[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78692-78710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25276]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23420e424d470e510e474c40484657634653420d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ceafe3afa0aae3bce3aaa1ada5abba8eabbeafe0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0392 in the subject line of the message.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0392.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cfbca2a6bba7e1a4a0bdada6a18faabfaee1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="196a74706d713772766b7b7077597c6978377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8fbf8f8ecd8ddcac4c1cbc0cdc9dac1c6cfe8cdd8c986cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b181b1b0f3b3e29272228232e2a3922252c0b2e3b2a652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 pre-registered 
speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will 
announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-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/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous or contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#30636060744045525c595358555142595e57705540511e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91c2c1c1d5e1e4f3fdf8f2f9f4f0e3f8fff6d1f4e1f0bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>. 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-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#483b25213c206623273a2a2126082d3829662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b1806021f03450004190902052b0e1b0a450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>. 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

[[Page 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-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#57040707132722353b3e343f3236253e39301732273679303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e6d6e6e7a4e4b5c52575d565b5f4c5750597e5b4e5f10595148">[email protected]</span></a> 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 pre-register 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adc2ccdcdddececfc4edc8ddcc83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f707e6e6f6c7c7d765f7a6f7e31787069">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67080616171404050e2702170649000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d323c2c2d2e3e3f341d382d3c733a322b">[email protected]</span></a> 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

[[Page 78694]]

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
[mu]g 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/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-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-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-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.

[[Page 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 production-based 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 production-based emission-limit option for 
new or reconstructed tire cord production affected sources. As part of 
this standard, emissions must not exceed 220 g HAP per Mg (0.43 lb/ton) 
of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source.

[[Page 78696]]

    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-and-quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-volume-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 o-toluidine. 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 non-silica-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 (O<INF>2</INF>) 
and carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>), 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

[[Page 78697]]

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-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-volume-i-chapter-4-evaporation-loss-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 non-HAP), 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 78698]]

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-the-floor 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 non-silica-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-sources-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-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-silica-containing 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 late-submitted 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry 
defines congeners as chemical substances ``related to each other by 
origin, structure, or function.''

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

[[Page 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 short-term 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 fuel-efficient 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 short-term 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-silica-containing 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 non-silica-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-silica-containing 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-silica-
containing 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-silica-
containing rubber produced. Separate UPL values were calculated for 
silica-containing 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

[[Page 78700]]

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 silica-
containing 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 non-silica-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-silica-containing 
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 
silica-containing 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-
silica-containing 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

[[Page 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 
Silica-Containing Compounds
    In addition to determining the MACT floor level of control, the EPA 
must examine more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' 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-the-floor 
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 
silica-containing 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 ([deg]F) to 1600 
[deg]F. The beyond-the-floor standard would achieve an additional 8.7 
Mg per year (9.6 tpy) of THC reductions. The incremental cost-
effectiveness, 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 silica-containing compounds existing 
sources is not reasonable when considering cost. Therefore, the EPA is 
proposing to set THC emission limits for silica-containing 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-
silica-containing 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 non-silica-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-
Silica-Containing 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

[[Page 78702]]

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-silica-
containing 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 [deg]F 
to 1600 [deg]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-silica-containing 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 silica-containing 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 non-silica-containing compounds.
f. THC New Source Standard for Silica-Containing 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 Non-Silica-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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    New source MACT     Existing source
                                    floor limit THC    MACT floor limit
                                      per rubber        THC per rubber
      Rubber compound type         produced [primary   produced [primary
                                    THC instrument      THC instrument
                                      range, ppm]         range, ppm]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silica-Containing...............  2.1 g/Mg (4,200 lb/ 9.4 g/Mg (18,800
                                   Mton) [0-100].      lb/Mton) [0-500].

[[Page 78703]]

 
Non-Silica-Containing...........  17.2 g/Mg (34,400   45.4 g/Mg (90,800
                                   lb/Mton) [0-10].    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 silica-containing 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-the-floor 
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Existing source
                                    New source MACT    MACT floor limit
            Pollutant              floor limit (g/Mg     (g/Mg rubber
                                   rubber produced)        produced)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fPM.............................  1.70 (3,400 lb/     1.70 (3,400 lb/
                                   Mton rubber         Mton rubber
                                   produced).          produced).

[[Page 78704]]

 
Alternative: Total Metal HAP....  0.037 (74 lb/Mton   0.037 (74 lb/Mton
                                   rubber produced).   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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  EPA
                    Pollutant or parameter                       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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance 
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated 
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA projects that 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.

[[Page 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 
CO<INF>2</INF> and fugitive methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
                                      Total capital      equipment and
           Cost element                investments       operation and
                                        (million)      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).

[[Page 78706]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> will result in associated reduction in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>-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, low-income 
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunity to 
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through this action under 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
    \6\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 risk-based demographic analysis 
is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups in the 
population living within 5 km and 50 km of the facilities prior to the 
implementation of any controls 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

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Baseline proximity
                                                                   analysis for pop.       Cancer risk >=1-in-1
                                        Nationwide average for   living within 5 km of    million within 5 km of
          Demographic group             reference (million or         rubber tire              rubber tire
                                                ``M'')               manufacturing            manufacturing
                                                                facilities (thousand or         facilities
                                                                         ``K'')               (``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       19 percent [62M].......  5 percent [26K]........  3 percent [100].
     white and nonwhite).
    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  12 percent [40M].......  16 percent [83K].......  12 percent [500].
     Diploma.
    Over 25 and with a High School     88 percent [288M]......  84 percent [433K]......  88 percent [4K].
     Diploma.
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

[[Page 78708]]

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-air-pollution/rubber-tire-manufacturing-national-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/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-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/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action 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 ICR-related 
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

[[Page 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 [mu]g/Nm\3\].
    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.

[[Page 78710]]

    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>