPA test methods for the 

purposes of this rule. The voluntary 

consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 

19–10–1981—Part 10 (2010), ‘‘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 reapproved in 2016 to 

include better quality control than 

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 mg/ 

Nm3]. 

The EPA proposes to incorporate by 

reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981- Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses.’’ The manual 

procedures (but not instrumental 

procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981—Part 10 may be used as an 

alternative to EPA Method 3B for 

measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide 

content of the exhaust gas. This 

standard is acceptable as an alternative 

to EPA Method 3B and is available from 

ASME at http://www.asme.org; by mail 

at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 

10016–5990; or by telephone at (800) 

843–2763. This method determines 

quantitatively the gaseous constituents 

of exhausts resulting from stationary 

combustion sources. The gases covered 

in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 are 

oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, 

sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and 

hydrocarbons; however, the use in this 

rule is only applicable to oxygen and 

carbon dioxide. 

The EPA proposes to incorporate 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 

micrograms per normal cubic meter. 

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). 

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 2 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. 

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 or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action do not result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. 

The EPA additionally identified and 

addressed environmental justice 

concerns in the demographic analysis 

conducted for the 2020 RTR. There are 

no known changes that would increase 

demographic risk, thus the EPA relied 

on the 2020 demographic analysis for 

this rulemaking. The methodology and 

the results of the demographic analysis 

are presented in section V.F. of this 

preamble, as well as in the technical 

report, Risk and Technology Review— 

Analysis of Demographic Factors for 

Populations Living Near Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Source Category 

Operations, made available in the 2020 

action; see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0392. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

likely to reduce existing adverse effects 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns. The EPA is proposing 

MACT standards for THC as a surrogate 

for organic HAP and PM as a surrogate 

for metal HAP. EPA expects that 

facilities may have to implement control 

measures to reduce emissions to comply 

with the MACT standards and that HAP 

exposures for the communities with 

environmental justice concerns living 

near these facilities would decrease. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
78710 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA will additionally identify 

and address environmental justice 

concerns by conducting outreach after 

signature of this proposed rule. The EPA 

will reach out to tribes through a 

monthly policy call and with 

consultation letters. The EPA will 

address this rule during the monthly 

Environmental Justice call for 

communities burdened by 

disproportionate environmental 

impacts. The information supporting 

this Executive Order review is 

contained in section V.F of this 

preamble. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25276 Filed 11–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 501, 502, 538, and 552 

[GSAR Case 2020–G510; Docket No. GSA– 

GSAR–2023–0025; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AK20 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation; Federal Supply 

Schedule Economic Price Adjustment 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration is proposing to amend 

the General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulations to standardize 

and simplify the Multiple Award 

Schedule (Schedule) clauses for 

economic price adjustments. This rule 

removes certain economic price 

adjustment requirements within these 

clauses to better align with commercial 

standards and practices. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at the address 

shown below on or before January 16, 

2024 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to GSAR Case 2020–G510 to: 

https://www.regulations.gov via the 

Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘GSAR Case 2020–G510’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with GSAR Case 2020– 

G510. Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ screen. Please 

include your name, company name (if 

any), and ‘‘GSAR Case 2020–G510’’ on 

your attached document. If your 

comment cannot be submitted using 

https://www.regulations.gov, call or 

email the points of contact in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite GSAR Case 2020–G510, in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Thomas O’Linn, Procurement Analyst at 

gsarpolicy@gsa.gov or 202–445–0390. 

For information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division at 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov or 202–501–4755. 

Please cite GSAR Case 2020–G510. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The General Services Administration 

(GSA) conducts routine reviews of its 

acquisition regulations and acquisition 

policies and procedures. The review 

indicated a need to standardize and 

simplify the Schedule clause for 

economic price adjustments. 

The Schedule program, also known as 

the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 

program, establishes long-term 

governmentwide contracts with 

commercial companies. Schedule 

contracts routinely last up to 20 years 

and are issued as fixed price with 

economic price adjustment (EPA) 

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 

(IDIQ) contracts. Schedule contracts 

provide access to commercial products, 

services, and solutions at fair and 

reasonable pricing to the Federal 

Government and other authorized 

customers (e.g., state and local 

governments). 

The use of EPA provides for upward 

and downward revision of contract 

pricing upon the occurrence of specified 

conditions over the anticipated 20 year 

contract period of performance. The 

Schedule program has a long history of 

providing the ability for Schedule 

contractors to submit EPA requests (e.g., 

see 47 FR 50242 dated November 5, 

1982). 

Currently, Schedule contracts contain 

at least one of the following EPA clauses 

(i.e., a Schedule contract may include 

more than one EPA clause based on 

their offering and participation in 

Transactional Data Reporting (TDR)): (1) 

Alternate I of GSAR clause 552.216–70, 

Economic Price Adjustment-FSS 

Multiple Award Schedule Contracts; (2) 

an authorized deviation of GSAR clause 

552.216–70; (3) clause I–FSS–969, 

Economic Price Adjustment-FSS 

Multiple Award Schedule; or (4) an 

Alternate to clause I–FSS–969. The 

primary focus of these EPA clauses is 

the establishment of the procedures, 

including, but not limited to specific 

procedural limits (e.g., timing and 

frequency) around the submission of 

EPA price increase requests. In terms of 

price decrease requests, all four clauses 

require such requests to be handled in 

accordance with GSAR clause 552.238– 

81, Price Reductions. Altogether, for the 

most part these four Schedule EPA 

clauses are very similar, with only 

minor differences, most of which are 

related to the EPA mechanism(s) 

proposed by the contractor (e.g., annual 

fixed increases or increases based on 

their published or publicly available 

commercial price list) and the 

applicability of TDR. 

In March 2022, in response to the 

highest level of inflation in over 40 

years as well as other factors (e.g., 

supply chain disruptions), GSA issued 

Acquisition Letter MV–22–02 to provide 

a temporary moratorium on the 

enforcement of certain procedural limits 

contained in the Schedule EPA clauses. 

The moratorium relaxes the limits on 

the frequency, timing, and number of 

EPA price increase requests. 

Since the issuance of Acquisition 

Letter MV–22–02, the Schedule program 

has seen benefits. The relaxing of these 

procedural limits has provided industry 

Schedule partners with greater 

flexibility and agility in response to 

market changes and economic 

conditions that impact their Schedule 

pricing. This flexibility has increased 

their ability to support federal 

customers in acquiring critically needed 

products, services, and solutions 

through a single contracting action. In 

the absence of this flexibility, they 

would likely have chosen not to 

respond to order-level solicitations and/ 

or requested the removal of the items 

from their Schedule contract to avoid 

selling them at a loss. The loss of such 

items under such conditions, increases 

the administrative costs and time for 

federal agencies and other customers in 

meeting their needs. 

The positive results of Acquisition 

Letter MV–22–02 underscore the need 

for the Schedule program to continually 

evolve and provide a viable and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1