62414 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6874–9]

RIN 2060–AG29

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire

Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and

existing sources at rubber tire

manufacturing facilities. The EPA has

identified rubber tire manufacturing

facilities as major sources of hazardous

air pollutants (HAP) emissions. These

proposed standards would implement

section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) by requiring all major sources to

meet HAP emission standards that

reflect the application of maximum

achievable control technology (MACT).

The primary HAP that would be

controlled with this action include

toluene and hexane. These HAP are

associated with a variety of adverse

health effects including chronic health

disorders (e.g., polyneuropathy,

degenerative lesions of the nasal cavity)

and acute health disorders (e.g.,

respiratory irritation, headaches).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on

or before December 18, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by November 7, 2000, a public

hearing will be held on November 17,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention: Docket No. A–

97–14, Room M–1500, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460. The EPA requests that a

separate copy also be sent to the contact

person listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. in the

EPA’s Office of Administration’s

Auditorium in Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina, or at an alternate site

nearby.

Docket. Docket No. A–97–14 contains

supporting information used in

developing the standards. The docket is

located at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460 in room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may

be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

standards, contact Mr. Anthony Wayne,

Policy Planning and Standards Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5439, electronic mail address

wayne.tony@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Comments and data may be

submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to:

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file to avoid the use of special

characters and encryption problems and

will also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 

8 file format. All comments and data

submitted in electronic form must note

the docket number (Docket No. A–97–

14). No confidential business

information (CBI) should be submitted

by e-mail. Electronic comments may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration must clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it as CBI. Send

submissions containing such

proprietary information directly to the

following address, and not to the public

docket, to ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket: Attention: OAQPS

Document Control Officer, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 411

W. Chapel Hill Street, Room 740B,

Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will

disclose information identified as CBI

only to the extent allowed by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies a submission when it is

received by the EPA, the information

may be made available to the public

without further notice to the

commenter.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in

presenting oral testimony or inquiring

as to whether a hearing is to be held

should contact Ms. Dorothy Apple,

Policy Planning and Standards Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

4487 at least 2 days in advance of the

public hearing. Persons interested in

attending the public hearing must also

call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date,

and location of the hearing. The public

hearing will provide interested parties

the opportunity to present data, views,

or arguments concerning these proposed

emission standards.

Docket. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The

docket is a dynamic file because

material is added throughout the

rulemaking process. The docketing

system is intended to allow members of

the public and industries involved to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process. Along with

the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, the

contents of the docket will serve as the

record in the case of judicial review.

(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.)

The regulatory text and other materials

related to this rulemaking are available

for review in the docket or copies may

be mailed on request from the Air

Docket by calling (202) 260–7548. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition

to being available in the docket, an

electronic copy of this proposed rule is

also available on the WWW through the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN).

Following signature, a copy of the rule

will be posted on the TTN’s policy and

guidance page for newly proposed or

promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control. If

more information regarding the TTN is

needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919)

541–5384.

Regulated Entities. Categories and

entities potentially regulated by this

action include:

Category SIC a/NAICSb Examples of regulated entities

Industry ..................................................................... 3011 or 7534/ ..................................... Owners or operators of rubber tire manufacturing

facilities.

aStandard Industrial Classification Code.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62415

b North American Information Classification System.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. To determine

whether your facility is regulated by this

action, you should examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.5981 of the

proposed rule. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. Outline.

The information in this preamble is

organized as follows.

I. Background

A. What is the source of authority for

developing NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in developing

NESHAP?

C. What is the history of the listing and

schedule for regulation for the rubber tire

manufacturing source category?

D. What are the health effects associated

with rubber tire manufacturing?

E. Rubber Manufacturers Association

Survey

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What sources are included in the

category and subcategories regulated by

this rule?

B. What are the primary sources of

emissions and what are the emissions?

C. What are the affected sources?

D. What are the emission limits, operating

limits, and other standards?

E. What are the testing and initial

compliance requirements?

F. What are the continuous compliance

provisions?

G. What are the notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements?

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. How did we select the source category

and subcategories?

B. How did we select the affected sources?

C. How did we determine the basis and

level of the proposed standards for

existing and new sources?

D. How did we select the format of the

standards?

E. How did we select the compliance,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements?

F. What is the relationship of this subpart

to new source performance standards

(NSPS) for the rubber tire manufacturing

industry?

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

B. What are the cost impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the non-air health,

environmental, and energy impacts?

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public

Participation

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

C. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

D. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for

Developing NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to

list categories and subcategories of

major sources and area sources of HAP

and to establish NESHAP for the listed

source categories and subcategories.

Major sources of HAP are those

stationary sources or groups of

stationary sources that are located

within a contiguous area and under

common control that emit or have the

potential to emit, considering controls,

10 ton/yr or more of any one HAP or 25

ton/yr or more of any combination of

HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in Developing

NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that

we establish NESHAP for the control of

HAP from both new and existing major

sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP

to reflect the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of HAP that is

achievable. This level of control is

commonly referred to as the MACT.

The ‘‘MACT floor’’ is the minimum

control level allowed for NESHAP and

is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the

CAA. In essence, the MACT floor

ensures that the standard is set at a level

that assures that all major sources

achieve the level of control at least as

stringent as that already achieved by the

better-controlled and lower-emitting

sources in each source category or

subcategory. For new sources, the

MACT floor cannot be less stringent

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT

standards for existing sources can be

less stringent than standards for new

sources, but they cannot be less

stringent than the average emission

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing

sources in the category or subcategory

(or the best-performing 5 sources for

categories or subcategories with fewer

than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also

consider control requirements that are

more stringent than the floor. We may

establish standards more stringent than

the floor based on the consideration of

cost of achieving the emissions

reductions, any non-air quality health

and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Listing and

Schedule for Regulation for the Rubber

Tire Manufacturing Source Category?

1. Establishing the Initial List and

Schedule

Pursuant to the various specific listing

requirements of section 112(c), we

published a list of 174 categories of

major and area sources referred to as the

‘‘initial list’’ that would be subject to

emission standards. Following this

listing, pursuant to requirements in

section 112(e), on December 3, 1993 (58

FR 63941), we published a schedule for

the promulgation of emission standards

for each of the 174 listed source

categories. The schedule for standards

organized the source categories into

groups of four separate timeframes with

promulgation deadlines of November

15, 1992; November 15, 1994; November

15, 1997; or November 15, 2000.

‘‘Tire Production’’ is one of the 174

categories of sources included on the

initial list of source categories (63 FR

7155). The ‘‘Tire Production’’ category

as defined in our report,

‘‘Documentation for Developing the

Initial Source Category List,’’ EPA–450/

3–91–0310, July 1992, includes any

facility that is a major source and is

engaged in producing passenger car and

light duty truck tires, heavy duty truck

tires, off-the-road tires, aircraft tires, and

miscellaneous other tires. The listed

‘‘tire production’’ source category name

was changed to ‘‘rubber tire

manufacturing’’ to better reflect the

industry that would be regulated under

section 112(d)(2) based on information

obtained during the MACT standard

development process.

2. Listing of the Tire Manufacturing

Source Category as a Section 112(c)(6)

HAP Source

Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires

that sources that account for 90 percent

of the emissions of seven specified HAP,

including hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and

polycyclic organic matter (POM), be

subject to standards under section

112(d)(2) or (d)(4).

62416 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Based on previous information and

testing, we estimated that tire

production facilities emitted, in

aggregate, approximately 395 kilograms

(kg) (869 pounds (lbs)), or 29.5 percent,

of the total national anthropogenic

emissions of HCB per year. Tire

production facilities were also estimated

to emit, in aggregate, approximately

6,360 kg (14,000 lbs), or 0.03 percent, of

the total national anthropogenic

emissions of POM per year (63 FR

17838). On April 10, 1998 (63 FR

17838), we listed tire manufacturing as

a source category for possible regulation

to meet section 112(c)(6) requirements.

Because tire manufacturing was already

included on the initial major source

category list developed to comply with

section 112(c), the major source category

list did not need to be modified to add

it.

The Rubber Manufacturers

Association (RMA) responded to the

listing of tire manufacturing as a section

112(c)(6) emissions source for HCB by

sending us a letter that argued that the

tire manufacturing process does not

have a chemical or physical mechanism

to form HCB. The RMA explained that

the analytical results that led us to list

tire manufacturing as a source of HCB

emissions were based on contaminated

samples. In response to RMA’s

comment, we participated in the

planning of, and were present at, tests

that were conducted to evaluate RMA’s

claim. These tests were reconstructed

based on the conditions of the original

tests. Based on our participation and

evaluation of these tests, we agree that

the original HCB emission information

was incorrect. Based on the limitations

of the original tests, and the fact that no

HCB was measured in the re-testing, we

concluded that tire manufacturing is a

highly unlikely source of HCB

emissions. We are addressing the April

10, 1998 listing under section 112(c)(6)

of tire manufacturing as an HCB

emission source in a separate Federal

Register action.

The POM emissions leading to tire

manufacturing being listed as a section

112(c)(6) emission source are due to

combustion associated with the use of

steam boilers in the rubber tire

manufacturing process. These boilers

will be addressed under the Industrial,

Commercial and Institutional Boiler and

Process Heater NESHAP.

D. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With Rubber Tire

Manufacturing?

This proposed rule protects air quality

and promotes the public health by

reducing emissions of some of the HAP

listed in section 112(b)(1) of the CAA.

The sources of HAP emissions in the

rubber tire manufacturing industry are:

(1) Rubber processing; (2) the use of

cements, solvents and associated

mixtures in the tire production; (3) tire

cord production; and (4) puncture

sealant application. The primary HAP

emitted from the rubber tire production

process and puncture sealant operations

are toluene and hexane. Tire cord

operations also emit these HAP, but the

more significant emissions from tire

cord production are formaldehyde,

styrene, and methanol. Exposure to

these compounds has been

demonstrated to cause adverse health

effects.

The HAP that would be controlled

with this proposed rule are associated

with a variety of adverse health effects.

These adverse health effects include

chronic health disorders (e.g., effects on

the central nervous system and

reproductive systems) and acute health

disorders (e.g., irritation of eyes, throat,

and mucous membranes, headache,

nausea, and blurred vision). One of the

HAP has been classified as a probable

human carcinogen, and another has

been classified as a possible human

carcinogen.

1. Toluene

Acute (short-term) inhalation

exposure of humans to low or moderate

levels of toluene has been associated

with central nervous system (CNS)

dysfunction and narcosis. Symptoms

observed include fatigue, sleepiness,

headaches, and nausea. Acute

inhalation exposure to toluene has also

been associated with cardiac

arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats).

Central nervous system depression and

death have occurred at higher levels of

exposure to toluene.

Chronic (long-term) inhalation

exposure of humans to high levels of

toluene has been associated with CNS

depression. Symptoms observed include

ataxia, tremors, cerebral atrophy,

involuntary eye movements, and

impaired speech, hearing, and vision.

Chronic inhalation exposure of humans

to toluene has also been associated with

irritation of the upper respiratory tract,

eye irritation, sore throat, nausea, skin

conditions, dizziness, headaches, and

difficulty with sleep. Chronic inhalation

exposure to toluene has been associated

with adverse effects on the liver, kidney,

and lungs. Human studies of solvent

vapor abusers indicate that there may be

liver and kidney adverse effects

resulting from chronic inhalation

exposure to toluene, however, these

studies are confounded by probable

exposure to multiple solvents.

Children of pregnant women exposed

to toluene or mixed solvent by

inhalation have been observed to have

CNS dysfunction, attention deficits,

craniofacial and limb anomalies, and

developmental and growth retardation.

2. Hexane

Acute (short-term) inhalation

exposure of humans to hexane is

associated with mild CNS depression

and irritation of the mucous

membranes. Central nervous system

effects include dizziness, giddiness,

slight nausea, and headache. Acute

exposure to hexane vapors may also

cause dermatitis and irritation of the

eyes and throat in humans.

Chronic (long-term) exposure of

humans to hexane is associated with

polyneuropathy in humans, with

numbness in the extremities, muscular

weakness, blurred vision, headache, and

fatigue. Studies of animals chronically

exposed to hexane by inhalation

indicate neurotoxic effects, and mild

inflammatory, erosive, and degenerative

lesions in the olfactory and respiratory

epithelium of the nasal cavity.

3. Formaldehyde

Both acute (short-term) and chronic

(long-term) exposure to formaldehyde

irritates the eyes, nose, and throat, and

may cause coughing, chest pains, and

bronchitis. Reproductive effects, such as

menstrual disorders and pregnancy

problems, have been reported in female

workers exposed to formaldehyde.

Limited human studies have reported an

association between formaldehyde

exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal

cancer. Animal inhalation studies have

reported an increased incidence of nasal

squamous cell cancer. We consider

formaldehyde a probable human

carcinogen (Group B2).

4. Methanol

Acute (short-term) or chronic (longterm) exposure of humans to methanol

by inhalation or ingestion may result in

blurred vision, headache, dizziness, and

nausea. No information is available on

the reproductive, developmental, or

carcinogenic effects of methanol in

humans. Birth defects have been

observed in the offspring of rats and

mice exposed to methanol by

inhalation. A methanol inhalation study

using rhesus monkeys reported a

decrease in the length of pregnancy and

limited evidence of impaired learning

ability in offspring. We have not

classified methanol with respect to

carcinogenicity.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62417

5. Styrene

Acute (short-term) exposure to styrene

in humans results in mucous membrane

and eye irritation and gastrointestinal

effects. Chronic (long-term) exposure to

styrene in humans may cause effects on

the CNS such as headache, fatigue,

weakness, depression, and hearing loss.

There is limited evidence that

occupational exposure to styrene is

associated with an increased frequency

of spontaneous abortions and decreased

frequency of births and an increased

risk of leukemia and lymphoma. We

consider this evidence to be

inconclusive. The International Agency

for Research on Cancer (IARC) has

classified styrene as a Group 2B,

possible human carcinogen. We have

not classified styrene with respect to

carcinogenicity.

E. Rubber Manufacturers Association

Survey

Based on surveys of its member and

non-member companies, the RMA

compiled and provided us two

comprehensive data bases on HAP

emissions and controls at rubber tire

and/or tire component producers and

tire cord producers.

In 1997, the RMA surveyed the 46

known tire production facilities in the

U.S. Each facility received a

questionnaire designed to gather

information on the quantity of HAP

emissions and controls within the

industry. The questionnaire requested

the following information for calendar

year 1996:

• General facility information such as

facility name, address, parent company;

• Manufacturing information such as

number of employees, products made,

production rates, whether HAPcontaining cements and solvents were

used, and facilitywide HAP emissions;

• Specific process information such

as the individual processes used, the

number of processes used, and general

information on hooding, ducting and

control devices;

• Detailed information on the HAPcontaining material used and the

processes where the material is used,

the type of material, the density of the

material, and the total HAP usage; and

• Information on air pollution control

devices (APCD) including the process

controlled, the type of APCD, exhaust

flow rate, control efficiency, reason for

installation of APCD, and economics

associated with installation of APCD.

Of the 46 facilities receiving the

questionnaire, 42 (91 percent)

responded, including all the major tire

production facilities and parent

companies. The RMA estimated that 41

of these facilities produce more than 99

percent of the rubber tires produced in

the U.S. Thirty-one of the 42 reporting

facilities have indicated potential

emissions which would qualify the

facility as a major source pursuant to

section 112 of the CAA. One of the 42

responding facilities does not

manufacture rubber tires, but rather

mixes rubber compound for distribution

to noncontiguous manufacturing

facilities. This facility is within the

scope of the rubber tire manufacturing

source category because it mixes rubber

compound, which is a basic material for

the manufacturing of specific

components of rubber tires.

In 1998, the RMA surveyed the twelve

known tire cord production facilities.

Each of these facilities received a

questionnaire designed to gather

information on the quantity of HAP

emissions and controls within the tire

cord production industry. The

questionnaire requested the following

information for calendar year 1997:

• General facility information such as

facility name, address, parent company,

number of employees;

• Production information such as the

quantity of fabric processed, whether

the facility provides treated fabric to

non-tire manufacturers, and whether the

dip (coating solution) mixing equipment

and/or storage tanks have HAP emission

controls; and

• Specific process information

including the individual processes used,

the number of processes used, air

pollution control equipment used and

its efficiencies, ventilation rates, costs of

air pollution control equipment, annual

HAP emissions, and general chemical

characteristics of coating solutions.

All twelve facilities responded. Eight

of the facilities represent over 90

percent of the domestic tire cord

produced in the U.S. At least four of

these facilities appear to be major

sources based on their reported

potential emissions. The RMA survey

responses include eleven facilities that

reported they did not use or emit HAP

associated with cements, solvents, or

mixtures.

In order to standardize responses and

minimize the collection burden, the

RMA questionnaires provided guidance

for respondents on how to report usage

of HAP-containing compounds (i.e.,

cements, solvents and associated

mixtures used in the manufacture of

rubber tires). In particular, to prevent

respondents from having to estimate

very small concentrations of HAP in

their HAP-containing materials, the

questionnaires focused on collecting

information on the significant cements,

solvents and associated mixtures (or

sealants) used at each facility. The

guidance used in these questionnaires

was based on the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA) de minimis reporting threshold

limitations for HAP-containing

compounds. Thus, facilities reported the

use of only those solvents, cements or

related mixtures having HAP

concentrations greater than these de

minimis levels.

The SARA de minimis thresholds for

reporting for each component in a

mixture are 0.1 percent by weight for

some selected hazardous chemicals (see

table 16 of this proposed rule for a list

of these chemicals) and 1.0 percent by

weight for all other hazardous chemicals

(§ 370.28(b) of 40 CFR part 370-

Hazardous Chemical Reporting:

Community Right-To-Know). This

means if the weight percent of a HAP in

a cement, solvent or related mixture

used was 0.1 percent or less for selected

HAP or 1.0 percent or less for all other

HAP, it did not have to be accounted for

in the emissions information reported in

the RMA questionnaire. Thus, if the

information reported in the data base

indicates that a rubber tire

manufacturing facility has ‘‘none or zero

potential or actual HAP emissions,’’ the

facility may still have actual HAP

emissions below the accountable

quantities in the guidance. Based on this

information, a rubber tire manufacturing

facility reporting ‘‘none or zero potential

or actual HAP emissions’’ from cements,

solvents and associated mixtures could

be using cements, solvents or related

mixtures containing up to 0.1 percent of

a ‘‘selected’’ HAP or 1.0 percent of all

other HAP by mass.

Using this de minimis cutoff for

accounting of the HAP at a facility, the

companies compiled their annual

emissions of HAP on the basis of HAP

use for 1996. In the cases where they

reported they did have HAP, they

accounted for the HAP used in the

processes (liquids) and then equated the

use to 100 percent emissions of HAP.

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What Sources Are Included in the

Category and Subcategories Regulated

by This Rule?

We have defined the rubber tire

manufacturing source category to

include: The construction of rubber tires

and components integral to rubber tires,

the production of tire cord, and the

application of puncture sealant.

Components of rubber tires include, but

are not limited to, rubber compounds,

sidewalls, tread, tire beads, and liners.

Other components often associated with

rubber tires but not integral to the tire,

62418 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

such as wheels, valve stems, and inner

tubes, are not included in our definition

of components of rubber tires and

would not be subject to the

requirements proposed with today’s

action. For purposes of regulation, we

have subcategorized this source category

as follows: (1) Rubber processing, (2)

tire production, (3) tire cord production,

and (4) puncture sealant application.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of

Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

The primary sources of HAP

emissions in the rubber tire production

industry are: (1) Rubber processing; (2)

the use of cements, solvents and

associated mixtures for tire production;

(3) tire cord production; and (4)

puncture sealant application. Other

HAP emission sources include storage

vessels that contain cements, solvents

and associated mixtures, wastewater,

and research and development areas.

1. Rubber Processing

Rubber processing consists of the

combination and mixing of various

ingredients used to make mixed rubber

compound, and the processing of the

mixed rubber compound into

components that make up a tire. The

primary source of organic HAP

emissions from rubber processing is the

initial rubber compounding (e.g.,

mixing, milling, and extrusion) prior to

the application of solvents and cement.

During the initial rubber compounding,

process materials including natural

rubber, synthetic rubber, plasticizers

(e.g., oils and waxes), curatives (e.g.,

sulfur), antioxidants, and

reinforcements (e.g., silica, carbon black

and resins) are mixed together in large

mixers, called ‘‘banburys,’’ to make a

particular rubber compound. Little or no

HAP are added as raw materials to make

the rubber compound.

The physical breakdown of synthetic

and natural rubber polymers during

mixing results in HAP emissions such

as styrene and butadiene emissions.

Heat generated by the physical nature of

compound mixing and added curing

agents also causes HAP emissions (e.g.,

carbon black and sulfur chemically

combine to form carbon disulfide).

Actual emissions from rubber

compounding operations and other

mechanical warming of the compounds

(e.g., milling) are approximately 829

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (914 tons/

yr). This is approximately 46 percent of

the total annual tire production

emissions in 1996.

Six generic rubber compounds are

used to manufacture rubber tires. A

seventh compound is manufactured for

use as bladder material in the curing

presses. Manufacturers modify these six

compounds into proprietary rubber

compounds to meet company-specified

tire performance criteria and functions.

We considered whether the use of

different compounds, as well as

differences in the sequence and nature

of some of the intermediate processing

steps, affects our overall analysis of the

rubber processing operation. We

concluded that, despite the use of these

proprietary compounds, the overall

steps taken to process the rubber and

subsequently manufacture the tires are

essentially the same across the industry.

2. Tire Production

Various cements, solvents and related

mixtures are used in producing tires and

tire components. Tire production

processes where these cements and

solvents may be used include extruding,

tread stock cementing, side wall

cementing, bead cementing, liner tack

operations, tire building, curing press

spray operations, and finishing paint

operations. Cements and solvents are

defined in § 63.6015 of the proposed

rule as:

* * * the collection of all organic

chemicals, mixtures of chemicals, and

compounds used in the production of rubber

tires, including cements, solvents, and

mixtures thereof as process aides in storage

tanks, wastewater, and research and

development areas. Cements and solvents

include, but are not limited to, tread end

cements, undertread cements, bead cements,

tire building cements and solvents, green tire

spray, blemish repair paints, side wall

protective paints, marking inks, general

cleaning solvents, and slab dip mixtures.

Cements and solvents do not include

coatings used in tire cord production,

puncture sealant application, or chemicals

and compounds that are not used in the tire

production process such as restroom cleaning

compounds, office supplies (e.g., dry-erase

markers, correction fluid), architectural

paint, or any substance to the extent it is

used for personal, family, or household

purposes, or is present in the same form and

concentration as a product packaged for

distribution and use by the general public.

We estimate that processes using

cements and solvents account for 54

percent of the HAP emissions associated

with the tire production industry,

including emissions from storage

vessels, wastewater, and research and

development areas.

Cements and solvents are used for

many purposes. For example, they may

be used in ‘‘cement’’ application to

generate a tacky surface for temporary

binding of components prior to curing.

In addition, they are often used for

marking lines on rubber components for

identification and component alignment

at tire building. They may also be used

as constituents in green tire lubricant

spray, blemish paint used in tire

finishing, and coatings used in white

wall protection.

The RMA rubber tire manufacturing

survey for the 1996 calendar year

estimated potential HAP emissions from

the usage of cements and solvents and

sealants to be 1,280 Mg/yr (1,411 tons/

yr). One operation, tread-end cementing,

accounted for approximately 30 percent

of these emissions, 383 Mg/yr (422 tons/

yr). The 1996 estimated emissions of

HAP associated with cements, solvents

and associated mixtures for other

operations are presented in table 1 as

follows:

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS

FROM CEMENTS AND SOLVENTS

USAGE IN TIRE PRODUCTION

[1997 RMA tire production survey]

Operation

1996

estimated

emissions,

mg/yr

(tons/yr)

Tread-end cementing ...................... 383

(422)

Undertread cement ......................... 187

(207)

Bead cementing .............................. 40 (44)

Green tire spray .............................. 191

(211)

Cement house ................................. 34 (37)

Tanks .............................................. 5 (6)

Miscellaneous cement and solvent

use.

439

(484)

3. Tire Cord Production

Tire cord is an integral sidewall

component of rubber tires and is used

primarily to provide resistance to

sidewall flexing. In tire cord production,

fibers or fabric are processed into a

prepared fabric substrate which is

subsequently used to prepare sidewall

components. Tire cord production is a

separate subcategory for purposes of this

proposed rule because the process of

tire cord production is significantly

different from other tire component and

tire manufacturing operations. The

process of tire cord production also

lends itself to separate and specific HAP

controls.

Tire cord is produced by coating a

continuous web of woven fabric by

dipping it in an aqueous, latex-resin

solution and then heating and drying

the coated fabric. This is typically

accomplished in a three-step production

process. First, the fabric is dipped in the

coating solution. Next, the coated fabric

is typically heated and dried. Finally,

the coated fabric is subjected to an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62419

elevated temperature to heat set the

fabric and polymerize the coating

solution. The coating of the fabric

ensures that a strong bond is formed

between the tire cord fabric and a

subsequently applied rubber compound

in calendaring.

Tire cord production is an integral

part of tire manufacturing because tire

cord is a major sub-component of the

sidewall component of the tire

manufacturing process. Tire cord

production may be, but is not typically,

located at a tire production facility. Tire

cord is manufactured at twelve facilities

in the U.S.

Organic HAP emissions from tire cord

production result from the coating

solutions used to prepare the fabric. The

coating solution used is an aqueous,

latex-resin adhesive that typically

consists of a mixture of resorcinol,

formaldehyde, and latex. Actual HAP

emissions associated with the tire cord

production are estimated to be about 91

Mg/yr (100 tons/yr). However,

depending on the formula of the coating

solution and the type of fabric, HAP

emissions for individual products can

be minimal or even zero. The coating

solution formulations used at each tire

cord production facility are proprietary

and have been developed to meet a

company’s specific requirements for the

tires in which the tire cord will be used.

In addition to limiting the amount of

HAP in coatings, sources may control

organic HAP emissions from tire cord

production by using various add-on

pollution control devices (e.g., thermal

oxidizers, carbon adsorbers).

4. Puncture Sealant Application

Emissions from puncture sealant

application occur from the application

of a mixture containing solvent

constituents, rubber, and process oil to

the inner liner of a completely

manufactured tire. The puncture sealant

mixture contains organic HAP that

volatilize during the application

process.

The 1997 RMA survey included one

puncture sealant application process.

The survey estimated HAP emissions

from this puncture sealant application

process to be approximately 15 Mg/yr

(17 tons/yr). The main HAP emitted is

hexane.

The application of the solvent mixture

at the one facility occurs in a spray

booth which is reported to meet the

requirements of our definition of a

permanent total enclosure (PTE) (40

CFR part 52, appendix A, Method 204).

Approximately 56 percent of the

applied puncture sealant mixture

volatile composition is volatilized in the

application booth and captured and sent

to the control device. The remaining 44

percent of the HAP and non-HAP

volatile material remains in the tire. In

order for the sealant to work properly

over the life of the tire, nearly all of the

volatile compound containing material

remaining (89 percent or more of the

remaining 44 percent) must be retained

in the applied puncture sealant mixture.

The sealant’s purpose is to seal any

future hole which might occur in the

tread when an object penetrates the tire.

5. Storage, Transfer and Mixing Vessels

Containing Cements and Solvents

Storage, transfer and mixing vessels

containing cements and solvents and

coatings are a potential source of HAP

emissions at rubber tire manufacturing

facilities. Separate facilities are used

(except in bulk chemical storage) by

each of the affected categories and

subcategories. The majority of these

emissions come from the cement house

at tire production facilities (the

principle distribution center within a

facility), from mixing and storage areas

within the tire cord production process

areas, and at the point of use for tire

production processes. Organic HAP

emissions result from evaporative losses

from cement and solvent storage and

transfer and mixing operations.

6. Wastewater

Wastewater is another potential

source of HAP emissions in the rubber

tire manufacturing process. The HAP

emissions from wastewater are

generated during cooling and washing

of various rubber tire manufacturing

equipment and components.

7. Research and Development Areas

Most tire manufacturing facilities

have research and development areas,

including laboratories, for the purpose

of testing new manufacturing protocols

or developing new and improved tire

technology. These research and

development areas may or may not be

at the manufacturing site and may have

pilot plants sized to do laboratory scale

research. Research and development

facilities would be covered by the

emission limits in the proposed

standards. Research and development

areas may use and emit HAP from

cements and solvents.

Typically, research and development

operations resemble laboratories where

formulations of rubber compounds and

cements and solvents are analyzed for

future applications. The research

facilities may also use existing plant

equipment to test these newly

developed formulations. Typically,

several tires (as many as 100) may be

produced to evaluate various desired

qualities of the compound. The HAP

emissions associated with research and

development are a relatively small

source in comparison to the HAP

emissions from other sources at the

facility. The majority of these emissions

are produced during experimental tire

building using the existing equipment

normally used for production.

C. What Are the Affected Sources?

An affected source is a stationary

source, group of stationary sources, or

part of a stationary source regulated by

the NESHAP. Within a source category

or subcategory, we select the emission

sources (emission points or groupings of

emission points) that will make up the

affected source. Each of these affected

sources emits or has the potential to

emit one or more of the HAP listed in

section 112 of the CAA.

For purposes of this proposed rule,

we have divided the rubber tire

manufacturing source category into four

source subcategories: (1) Rubber

processing, (2) tire production, (3) tire

cord production, and (4) puncture

sealant application.

1. Rubber Processing

The rubber processing affected source

is the collection of all primary rubber

mixing processes (e.g., banburys and

associated drop mills) and mills that

either mix compounds or warm rubber

compound before the compound is

processed into components of rubber

tires. The mixed rubber compound itself

is also included in the affected source.

2. Tire Production

The affected source for the tire

production source subcategory is the

collection of all processes that use

cements and solvents located at any

rubber tire manufacturing facility. The

affected source would include, but is

not limited to: Storage and mixing

vessels and the transfer equipment

containing cements and/or solvents;

wastewater handling and treatment

operations; research and development

operations; tread end cement

operations; tire painting operations; ink

and finish operations; undertread

cement operations; general plant

cleanup operations; bead cementing

operations; tire building operations;

green tire spray operations; extruding to

the extent cements and solvents are

used; cement house operations; marking

operations; calendar operations to the

extent solvents are used; tire stripping

operations; tire repair operations; slab

dip operations; other tire building

operations to the extent that cements

and solvents are used; balance pad

operations; component production and

62420 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

tire manufacturing machinery and plant

cleaning; and other cement or solvent

application operations in the tire

manufacturing process. The tire

production affected source does not

include processes included in the

rubber processing, the tire cord

production, or the puncture sealant

application source subcategories.

3. Tire Cord Production

The affected source for the tire cord

production source subcategory is the

collection of all processes engaged in

the production of tire cord. The affected

source includes, but is not limited to:

dipping operations, drying ovens, heatset ovens, bulk storage tanks, mixing

facilities, general facility vents, air

pollution control devices and

warehouse storage vents.

4. Puncture Sealant Application

The affected source for the puncture

sealant application source subcategory

is the puncture sealant application

booth operation used to apply puncture

sealant to finished tires. For purposes of

the proposed rule, we have defined

puncture sealant to mean the mixture of

solvent constituents, rubber, and

process oil that is applied to the inner

liner of a finished tire for the purpose

of sealing a future hole in the tire.

D. What Are the Emission Limits,

Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

1. Tire Production

For the tire production affected

source, we are proposing to allow

sources to choose one of two emission

limitation options: (1) existing and new

affected sources may choose to limit

HAP emissions from the use of cements

and solvents to no more than 1,000

grams per megagram of cement or

solvent (2 pounds per ton) for each HAP

listed in table 16 of the proposed rule,

and 10,000 grams per megagram of

cement or solvent (20 pounds per ton)

for each HAP not listed in table 16; or,

(2) existing and new affected sources

may limit their total HAP emissions on

a mass of total HAP per mass of rubber

processed into tires. Specifically, if you

own or operate an existing or new

facility producing rubber tires, you must

reduce the affected source emissions of

HAP arising from cementing or solvent

application to less than 0.024 grams per

megagram (0.00005 pounds per ton) of

rubber processed into tires.

The tire production standard options

(options 1 and 2) are emission

limitations. The emission limitation in

option 1 is based on the emissions

projected if sources used only cements

and solvents containing 0.1 mass

percent of selected HAP (see table 16 in

the proposed rule) and 1.0 mass percent

for all other HAP. The projected

emissions assume 100 percent of these

HAP are emitted. The proposed rule

provides three alternatives for showing

compliance with the limitations in

option 1:

• Use only cements and solvents that

as purchased contain no more HAP than

allowed by the specified emission

limitations;

• Use cements and solvents such that

the monthly average HAP emissions

meet the specified emission limitations;

or

• Use control devices to reduce HAP

emissions such that the monthly average

HAP emissions meet the specified

emission limitations.

Option 2 provides the emission

limitation corresponding to the

emissions of total pounds of HAP (mass

emitted) on a mass of rubber processed

into tires (tons) over a monthly period.

In other words, the emission standard is

a monthly emission factor limitation

associated with the production of tires.

For each monthly period under option

2, you would be required to meet an

emission limitation of 0.024 grams per

megagram (0.00005 pounds per ton) of

rubber processed into tires. Whereas

option 1 limits individual HAP content

(and therefore emissions), option 2

would limit total HAP content.

There are two compliance alternatives

for meeting option 2, listed as follows:

• Use cements and solvents such that

the monthly average HAP emissions

meet the specified emissions

limitations; or

• Use control devices to reduce HAP

emissions such that the monthly average

HAP emissions meet the specified

emission limitations.

2. Tire Cord Production

For the tire cord production source

subcategory, we are proposing that

existing major sources meet a 280 grams

per megagram fabric processed (0.56

pounds per ton fabric processed) HAP

emission limit. For new major sources,

we are proposing a HAP emission limit

of 220 grams per megagram fabric

processed (0.43 pounds per ton fabric

processed).

In order to meet the proposed

emission limitations, we are proposing

that you meet one of the following two

compliance alternatives: (1) Use coating

solutions such that the monthly average

HAP emissions do not exceed the

applicable emission limit; or (2) use a

control device to reduce HAP emissions

such that the monthly average HAP

emissions do not exceed the applicable

emission limitation.

3. Puncture Sealant Application

For existing sources in the puncture

sealant application source subcategory,

we are proposing that you reduce the

total organic HAP emissions from all

puncture sealant application booths by

at least 86 percent by weight. For new

sources, you would have to reduce

emissions by 95 percent by weight. In

addition, you would have to meet

specified control and capture device

operating limits to ensure the continued

proper operation of the equipment.

You would have two compliance

alternatives in meeting the proposed

standards. The first is an overall control

efficiency alternative. To comply with

this alternative, you would use an

emissions capture system and control

device and demonstrate that the

application booth emissions meet the

specified emission limitations and

operating limits. The second alternative

is based on use of a permanent total

enclosure. To comply with this

alternative, you would use a permanent

total enclosure that satisfies the Method

204 criteria in 40 CFR part 51 and

demonstrate that the control device

meets the specified operating limits and

reduces at least 86 percent of emissions

for existing sources and 95 percent of

emissions for new sources.

Table 2 summarizes the emission

limitations for the tire production, tire

cord production, and puncture sealant

application affected sources.

TABLE 2.—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES

Affected sources Pollutant Limit a

Existing, new or reconstructed tire production

facility—Option 1.

Selected organic HAP (See Table 16 of proposed rule).Emissions must not exceed 1,000 grams per

megagram (2 pounds per ton) of the total

cements and solvents.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62421

TABLE 2.—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES—Continued

Affected sources Pollutant Limit a

All other organic HAP ...................................... Emissions must not exceed 10,000 grams per

megagram (20 pounds per ton) of the total

cements and solvents.

Existing, new or reconstructed tire production

facility—Option 2.

Total organic HAP ............................................ Emissions must not exceed 0.024 grams per

megagram (0.00005 pounds per ton) of rubber processed into tires.

Existing tire cord production facility .................... Organic HAP .................................................... Emissions must not exceed 280 grams per

megagram (0.56 pounds per ton) of fabric

processed.

New or reconstructed tire cord production ......... Organic HAP .................................................... Emissions must not exceed 220 grams per

megagram (0.43 pounds per ton) of fabric

processed.

New or reconstructed puncture sealant application booth.Organic HAP .................................................... Reduce booth emissions by at least 95 percent.

Existing puncture sealant application booth ...... Organic HAP .................................................... Reduce booth emissions by at least 86 percent.

aEmission limits are expressed as monthly average emission limits except for: (1) Tire production affected sources that comply by demonstrating that the cements and solvents that they use comply with the limit for every purchase; and (2) puncture sealant application affected

sources must meet the emission reduction limit on a 3-hour average.

E. What Are the Testing and Initial

Compliance Requirements?

Under the proposed standards, we

require that you demonstrate initial

compliance with each emission

limitation standard that applies to you

not later than 3 years after the date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register for existing sources,

and no later than 180 days from the date

of initial startup of a new or

reconstructed source. Existing area

sources that subsequently become major

sources have 3 years from the date they

become a major source to come into

compliance.

1. Tire Production

If you have not purchased any

materials (cements, solvents, mixtures,

etc.) containing individual HAP above

the levels prescribed in the HAP

constituent emission limitations for tire

production, you would be required to

demonstrate initial compliance by

submitting a Notification of Compliance

Status report with a statement certifying

that all cements and solvents purchased

for use in the production of rubber tires

meet the composition requirements

specified in the proposed rule. Although

you are not required to submit records

to substantiate your statement of

compliance, you would be required to

maintain records that demonstrate that

you are in compliance with the

composition requirements of the option

1 emission limitation.

Alternatively, if you have cements

and solvents containing HAP above the

levels prescribed in the emission

limitations for tire production but meet

the composition requirements specified

in the proposed rule when you also

consider cements and solvents used that

do not contain HAP, you would be

required to demonstrate compliance

differently. You would be required to

demonstrate initial compliance by

submitting the Notification of

Compliance Status report with a

statement certifying that all cements and

solvents as applied in the production of

rubber tires meet the composition

requirements specified in the proposed

rule for the monthly (30-consecutiveday) period immediately preceding the

compliance date of this proposed rule.

This certification must include a list of

all cements and solvents and mixtures

thereof purchased for use for tire

production, their quantities, and their

individual HAP constituent

compositions for the monthly period.

If you use materials containing HAP

above the levels prescribed in the

emission limitations for tire production,

and you use one or more add-on control

devices to comply with the proposed

rule, you would be required to

demonstrate initial compliance by

submitting the Notification of

Compliance Status report that includes

the information outlined in the

preceding paragraph, along with a

statement certifying that your capture

systems and control devices are being

operated within the parameter values

established during the required

performance test(s) for demonstrating

compliance with the proposed rule for

the 30-consecutive-day period

immediately preceding the compliance

date. This certification would be

required to be accompanied with the

performance test report(s) and

parameter values established during the

performance test(s) for continuous

compliance monitoring.

If you choose to comply with the

emission limitation specified in option

2, you would be required to demonstrate

initial compliance by submitting the

Notification of Compliance Status report

with a statement certifying that the mass

of HAP used per mass of rubber

processed into tires over the monthly

(30-consecutive operating day) period

preceding the compliance date did not

exceed the limits specified. Your

records to demonstrate this certification

would, at a minimum, include a

description of the measures taken (e.g.,

purchase of low-HAP-content solvents

or cements), the total amount of cements

and solvents used, the amount of HAPcontaining solvents and cements used,

and the operational status of any control

equipment used in achieving some

reduction in the HAP emissions.

Depending on the option and

compliance alternative selected, you

would be required to perform the

following tests to support your

demonstrations of compliance:

• Determine the HAP quantity and

concentration of your cements and

solvents or mixtures thereof using EPA

Method 311 or other methods approved

by the Administrator. If there is a

disagreement between such information

and Method 311 results, then the

Method 311 results will take

precedence.

• Perform a material balance on your

cements and solvents used that accounts

for all HAP emissions at the affected

source. Determine the percent by weight

of the individual constituents of the

total cements and solvents used.

Emission points that must be included

in the material balance include, but are

not be limited to, bulk storage tanks,

mixing facilities, points of use in tire

62422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

manufacturing, general facility vents, air

pollution control devices, wastewater

fugitive emissions, research and

development area vents, and warehouse

storage vents.

• If option 2 is used, determine the

quantity of rubber processed into tires

by accounting for the total mass of

rubber that enters the tire component

production processes.

• For option 2, calculate the material

balance and emission factor for your

HAP emissions (mass HAP emitted per

mass rubber processed into tires) and

your monthly HAP emissions average.

When performing material balances to

demonstrate compliance, if the storage

of materials, exhaust, or the wastewater

from more than one affected source are

combined at the point where control

systems are applied, any credit for

emissions reductions needs to be

prorated among the affected sources

based on the ratio of their contribution

to the uncontrolled emissions.

• Calculate your HAP emissions rate

for the monthly operating period

immediately preceding the compliance

date.

2. Tire Cord Production

To demonstrate initial compliance

with the proposed standards for tire

cord production affected sources, you

would be required to submit a

Notification of Compliance Status report

with a statement certifying that for the

monthly (30-consecutive operating day)

period immediately preceding the

compliance date of this proposed rule,

your affected sources met the emission

limitations specified in the proposed

rule. You would be required to perform

the following tests to support your

demonstration:

• Determine the HAP quantity and

concentration of your coating mixture

using EPA Method 311 or other methods

approved by the Administrator. If there

is a disagreement between such

information and Method 311 results,

then the Method 311 results will take

precedence.

• Perform a material balance on your

coating mixture use that accounts for all

HAP emissions from all emission points

located at your facility. Emission points

that must be included in the material

balance include, but are not be limited

to, bulk storage tanks, mixing facilities,

points of use, general facility vents, air

pollution control devices, wastewater,

research and development areas, and

warehouse storage vents. When

performing material balances to

demonstrate compliance, if the storage

of materials, exhaust, or the wastewater

from more than one affected source are

combined at the point where control

systems are applied, any credit for

emissions reductions needs to be

prorated among the affected sources

based on the ratio of their contribution

to the uncontrolled emissions.

• Determine your quantity of fabric

processed by accounting for the total

mass of fabric that enters the fabric

treating process.

• Calculate your HAP emissions

(mass HAP emitted per mass fabric

processed) and your monthly HAP

emissions average.

• Calculate your average HAP

emissions rate for the monthly period

immediately preceding the compliance

date.

3. Puncture Sealant Application

To demonstrate compliance with the

puncture sealant application standard,

you must demonstrate compliance in

one of two ways. First, you may choose

to demonstrate the overall control

efficiency of your emissions reductions

system. In this case, you would

demonstrate that the emissions capture

system efficiency multiplied by the

control device efficiency meets the

applicable emissions limitation for the

application booth emissions, and that

your equipment meets the specified

operating limits. You would

demonstrate these efficiencies by

conducting a performance test of the

capture system and control device to

determine their individual efficiencies.

You would also establish operating

parameters that you would subsequently

monitor to demonstrate continuous

compliance with the operating limits.

Alternatively, you could use a

permanent total enclosure that satisfies

the Method 204 criteria in 40 CFR part

51. Use of a permanent total enclosure

certifies 100 percent capture. Then, you

would demonstrate that the control

device reduces at least 86 percent of

emissions for existing sources and 95

percent of emissions for new or

reconstructed sources and meets the

specified operating limits. As above,

you would demonstrate the control

device efficiency by conducting a

performance test. You would also

establish operating parameters that you

would subsequently monitor to

demonstrate compliance with the

operating limits.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance

Provisions?

The proposed standards require that

you demonstrate continuous

compliance with each emission

limitation that applies to you. For the

tire production, tire cord production,

and puncture sealant application source

subcategories, you would be required to

demonstrate continuous compliance by

monitoring each of the following as

applicable to the compliance plan of the

affected source, in some instances, on a

daily basis:

• Amounts of cements and solvents

or coating mixtures used;

• HAP content of the cements and

solvents or coating mixtures;

• Amount of fabric processed at tire

cord production facilities;

• Amount of rubber processed into

tires at tire production facilities; and

• Any add-on control equipment

parameter values.

The monitoring data would be used to

calculate the monthly average limits. In

the proposed rule, we have provided the

necessary algorithms for calculating the

monthly averages.

G. What Are the Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements?

We have incorporated most of the

requirements of the NESHAP General

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)

into the proposed rule. Exceptions have

been specified, as relevant.

You would be required to submit the

following notifications and reports:

• An Initial Notification within 120

days after the effective date of the

promulgated standards for existing

sources and within 120 days after the

date of initial startup for new and

reconstructed sources.

• If you are required to conduct a

performance test, you would be required

to submit a Notification of Intent to

conduct a performance test at least 60

calendar days before the performance

test is scheduled to begin.

• If you have conducted a

performance test to meet the

requirements of this proposed rule, you

would be required to submit a

Notification of Compliance Status report

that includes the performance test

report. This report would be submitted

before the close of business on the 60th

calendar day following the completion

of the performance test.

• A compliance report that either

contains a statement that there were no

deviations from the emission limitations

and operating limits (if applicable)

during the reporting period or that

reports any deviations from the

emission limitations. This report would

be submitted semiannually except

where a tire production affected facility

has demonstrated compliance with the

HAP-constituent emission limitation by

purchasing and using only complying

materials. In this case, the semiannual

report will be replaced with an annual

report.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62423

• A periodic report is required every

6 months if a change occurs at the

affected facility, or within the process

that affects the compliance status, or

that such change would have resulted in

a report in the Initial Notification.

You would be required to maintain

records for at least 5 years from the date

of each record. You must retain the

records onsite for at least the first 2

years but may retain the records offsite

for the remaining 3 years. In addition to

the general recordkeeping requirements

of the General Provisions, you would be

required to keep the following records:

• A copy of each notification and

report that you submitted to comply

with the proposed rule, including

documentation supporting the Initial

Notification or Notification of

Compliance Status reports that you

submitted.

• Records of performance tests and

performance evaluations.

• For all processes that use cements

and solvents in the manufacture of tires,

you would be required to keep a daily

record of the composition of all cements

and solvents used and a monthly record

of the quantity of cements and solvents

used, as well as the mass weight of

rubber processed into tires for tire

production.

• For each air pollution control

device (e.g., thermal oxidizer) associated

with a process or processes that use

cements and solvents in the production

of tires, you would be required to keep

a daily record of the mass percent of

HAP in cements and solvents used, and

a daily record of parameter values that

indicate proper operation of the control

device as determined during the

performance tests.

• For each process or facility that

produces tire cord, you would be

required to keep a daily record of the

mass of HAP in all coating mixtures

used, the mass of HAP in coating

mixtures that are not emitted (i.e.,

controlled by a control device), the mass

of fabric processed, and a calculated

emission factor that indicates your

emissions on a monthly average.

• For each air pollution control

device (e.g., thermal oxidizer) associated

with a process or facility that produces

tire cord, you would be required to keep

a daily record of the mass of HAP in all

coating mixtures used, the mass of HAP

in coating mixtures that are not emitted

(i.e., controlled by a control device), the

mass of fabric processed, a daily record

of any parameters, as determined during

the performance tests, that indicate

actual operation of the control device,

and a calculated emission factor that

indicates your emissions on a monthly

average.

• For each air pollution control

device (e.g., carbon absorber) associated

with a process or facility that applies

puncture sealant to the interior of

finished tires, you would be required to

keep a daily record of the mass of HAP

in all coating mixtures used and a daily

record of any parameters, as determined

during the performance tests, that

indicate actual operation of the control

device.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source

Category and Subcategories?

We listed tire manufacturing as a

category of major sources of HAP on the

initial list of major source categories (63

FR 7155). The primary HAP emitted are

hexane, toluene, formaldehyde,

methanol, and styrene. In gathering and

evaluating more extensive information

on tire manufacturing, we determined

that tire manufacturing actually

includes several distinct processes that

are sources of HAP, and that some

operations are often not located at the

same site. Specifically, rubber

compound mixing is a distinct process;

however, we found that a particular

facility only mixed rubber for later

distribution to its satellite tire

manufacturing facilities. In addition,

tire cord production is predominantly

conducted at facilities not located with

tire production facilities. On November

8, 1999 (64 FR 63025), we revised the

source category list to change the name

to ‘‘rubber tire manufacturing.’’ The new

name better describes the operations we

propose to regulate in this source

category which includes more than just

‘‘tire production.’’

The CAA allows us to define

subcategories, or subsets of similar

emission sources within a source

category, if technical differences in

emissions characteristics, processes,

control device applicability, or

opportunities for pollution prevention

exist within the source category (57 FR

31567). Specific examples of these

differences include the types of

products, process equipment

differences, the type and level of

emission control, emission sources, and

any other factors that would affect the

MACT determination for a given source

category.

We reviewed and analyzed available

information on the rubber tire

manufacturing industry to determine if

subcategorization was warranted. We

considered information similar to that

used in other MACT standard

subcategorization decisions including:

• Similarity of products produced at

different facilities;

• Any variations in the process due to

the tire type produced;

• Variability of raw or input materials

used at different facilities;

• Type of equipment used in the

process;

• Control device applicability and

costs; and

• Pollution prevention opportunities.

Based on our review, we determined

that there are fundamentally different

processes with differing operations and

emissions within the rubber tire

manufacturing industry that warranted

subcategorization. We identified four

separate operations within the tire

manufacturing source category that are

significant sources of HAP emissions:

(1) Rubber processing, (2) tire

production, (3) tire cord production,

and (4) puncture sealant application.

Rubber processing includes mixing,

milling, and extrusion rubber

compounding operations prior to the

application of solvents and cements.

Tire production emission sources are

associated with the use of cements and

solvents (including emissions that result

from storage, wastewater, and research

and development). Tire cord production

is infrequently located at a rubber tire

production facility, and emission

sources are associated with the coating

solutions used to treat the fabric

(including emissions that result from

storage, wastewater, and research and

development). Puncture sealant

application is a separate operation

where emissions are associated with the

mixture that is applied to the inner liner

of a newly finished tire for the purpose

of sealing future punctures. The mixture

contains solvent constituents, rubber,

and process oils. We have prepared a

memorandum supporting this

subcategorization that you can obtain

from the docket for this proposed

rulemaking.

B. How Did We Select the Affected

Sources?

The affected source comprises the

emission points to which a standard

applies for a source category or

subcategory. As discussed in section

II.C, an affected source is a stationary

source, group of stationary sources, or

part of a stationary source regulated by

the NESHAP. When selecting the

affected source for a source category or

subcategory, we need to select the HAP

emission sources that will make up the

affected source. Our rationale for the

selection of the affected sources within

the tire production, tire cord

production, and puncture sealant

62424 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

application source subcategories is

presented in the following paragraphs.

1. Rubber Processing

As described in earlier sections,

emissions from the rubber processing

source subcategory occur from the

operations where rubber is being mixed

and prepared, before it is processed into

components of rubber tires, and before

cements and solvents are applied.

2. Tire Production

As noted above, emissions from the

tire production source subcategory are

generally associated with the operations

following rubber processing that involve

the use of cements and solvents to

assemble the tire.

Emissions from cements and solvents

use over the past 20 years in tire

production operations have been

significantly reduced. The EPA data

base for 1996 HAP emissions estimates

that 1,280 Mg/yr (1,411 tons/yr) of

organic HAP are emitted from tire

production operations due to the use of

cements and solvents. Though no hard

data have been gathered, the industry

estimates that this amount may be half

the 1970–1980 levels of emissions.

Reductions in organic HAP emissions

leading up to our 1996 data base have

been gained by the industry through

reducing or eliminating the amount of

cements and solvents used, or by

reformulating the cements and solvents

to reduce or eliminate their volatile

organic compounds (VOC), including

HAP content.

For example, tread-end cementing is

estimated to use approximately 383 Mg/

yr (422 tons/yr) of cements and solvents

or about 30 percent of the total cements

and solvents used in the rubber tire

production industry. An analysis of the

information submitted by RMA, and the

information collected during EPA site

evaluations, indicated that several

facilities use cements and mixtures

containing no reportable quantity of

HAP. In contrast, the use of add-on

pollution control devices to control

emissions from cements and solvents

use is atypical. Of the 41 reporting

facilities in RMA’s survey, a total of

seven used control devices directed

toward HAP organic emissions from

cementing and solvent operations.

Therefore, based on current and historic

emissions control practices at tire

production sources, we concluded that,

although emissions are controllable

using add-on control devices, the

prevalent means of emissions control is

the use of air pollution prevention

measures. In selecting the affected

source, we considered this

controllability of emissions as a key

criterion.

We also considered the potential

impact of reconstruction when selecting

the affected source for tire production.

We do not believe it is appropriate to

require a facility to meet new source

standards because it reconstructs one

small process, such as replacing one tire

building station, especially when such

replacement in itself would not

significantly affect emissions from the

facility. Therefore, we selected the tire

production affected source to be the

collection of all processes that use

cements and solvents located at a rubber

tire manufacturing facility. This

definition of affected source includes all

operations within the facility where

cements and solvents are used. As a

result, reconstruction, which is defined

in 40 CFR 63.2, will be determined by

looking at the capital costs for replacing

the entire affected source. Modifications

to individual processes or operations

should be less likely to trigger treatment

as a reconstructed source.

3. Tire Cord Production

As described later in this preamble,

emissions from tire cord production can

be controlled by add-on control devices,

pollution prevention measures, or a

combination of these two. Although

some add-on control devices are used

and will continue to be used at tire cord

production processes, emissions

reductions can be achieved by reducing

the VOC (including HAP) content in the

coating solutions or eliminating the

emissions of VOC (including HAP)

through process changes and

substitution of materials.

Tire cord production facilities may

have several different production lines

and may produce several different types

of tire cord in one facility. Although the

coating solutions differ depending on

the types of cord being produced, they

are basically the same solution,

consisting of a mixture of resorcinol,

formaldehyde, and latex, with some

changes in the formulation that are

considered proprietary among tire cord

producers.

Process changes and material

substitutions, though not as common as

they are for operations using cements

and solvents in tire production, are

being pursued as a way of controlling

HAP emissions from tire cord

operations. Despite these efforts,

however, we believe emissions from tire

cord sources will continue to be

controlled at least in part using add-on

control devices. In selecting the affected

source, we considered this choice of

controllability of emissions as a key

criterion. Therefore, the standard

reflects the alternative to address

emissions reductions through

traditional add-on control or

reformulation or elimination of HAP in

the coating solutions used to treat tire

cord fabric.

In selecting the affected source for the

tire cord subcategory, we also

considered the need for flexibility at the

facility to modify operations without

triggering treatment as a reconstructed

source. As with the tire production

affected source, we did not believe it

was appropriate to cause a facility to

have to meet new source standards

because it reconstructs one small

process, such as replacing one

component of a particular tire cord

production process. Therefore, we

selected the affected source to be the

collection of all processes located at any

rubber tire manufacturing facility that

are engaged in the production of tire

cord.

4. Puncture Sealant Application

For the puncture sealant application

source subcategory, HAP emissions are

generated from the application of the

puncture sealant mixture to the interior

of the newly finished tire. The HAP

emissions come from the solvent

constituents used in the mixtures. The

application takes place within an

enclosed application booth. The

captured air stream is passed through a

control device such as a carbon

adsorber. The puncture sealant

operation is a distinct operation and

accounts for approximately 15 Mg/yr

(17 tons/yr) of actual HAP emissions.

Unlike our other subcategories, the

puncture sealant subcategory is

comprised of a physically definable,

lone emission source which is the

application booth. Therefore, we have

designated the emission source as the

affected source.

C. How Did We Determine the Basis and

Level of the Proposed Standards for

Existing and New Sources?

In establishing these proposed

emission standards, we determined the

MACT floor for each affected source. We

evaluated add-on control technologies

as well as work practices and pollution

prevention techniques. We obtained

data related to operating procedures and

emissions for the rubber processing, tire

production, tire cord production, and

puncture sealant affected sources

through a combination of site visits, the

RMA surveys (see section I.D.) and

discussions with the industry. Data from

all these sources were considered in the

selection of emission limits for

individual emission points at rubber tire

manufacturing facilities.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62425

1. Rubber Processing

We determined that MACT for rubber

processing is no control, and, therefore,

there are no emission limitations or

other requirements being proposed for

the rubber processing affected source. In

reaching the conclusion that MACT for

rubber processing is no control, we first

evaluated the floor and determined that

the floor is no control. There are

currently no organic emission add-on

controls applied to these mixing and

milling operations in the rubber tire

industry. Based on the fact that some

plants have lower emissions than

others, we evaluated whether there is a

MACT floor based on substitution of

lower-HAP containing raw materials

which could be used in the process. We

learned that little or no HAP are added

to the raw materials used to make the

rubber compounds. The approximately

829 Mg/yr (914 tons/yr) of HAP

emissions associated with rubber

compound processing result from the

physical breakdown of polymers during

the mixing, and chemical reactions that

occur when elevated temperatures in

mixing and milling affect the individual

rubber compounds. The rubber

compounds used in tires must meet

certain characteristic properties to

ensure attainment of certain technical

specifications such as high mileage and

safety. There are no known substitutes

for the basic ingredients used to make

the individual rubber compounds that

would result in lower HAP emissions.

Thus, we concluded that there were no

pollution prevention controls or

procedures to form a basis for the MACT

floor.

We also evaluated the possibility of

going beyond the ‘‘no control’’ MACT

floor in controlling the major emissions

from the compounding and milling

process. Specifically, we explored

controlling the organic HAP emissions

from rubber processing with add-on

controls (i.e., thermal oxidizers). We

determined that, although feasible, such

add-on controls were unreasonably

expensive. Therefore, we concluded that

the control of organic HAP beyond the

floor would not be reasonable at this

time.

2. Tire Production

Cements and solvents are widely used

throughout the rubber tire

manufacturing industry for many

different purposes (see section II.B of

this preamble for a description). The

quantity of cements and solvents used

annually varies significantly among

facilities, from near zero at some

facilities to nearly 300 tons at others.

The emissions reported in the RMA

survey that comprise our data base

reflect the total amount of volatile HAP

used for the year. In other words, we

assume that all of the volatile HAP

contained in the cements and solvents

used were emitted.

Emissions from the use of cements

and solvents are controlled primarily

through pollution prevention measures.

These pollution prevention measures

include reformulation to reduce or

eliminate the HAP content of cements

and solvents, reduction in the quantity

of cements and solvents used, and

elimination of cements and solvents use

altogether. Some facilities change their

process operations, which is another

form of pollution prevention, to reduce

their cementing needs. Specifically,

they arrange and choreograph their

component production processes, or

time the production of components so

that the delivery of components to tire

building stations occurs within a short

enough timeframe to avoid film build

up on the uncured rubber compound. In

some cases, component pre-cutting has

been changed to on-demand cutting at

the tire building station, eliminating the

need to address film build up on the

component material. These process

changes eliminate the need for cements

or solvents by ensuring that the rubber

compound remains tacky and will stick

to the other components.

Add-on control devices are also

installed at tire production sources to

reduce organic emissions from the

application of cements and solvents, but

their installation is sporadic. Typically,

a capture system at the cement or

solvent application area captures the

immediate evaporation of the volatile

HAP and directs the HAP to a thermal

oxidation unit.

Because of the varying types and

quantities of cements and solvents used

in tire production, and the fact that

emissions generated during their use are

controlled primarily through pollution

prevention measures, we believe that a

process-by-process MACT floor based

on a specific control technology would

not be reasonable or appropriate for this

affected source. Therefore, we decided

to determine the MACT floor broadly to

encompass the entire tire production

affected source.

This approach for setting the MACT

floor allows rubber tire production

facilities greater flexibility for

complying with the tire production

standards by allowing facilities to

consider total emissions from cements

and solvents within the affected source

rather than on a process-by-process

basis. It also provides the facility the

flexibility to mix and match the use of

pollution prevention methods and the

use of add-on control devices to comply

with the tire production standard.

Using a source-wide approach, we

developed the MACT floor emission

standards to reflect an individual HAP

content emission limitation. We

determined the MACT floor for tire

production existing sources by

calculating the average emission

limitation achieved by the best

performing 12 percent of the existing

tire production sources for which we

have data (41 facilities). Twelve percent

of 41 is 4.92, so the MACT floor for the

use of cements and solvents for the tire

production affected source would be the

average emission limitation of the best

performing five sources.

In the 1997 RMA survey response,

eleven rubber tire production facilities

reported that they did not have

reportable emissions or did not use

HAP-containing cements and solvents

or mixtures thereof in tire production.

As a result, the average emission

limitation of the top five facilities would

initially appear to be zero HAP

emissions. In the course of drafting this

proposal, however, we discovered that

the facilities reporting that they did not

use HAP-containing cements and

solvents were relying upon the de

minimis reportable quantity thresholds

for selected HAP (see section I.D. of

preamble for discussion). We, therefore,

interpret the facilities’ reported ‘‘zero’’

HAP emissions from cements and

solvents to mean that their cements and

solvents may contain up to the

reportable threshold quantities of HAP.

The MACT floor for new or

reconstructed sources is set at the

emissions achieved in practice by the

best performing similar source. As

discussed for the existing source MACT

floor, several rubber tire production

facilities reported that they did not have

reportable HAP emissions from the use

of cements and solvents. However, as

explained above, we interpret the

facilities’ reported ‘‘zero’’ HAP

emissions to mean that their cements

and solvents may contain up to the de

minimis reportable quantity levels.

Thus, the MACT floor is the same for

new and existing sources.

We also evaluated the possibility of

going ‘‘beyond the MACT floor’’ for tire

production sources. The floors for both

existing and new sources, although not

zero emissions, are very close to zero

emissions. As a result, we evaluated the

feasibility of eliminating all HAP

emissions from tire production sources

as an above-the-floor option for both

existing and new sources. The estimated

HAP emissions reductions associated

with the tire production MACT floor is

949 Mg/yr (1,047 tons/yr). Total

62426 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

elimination of all HAP in cements and

solvents is estimated to reduce

emissions by 946 Mg/yr (1,063 tons/yr).

We, however, cannot assess the

achievability of eliminating HAP

emissions altogether because we lack

information on the availability of

adequate cements and solvents that

truly contain no HAP at any

concentration. We are seeking

supporting information regarding an

elimination of HAP in tire production

by soliciting, through this proposal, any

information regarding the elimination of

HAP in cements and solvents used in

tire production.

Based on the analysis described

above, the standards for both existing

and new tire production affected

sources are based on the floor level of

control and are expressed in terms of

individual HAP content emission

limitations. This emission limitation is

identified as ‘‘option 1’’ in table 2.

Table 2 also includes a second

emission limitation for tire production

labeled as ‘‘option 2.’’ Option 2

represents a second form of emission

limitation based on the mass of HAP

emitted per mass of rubber processed

into tires. We have calculated the

emission limit in option 2 to be at least

as stringent as the MACT floor

represented by option 1. In developing

option 2, we concluded that, based on

information available to us from the

industry, there is a range of HAP

constituents that may be present in the

cement and solvent formulations but the

typical formulation contains three HAP

components. Assuming three

components are used, under option 1,

the typical cement/solvent formulation

would contain approximately 3 percent

HAP by weight. Using this figure, we

calculated an emission limitation that

we believe would be equivalent to

option 1 for the source in the RMA data

base with the lowest reported ratio of

cement and solvent HAP content to

rubber processed. Specifically, the

reported annual HAP content for this

facility was adjusted assuming a three

component formulation (e.g., 800

pounds of HAP used × 0.03). As in

option 1, we assume all HAP contained

in the cements and solvents will be

emitted. The resulting HAP emissions

were then divided by annual rubber

processed into tires, in tons, to achieve

the mass of HAP per mass of rubber

processed limitation.

We consider option 2 to be at least as

stringent as option 1. For facilities other

than the one used in our calculation,

option 2 is arguably more stringent than

the floor, but these other facilities are

not forced to meet this limitation since

option 1 is available and represents the

MACT floor. We are interested in

comment on the reasonableness of this

approach in establishing an option that

is at least as stringent as the MACT floor

and on alternative means of expressing

option 2.

3. Tire Cord Production

The tire cord production process

typically uses an aqueous solution

containing a mixture of resorcinol,

formaldehyde, and latex to coat a fabric,

usually polyester or nylon. Heat is then

used to set the fabric and polymerize the

coating solution. The exact composition

of the coating solutions are considered

proprietary and vary between facilities.

The composition of the coating

solutions also varies with the type of

fabric being coated.

Emissions from the tire cord

production affected source are often

controlled by using pollution

prevention measures. These measures

include replacing non-aqueous coating

mixtures with aqueous coating mixtures

and reducing the amount of HAP in the

coating mixtures. Add-on control

devices, though less common, are also

used to reduce organic emissions. These

control devices, however, are generally

only used to control HAP emissions

from select individual processes within

the affected source. In fact, within the

12 tire cord production facilities there

are: 19 dipping operations, only one of

which uses an add-on control device to

control HAP emissions; 18 heater-drying

operations, only two of which use addon control devices to control HAP

emissions; and 19 heat set operations,

only four of which use add-on control

devices to control HAP emissions.

During our review and analysis of the

tire cord production affected source, we

discovered significant process and

operation variations among tire cord

production facilities. The variations we

identified include the following:

• When add-on controls are used,

organic emissions are controlled from

different operations of the process, and

different combinations of processes are

controlled;

• HAP emissions reporting is not

consistent among facilities (i.e., some

facilities believe HAP are emitted from

one process while other facilities

believe the HAP are emitted from a

different process);

• Equipment is configured differently

among facilities to produce the same

product; and

• There are commonly several

process lines within a tire cord

production facility, each of which may

be producing different types of tire cord

using different coating solutions, and

equipment dedication, as well as the

product lines, vary through the year.

Because of the varying use of different

types of coating solutions, the

significant process and operation

variations among tire cord production

facilities, and the fact that emissions

from tire cord production are controlled

primarily by using pollution prevention

measures, we do not believe a processby-process MACT floor based on a

specific control technology is reasonable

for this industry. Therefore, we

determined that the MACT floor should

be based more broadly to encompass the

entire tire cord production source

subcategory affected source. Some of the

other reasons we chose to determine the

MACT floor broadly include the

following: (1) It allows tire cord

production facilities greater flexibility

for complying with the standards by

allowing facilities to consider total

emissions from coating operations

within the entire facility rather than on

a process-by-process basis, and (2) it

allows the facility flexibility to mix and

match the use of pollution prevention

methods and add-on control devices to

comply with the standard.

We used HAP annual emissions data

and the annual fabric production from

the tire cord production facility RMA

survey data base (see section I.D. of this

preamble) to calculate an emission rate,

in pounds HAP emitted per ton of fabric

processed, for the entire tire cord

affected source for each facility. Because

there are fewer than 30 sources

manufacturing tire cord, we determined

the MACT floor based on the average

emissions achieved by the best

performing five sources. The average

emission rate was calculated to be 280

grams HAP emitted per megagram fabric

processed (0.56 pounds HAP emitted

per ton fabric processed) for existing tire

cord production facilities.

The MACT floor for new sources is

based on the emissions reductions

achieved in practice by the best

performing similar source. The best

performing tire cord production facility

has an emission rate of 220 grams HAP

emitted per megagram fabric processed

(0.43 pounds HAP emitted per ton fabric

processed), which equals the new

source MACT floor for tire cord

production.

We also evaluated going ‘‘beyond the

floor’’ for the tire cord production

source subcategory. We did not identify

any tire cord production facility that has

eliminated the use of HAP-bearing

coatings in their production process.

Greater emissions reductions would,

therefore, likely require the use of addon control devices. We estimated that

the average facility cost of achieving the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62427

MACT for tire cord sources using addon control devices (e.g., regenerative

oxidation) would be approximately

$70,000 per ton of total HAP emissions

reductions. The incremental cost

effectiveness of using add-on control

devices to go beyond the floor is

expected to be higher. Because of these

costs we are not proposing to adopt

standards that require reductions

beyond the MACT floor.

4. Puncture Sealant Application

During the development of this

proposed rule, we identified one

manufacturing plant where tires

equipped with puncture sealant are

manufactured. As discussed previously,

the puncture sealant application process

involves the application of a puncture

sealant mixture containing solvent

constituents, rubber and process oil to

the inner liner of a tire. Since the

puncture sealant application source

subcategory consists of only one plant,

the MACT floor for an existing source is

the emissions control that is employed

at that plant, which we believe is

represented by an overall control

efficiency of 86 percent.

The current overall control equipment

efficiency at this facility, however, is

not as efficient as what has been

achievable for the type of equipment

used in other similar capture and

control systems for volatile organic

emission sources. A new source

puncture sealant application affected

facility would have to meet a more

stringent control equipment

requirement reflecting a demonstrated

and achievable capture and control

system commonly applied in volatile

organic emission control. The overall

control efficiency for new sources is 95

percent based on the use of a permanent

total enclosure and a properly sized and

operated control device, such as a

carbon adsorber.

We evaluated the feasibility of going

‘‘beyond the floor’’ to establish MACT

for the existing facility but determined,

based on a review of the data, site

evaluations, and input from industry,

that it would be unreasonable to go

‘‘beyond the floor’’ in establishing

MACT. The puncture sealant mixture

formulation serves a specific market

niche for consumers who want a

relatively low-cost tire that is resistant

to road hazards. Reformulation of the

mixtures would be an impractical

above-the-floor option because no

alternative formulations have been

identified that can provide the desired

sealant capability. Requiring add-on

controls in addition to or in place of the

use of the existing carbon adsorption

system on the single application booth

would result in an additional estimated

annual reduction of 0.5 tons of HAP.

Thermal oxidation (incineration) is a

viable control for the one existing

facility; however, the incremental costs

of requiring the existing facility to

remove the current carbon adsorber and

replace it with a more efficient control

system such as a thermal oxidation unit

are unreasonable considering the

incremental emissions reductions that

would be achieved (approximately

$28,500 per ton per year).

D. How Did We Select the Format of the

Standards?

1. Tire Production

We are proposing mass emission

limitations in the form of two options

for the tire production source

subcategory. Option 1 is expressed as a

mass emission limit based on the HAP

content of cements and solvents. This

option limits the level of any individual

HAP constituent in cements and

solvents used in the tire production

source. Option 2 is a total HAP mass

emission limit based the tons of rubber

processed. We believe that both of these

options are appropriate for the following

reasons.

First, these formats are consistent

with the data base and approach used to

derive them. They are also consistent

with the approaches used by the

industry to report emissions. In

proposing these standards, we recognize

that 11 individual facilities have

eliminated or reformulated their

cements and solvents to either eliminate

HAP or significantly reduce their use in

tire production. We further recognize

that reformulation and elimination of

cements and solvents have resulted in

greater HAP emissions reductions than

the use of add-on control devices. As a

result, we believe that both the

individual HAP constituent limitation,

as well as the total mass HAP per mass

rubber processed limitation, encourage

further pollution prevention initiatives

in the rubber tire production industry.

2. Tire Cord Production

For tire cord production facilities, the

standard chosen is a production-based

standard expressed in units of mass of

HAP emitted per mass of fabric

processed. Therefore, we chose a

production-based format in order to

ensure that all regulated sources, even

those with variable processes, would

meet uniform standards. A productionbased format also enables control

techniques based on pollution

prevention. In this case, we know a

production-based emission standard is

workable for tire cord production

because sources are already complying

with the proposed emission standard

and currently use mass balance methods

to measure emissions.

3. Puncture Sealant Application

For puncture sealant application, the

format of the standards proposed is

expressed as percent reduction

associated with the operation of a

capture system and control device. Only

one U.S.-based puncture sealant

application affected source has been

identified. Information and data

supplied by the one affected source

indicate that the puncture sealant

operation is conducted within a

puncture sealant application booth, and

that emissions from the total enclosure

are vented to a carbon adsorption

control device. As explained in section

III.B, information from the affected

source indicates that other pollution

prevention techniques such as

reformulation of the puncture sealant

mixture do not appear achievable.

Therefore, a percent reduction standard

was selected to reflect the operation of

the source.

E. How Did We Select the Compliance,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements?

We selected the compliance,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements that would best

demonstrate and document compliance

with the proposed standards. The

proposed procedures and methods have

been used for similar sources and

emission limit formats.

If you comply with the tire

production emission limitation in

option 1 by purchasing and using

cements and solvents that comply with

the limits, your recordkeeping and

reporting are limited to using purchase

records. You may also qualify for annual

instead of semiannual compliance

reports. You can choose this compliance

alternative later even if you initially use

one of the monthly averaging

approaches to comply.

F. What Is the Relationship of This

Subpart to New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) for the Rubber Tire

Manufacturing Industry?

The NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart

BBB) regulate the volatile organic

emissions from new tire manufacturing

sources constructed after January 20,

1983. For purposes of the NSPS, the

term ‘‘tires’’ is defined as any

agricultural, airplane, industrial, mobile

home, light duty truck and/or passenger

vehicle tire that has a bead diameter less

than or equal to 0.5 meter (19.7 inches),

a cross section dimension less than or

62428 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

equal to 0.325 meter (12.8 inches), and

that is mass produced in an assembly

line. The proposed subpart XXXX

would encompass these tires as well as

any other tire manufacturing operation

that falls within the affected source

definition. This proposed subpart would

only supercede the compliance

requirements of the NSPS where the

MACT is more stringent than the

applicable NSPS.

The NSPS limit monthly volatile

organic emissions for specific processes

within the affected facility. In general

terms, the VOC emissions for undertread cementing, sidewall cementing,

tread-end cementing, bead cementing,

green tire spray and two specific

Michelin operations were established

to limit the mass of VOC to the

atmosphere on a process operation

basis. To the extent the VOC emissions

covered by the NSPS include volatile

organic HAP, the proposed standards

could be more restrictive than the NSPS.

Tire manufacturing facilities will,

therefore, need to consider the

requirements of both today’s proposed

rule, once finalized, and the NSPS.

The NSPS compliance period

(emission standard demonstration

period) is a monthly time period. The

proposed standard incorporates an

emission cap as well as a mass of

emission per tire, or average emission

per tire, during the month. For the

NSPS, compliance is determined by

adding up the usage of VOC and

determining the total evaporated to the

atmosphere and/or the average mass

emission of VOC on a per tire basis for

each affected process specified in the

NSPS. The proposed NESHAP

compliance period has been established

to minimize the restructuring of the

monitoring and recordkeeping

requirements for the NSPS compliance

determination period. Specifically, the

proposed standard averaging period is a

monthly average on a facilitywide basis.

The add-on control monitoring

provisions of the NSPS and the

proposed subpart are not inconsistent.

Where the NSPS call for certain

parameters to be monitored for control

equipment, the NESHAP and the

General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63

also call for the establishment of these

parameters to the extent that add-on

controls are used in the compliance

plan for the affected source.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

We estimate that the proposed rule

would eliminate approximately 983 Mg/

yr (1,084 tons/yr) (52 percent) of the

baseline annual HAP emissions from

this industry.

For the tire production source

subcategory, we have estimated that the

proposed standards would reduce HAP

emissions by approximately 949 Mg/yr

(1,047 tons/yr). For the tire cord

production source subcategory, we have

estimated that the proposed standards

would reduce HAP emissions by

approximately 34 Mg/yr (37 tons/yr).

We have also estimated that the

proposed standards for tire cord

production would reduce emissions of

VOC by the same amount.

For the one existing puncture sealant

application source, we are not requiring

different emissions control than what is

currently done. Therefore, the proposed

standards would not reduce HAP or

other emissions from baseline

emissions.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

Actual compliance costs will depend

on each source’s existing equipment and

the modifications they make to comply

with the proposed standards. Table 3

shows the total annual costs for affected

sources to comply with the proposed

standards. These costs include the

estimated costs of reformulating

cements, solvents, and coatings or

installing of add-on control devices, as

well as monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping costs.

TABLE 3.—TOTAL COSTS OF THE RUBBER TIRE MANUFACTURING MACT FOR TIRE PRODUCTION, TIRE CORD

PRODUCTION, AND PUNCTURE SEALANT APPLICATION

Cost Tire

production Tire cord

Puncture

sealant

application a

Total nationwide control costs ..................................................................................................... $21,359,000 $2,477,000 $0

Total annual monitoring costs ..................................................................................................... 1,143,000 184,000 0

Annual average recordkeeping and reporting costs ................................................................... 579,000 102,000 0

Nationwide annual costs .............................................................................................................. 23,081,000 2,763,000 0

Total nationwide costs ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 25,844,000

a Puncture sealant monitoring and reporting recordkeeping costs are included in the tire production costs.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The economic impact analysis (EIA)

provides an estimate of the anticipated

regulatory impacts of the NESHAP for

Rubber Tire Manufacturing. The

information collected for this proposed

rule from rubber tire manufacturers

indicates that there are 14

manufacturers with 43 facilities that are

potentially affected. States with the

largest concentration of facilities are

Alabama, Illinois, North Carolina, South

Carolina and Ohio. None of the facilities

manufacturing rubber tires are owned

by companies that are classified as small

businesses.

In general, the economic impacts of

this proposed rule are expected to be

minimal. A market price increase of less

than 1 percent, or $0.03 per tire, is

predicted. Domestic producer operating

profits are projected to decrease by

$13.5 million. No rubber tire facility is

expected to close as a result of this

proposed rule. The EIA estimates that

domestic tire output will decline by

144,000 tires (0.05 percent), while

imports will increase by 22,000 tires

(0.04 percent), resulting in a net decline

of 122,000 tires, or 0.03 percent. For

more information on the results of the

EIA analysis, refer to the EIA in the

docket.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health,

Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

The standards proposed for the tire

manufacturing and tire cord production

source subcategories encourage the

adoption of pollution prevention

measures. As a result, we believe that

most manufacturers will adopt these

measures and expect minimal, if any,

increases in energy consumption, and

reductions in water pollution and solid

waste.

The standards proposed for the

puncture sealant application source

subcategory do not impose any

requirements above baseline, therefore,

there would be no non-air health,

environmental, and energy impacts

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62429

associated with the implementation of

the proposed standards.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public

Participation

We seek full public participation in

arriving at our final decisions and

encourage comments on all aspects of

this proposal from all interested parties.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Executive Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because none of the

listed criteria apply to this action.

Consequently, this action was not

submitted to OMB for review under

Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that

the EPA determines is: (1)

‘‘Economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to

believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory

action meets both criteria, the Agency

must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on

children and explain why the planned

rule is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonable alternatives

that we considered.

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866. In addition, EPA interprets

Executive Order 13045 as applying only

to those regulatory actions that are

based on health and safety risks. This

proposed rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is based on

technology performance and not on

health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, the EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s proposed rule is required by

section 112(d) of the CAA and does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments. No

tribal governments own or operate a

rubber tire manufacturing facility.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ Policies that have

federalism implications is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that 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.’’

This proposed rule 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, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. The standards

apply only to rubber tire manufacturers

and do not pre-exempt States from

adopting more stringent standards.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not

apply to this proposed rule.

Although section 6 of Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this proposed

rule, EPA did consult with State and

local officials in developing this

proposed rule. No concerns were raised

by these officials during this

consultation.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA,

State, and local governments, EPA

specifically solicits comments on this

proposed rule from State and local

officials.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

we generally must prepare a written

statement, including cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any 1 year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires us to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows us to

adopt an alternative with other than the

62430 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if we publish

with the final rule an explanation why

that alternative was not adopted.

Before we establish any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, we must

have developed under section 203 of the

UMRA a small government agency plan.

The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

enabling officials of affected small

governments to have meaningful and

timely input in the development of our

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this

proposed rule does not contain a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more

for State, local, or tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or the private sector in

any 1 year. Thus, today’s proposed rule

is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In

addition, we have determined that this

proposed rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments

because it contains no regulatory

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, this proposed

rule is not subject to the requirements

of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the Agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s proposed rule on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A

small business that has fewer than 1,000

employees; (2) a small governmental

jurisdiction that is a government of a

city, county, town, school district or

special district with a population of less

than 50,000; and (3) a small

organization that is any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s proposed rule on

small entities, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule will not

impose any requirements on small

entities. We have determined that none

of the 43 facilities expected to be subject

to the proposed rule are small entities,

and that this proposed rule would not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB

under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1982.01), and

a copy may be obtained from Ms. Sandy

Farmer by mail at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Environmental Information,

Collection Strategies Division (2822),

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. A copy may also be

downloaded off the internet at http://

www.epa.goc/icr. The information

requirements are not effective until

OMB approves them.

The proposed information

requirements are based on notifications,

records, and reports required by the

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A), which are

mandatory for all operators subject to

national emission standards. These

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements are specifically authorized

under section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.

7414). All information submitted to the

EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements for which a

claim of confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to Agency

policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The annual public reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

of information (averaged over the first 3

years after the effective date of the

promulgated rule) is estimated to total

12,766 labor hours per year at a total

annual cost of $680,927. This estimate

includes notifications, a performance

test and report for sources using control

devices to comply with the regulation,

semiannual compliance reports, annual

compliance certifications, records of

cements and solvents composition,

records of cements and solvents use,

records of HAP use, and records of any

required parameter monitoring.

The total estimated annual and capital

monitoring, inspection, reporting and

recordkeeping (MIRR) costs for existing

and new major sources to comply with

the proposed standard when an affected

source opts to comply via the use of

add-on control equipment are

determined based on the estimated

capital costs of equipment required for

MIRR activities. For the rubber tire

manufacturing industry, the total

estimated installed capital costs of this

equipment is $2,983,912 for existing

major sources and $569,558 for new

major sources. Annualized capital MIRR

costs for existing and new major sources

to comply with the proposed standard

through the use of add-on controls were

estimated to be $1,137,025 and

$189,853, respectively.

The total annual estimated operating

and maintenance costs (O&M) were

calculated based on (1) the estimated

storage, filing, photocopying, and

postage costs for the estimated total

annual responses associated with the

provisions of the rubber tire NESHAP

and (2) the O&M costs for the equipment

required for compliance with this

standard. The total storage, filing,

photocopying, and postage cost per

response was $19.99, for an annual

estimated average of $1,865.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; process and maintain

information and disclose and provide

information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable

instructions and requirements; train

personnel to respond to a collection of

information; search existing data

sources; complete and review the

collection of information; and transmit

or otherwise disclose the information.

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 EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the EPA’s

need for this information, the accuracy

of the burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR

to the Director, Collection Strategies

Division (2822), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2136), 1200

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62431

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Office for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Because OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

October 18, 2000, a comment to OMB is

best assured of having its full effect if

OMB receives it by November 17, 2000.

The final rule will respond to any OMB

or public comments on the information

collection requirements contained in

this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Publication L.

No. 104–113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in their regulatory and

procurement activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices) developed or

adopted by one or more voluntary

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through

annual reports to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), with

explanations when an agency does not

use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This proposed rulemaking involves

technical standards. EPA proposes in

this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2,

2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 25, 25a,

204, 204a–f, 311. Consistent with the

NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to

identify voluntary consensus standards

in addition to these EPA methods. No

voluntary consensus standards were

identified as applicable to this rule.

Five consensus standards: ASTM

D4827–93, ASTM D4747–87, ASTM

D1979–91, ASTM D3432–89 and ASTM

PS9–94 are already incorporated by

reference (IBR) in EPA Method 311. The

search for emissions monitoring

procedures identified 15 voluntary

consensus standards. EPA determined

that 11 of these 15 standards identified

for measuring emissions of the HAPs or

surrogates subject to emission standards

in the proposed rule would not be

practical due to lack of equivalency,

detail, and/or quality assurance/quality

control requirements. Therefore, we do

not propose to use these voluntary

consensus standards in this proposed

rulemaking. These 11 standards are

shown in Table X, along with the EPA

review comments.

Four of the 15 remaining consensus

standards identified are under

development or under EPA review.

Therefore, we do not propose to use

these voluntary consensus standards in

this proposed rulemaking. These four

standards are shown in Table Y, along

with the EPA review comments.

For EPA Methods 1a, 2a, 2d, 2f, 2g,

204, and 204a–f, no applicable

voluntary consensus standards were

found at this time. The search and

review results have been documented

and are placed in the docket for this

proposed rule.

EPA takes comment on proposed

compliance demonstration requirements

in this rulemaking and specifically

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable voluntary

consensus standards. Commentors

should also explain why this regulation

should adopt these voluntary consensus

standards in lieu of or in addition to

EPA’s standards. Emission test methods

and performance specifications

submitted for evaluation should be

accompanied with a basis for the

recommendation, including method

validation data and the procedure used

to validate the candidate method (if

method other than Method 301, 40 CFR

Part 63, Appendix A was used).

Section 63.5993 of the proposed

standard list the EPA testing methods

and performance standards included in

the proposed regulations. Most of the

standards have been used by States and

industry for more than 10 years.

Nevertheless, the proposal also allows

any State or source to apply to EPA for

permission to use an alternative method

in place of any of the EPA testing

method or performance standards

specified in this proposed rule.

TABLE X.—LIST OF VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE RUBBER TIRE MACT

Similar EPA standard reference method Voluntary consensus standard EPA’S comments on voluntary consensus standard

EPA Methods 1 and 2 ......... ISO 9096:1992 (in review 2000)—Determination of

Concentration and Mass Flow Rate of Particulate

Matter in Gas Carrying Ducts—Manual Gravimetric

Method.

Some portions of this standard relate to EPA Methods

1 and 2. There is no EPA method to compare this to.

EPA cannot approve this standard without supporting

data.

EPA Methods 1, 2, 2c, 3,

3b, 4.

ASTM D3154–91 (1995)—Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method).Appears to cover EPA’s Part 60 Methods 1, 2, 2c, 3,

3b, and 4 but lacks in quality control and quality assurance requirements.

EPA Method 2 ...................... ASTM D3464–96—Standard Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer.There is no EPA method to compare this to. Applicability specifications are not clearly defined (example:

range of gas composition, T limits). It appears to

have the correct calibration procedures and specifications, but wtihout supporting data. Some of the variability issues were not adequately addressed. EPA

cannot call this equivalent to EPA Method 2 without

supporting data.

EPA Method 2 ...................... ISO 10780:1994—Stationary Source Emissions—Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas

Streams in Ducts.

This standard recommends the use of L-shaped pitots,

although it contains procedures for the use of Sshaped pitots, as in EPA Method 2. ISO 10780 has

good detail, but has significant deficiences, e.g., 1)

the distance between each leg of the pitot to its faceopening plane can be up to 10 times the external

tubing diameter vs. 1.5 times as specified in EPA

Method 2; and 2) no direct calibration procedures are

provided for an S-shaped pitot.

62432 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE X.—LIST OF VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE RUBBER TIRE MACT—Continued

Similar EPA standard reference method Voluntary consensus standard EPA’S comments on voluntary consensus standard

EPA Method 2 ...................... ASTM D3796–90 (1998)—Standard Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes.This is a very good detailed procedure for calibrating

Type S pitot tubes, but it is not a complete method

alternative to EPA Method 2.

EPA Method 3a .................... ASTM D5835–95—Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration.Similar to Methods 3a, 6c, 7e, 10, ALT 004, CTM 022.

Lacks in detail and quality assurance/quality control

requirements. Very similar to ISO 10396.

EPA Method 3a .................... CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 (1986)—Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams.Too general. This standard lacks in detail and quality

assurance/quality control requirements. Appendices

with valid quality control information are not a required part of this standard.

EPA Method 3a .................... ISO 10396:1993—Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations.Similar to EPA Methods 3a, 6c, 7e, 10, ALT 004, CTM

022. Similar to ASTM D5835. Lacks in detail and

quality assurance/quality control requirements.

EPA Method 4 ...................... ASTM E337–84 (Reapproved 1996)—Standard Test

Method for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer

(the Measurement of Wet- and Dry- Bulb Temperatures).

This will only cover a small portion of what is acceptable for EPA Method 4.

EPA Method 25a .................. EN 12619 (1999)—Stationary Source Emissions—Determination of the Mass Concentration of Total Gaseous Organic Carbon at Low Concentrations in Flue

Gases—Continuous Flame Ionization Detector Method.

This standard is limited because it doesn’t apply to solvent-using processes vapors or concentrations >40

ppm carbon. Specifications for probe temperature are

only 20°C above flue gas as compared to EPA Method 25a which specifies greater than or equal to

110°C.

EPA Method 311 .................. ASTM D3271—87 (1993)—Standard Practice for Direct

Injection of Solvent–Reducible Paints into a Gas

Chromatograph for Solvent Analysis.

This standard is not an acceptable alternative to EPA

Method 311. Section 1.2 under scope reads ‘‘This

practice is not designed to be quantitative.’’ The purpose of EPA Method 311 is to quantitatively measure

HAP’s in coatings.

TABLE Y.—LIST OF VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS NOT FINAL AND/OR UNDER EPA REVIEW FOR THE RUBBER TIRE

MACT

Similar EPA standard reference

method Voluntary consensus standard EPA’s comments on voluntary consensus standard

EPA Method 2 ................................. ASME/BSR MFC 12M—Flow in Closed Conduits

Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters.

Standard likely in development at the time the

search was completed.

EPA Method 2 (possibly 1) ............. ASME/BSR MFC 13M—Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse.Under development when search was completed.

Possibly similar to EPA Methods 1 and 2.

EPA Method 3a ............................... ISO/DIS 12039—Stationary Source Emissions—Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide,

and Oxygen—Automated Methods.

Under development when search was completed.

Possibly similar to EPA Method 3a and 10.

EPA Methods 25, 25a ..................... ISO/FDIS 14965—Air Quality—Determination of

Total Nonmethane Organic Compounds—Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Method.

Under development when search was completed.

Possible improvement of EPA Method 25a, but

will not cover all aspects of EPA Method 25. EPA

will review the standard when it is final.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Rubber tire

manufacturing, Tire cord production.

Dated: September 15, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of

the Code of the Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart XXXX to read as follows:

Subpart XXXX—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.5980 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

63.5981 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.5982 What parts of my facility does this

subpart cover?

63.5983 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

Emissions Limitations for Tire Production

Affected Sources

63.5984 What emission limitations must I

meet for tire production affected

sources?

63.5985 What are my alternatives for

meeting the emission limitations for tire

production affected sources?

Emission Limitations for Tire Cord

Production Affected Sources

63.5986 What emission limitations must I

meet for tire cord production affected

sources?

63.5987 What are my alternatives for

meeting the emission limitations for tire

cord production affected sources?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62433

Emission Limitations for Puncture Sealant

Application Affected Sources

63.5988 What emission limitations must I

meet for puncture sealant application

affected sources?

63.5989 What are my alternatives for

meeting the emission limitations for

puncture sealant application affected

sources?

General Compliance Requirements

63.5990 What are my general requirements

for complying with this subpart?

General Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements

63.5991 By what date must I conduct an

initial compliance demonstration or

performance test?

63.5992 When must I conduct subsequent

performance tests?

63.5993 What performance tests and other

procedures must I use?

Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements for Tire Production Affected

Sources

63.5994 How do I conduct tests and

procedures for tire production affected

sources?

63.5995 What are my monitoring

installation, operation, and maintenance

requirements?

63.5996 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission

limitations for tire production affected

sources?

Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements for Tire Cord Production

Affected Sources

63.5997 How do I conduct tests and

procedures for tire cord production

affected sources?

63.5998 What are my monitoring

installation, operation, and maintenance

requirements?

63.5999 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission

limitations for tire cord production

affected sources?

Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements for Puncture Sealant

Application Affected Sources

63.6000 How do I conduct tests and

procedures for puncture sealant

application affected sources?

63.6001 What are my monitoring

installation, operation, and maintenance

requirements?

63.6002 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission

limitations for puncture sealant

application affected sources?

Continuous Compliance Requirements for

Tire Production Affected Sources

63.6003 How do I monitor and collect data

to demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission limitations for tire

production affected sources?

63.6004 How do I demonstrate continuous

compliance with the emission

limitations for tire production affected

sources?

Continuous Compliance Requirements for

Tire Cord Production Affected Sources

63.6005 How do I monitor and collect data

to demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission limitations for tire

cord production affected sources?

63.6006 How do I demonstrate continuous

compliance with the emission

limitations for tire cord production

affected sources?

Continuous Compliance Requirements for

Puncture Sealant Application Affected

Sources

63.6007 How do I monitor and collect data

to demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission limitations for

puncture sealant application affected

sources?

63.6008 How do I demonstrate continuous

compliance with the emission

limitations for puncture sealant

application affected sources?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.6009 What notifications must I submit

and when?

63.6010 What reports must I submit and

when?

63.6011 What records must I keep?

63.6012 In what form and how long must I

keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.6013 What parts of the General

Provisions apply to me?

63.6014 Who implements and enforces this

subpart?

63.6015 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Tables to Subpart XXXX

Table 1 to Subpart XXXX—Emission

Limitations for Tire Production Affected

Sources

Table 2 to Subpart XXXX—Emission

Limitations for Tire Cord Production

Affected Sources

Table 3 to Subpart XXXX—Emission

Limitations for Puncture Sealant

Application Affected Sources

Table 4 to Subpart XXXX—Operating Limits

for Puncture Sealant Application Control

Devices

Table 5 to Subpart XXXX—Requirements for

Performance Tests for Existing, New, or

Reconstructed Affected Sources

Table 6 to Subpart XXXX—Initial

Compliance with the Emission

Limitations for Tire Production Affected

Sources

Table 7 to Subpart XXXX—Initial

Compliance with the Emission

Limitations for Tire Cord Production

Affected Sources

Table 8 to Subpart XXXX—Initial

Compliance with the Emission

Limitations for Puncture Sealant

Application Affected Sources

Table 9 to Subpart XXXX—Minimum Data

for Continuous Compliance with the

Emission Limitations for Tire Production

Affected Sources

Table 10 to Subpart XXXX—Continuous

Compliance with the Emission

Limitations for Tire Production Affected

Sources

Table 11 to Subpart XXXX—Minimum Data

for Continuous Compliance with the

Emission Limitations for Tire Cord

Production Affected Sources

Table 12 to Subpart XXXX—Continuous

Compliance with the Emission Limits for

Tire Cord Production Affected Sources

Table 13 to Subpart XXXX—Minimum Data

for Continuous Compliance with the

Emission Limits for Puncture Sealant

Application Affected Sources

Table 14 to Subpart XXXX—Continuous

Compliance with the Emission Limits for

Puncture Sealant Application Affected

Sources

Table 15 to Subpart XXXX—Requirements

for Reports

Table 16 to Subpart XXXX—Selected

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Table 17 to Subpart XXXX—Applicability of

General Provisions to Subpart XXXX

Subpart XXXX—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

§ 63.5980 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

This subpart establishes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants emitted from rubber tire

manufacturing. This subpart also

establishes requirements to demonstrate

initial and continuous compliance with

the emission limitations.

§ 63.5981 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you

own or operate a rubber tire

manufacturing facility that is located at,

or is a part of, a major source of

hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

emissions.

(a) Rubber tire manufacturing

includes the production of rubber tires

and/or the production of components

integral to rubber tires, the production

of tire cord, and the application of

puncture sealant. Components of rubber

tires include, but are not limited to,

rubber compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire

beads, tire cord and liners. Other

components often associated with

rubber tires but not integral to the tire

such as wheels, inner tubes, and valve

stems are not components of rubber tires

or tire cord and are not subject to this

subpart.

(b) A major source of HAP emissions

is any stationary source or group of

stationary sources located within a

contiguous area and under common

control that emits or has the potential to

emit, considering controls, any single

HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10

tons) or more per year or any

combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68

megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

62434 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 63.5982 What parts of my facility does

this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each

existing, new, or reconstructed affected

source at facilities engaged in the

manufacture of rubber tires or their

components.

(b) The affected sources are defined in

this section in paragraph (b)(1), tire

production; paragraph (b)(2) of this

section, tire cord production; paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, puncture sealant

application; and paragraph (b)(4) of this

section, rubber processing.

(1) The tire production affected source

is the collection of all processes that use

cements and solvents as defined in

§ 63.6015, located at any rubber tire

manufacturing facility. It includes, but

is not limited to: storage and mixing

vessels and the transfer equipment

containing cements and/or solvents;

wastewater handling and treatment

operations; research and development

operations; tread end cement

operations; tire painting operations; ink

and finish operations; undertread

cement operations; general plant

cleanup operations; bead cementing

operations; tire building operations;

green tire spray operations; extruding to

the extent cements and solvents are

used; cement house operations; marking

operations; calendar operations to the

extent solvents are used; tire stripping

operations; tire repair operations; slab

dip operations; other tire building

operations to the extent that cements

and solvents are used; and balance pad

operations.

(2) The tire cord production affected

source is the collection of all processes

engaged in the production of tire cord.

It includes, but is not limited to,

dipping operations, drying ovens, heatset ovens, bulk storage tanks, mixing

facilities, general facility vents, air

pollution control devices, and

warehouse storage vents.

(3) The puncture sealant application

affected source is the puncture sealant

application booth operation used to

apply puncture sealant to finished tires.

(4) The rubber processing affected

source is the collection of all primary

rubber mixing processes (e.g., banburys

and associated drop mills) and mills

that either mix compounds or warm

rubber compound before the compound

is processed into components of rubber

tires. The mixed rubber compound itself

is also included in the rubber processing

affected source. There are no emission

limitations or other requirements for the

rubber processing affected source.

(c) An affected source is a new

affected source if construction of the

affected source commenced after

October 18, 2000, and it met the

applicability criteria of § 63.5981 at the

time construction commenced.

(d) An affected source is

reconstructed if it meets the criteria as

defined in § 63.2 of subpart A of this

part.

(e) An affected source is existing if it

is not new or reconstructed.

§ 63.5983 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed

affected source, except as provided in

§ 63.5982(b)(4), you must comply with

this subpart according to the

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2) of this section.

(1) If you start up your affected source

before the effective date of this subpart,

then you must comply with the

emission limitations for new and

reconstructed sources in this subpart no

later than the effective date of this

subpart.

(2) If you start up your affected source

after the effective date of this subpart,

then you must comply with the

emission limitations for new and

reconstructed sources in this subpart

upon startup of your affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected

source, you must comply with the

emission limitations for existing sources

no later than 3 years after the effective

date of this subpart.

(c) If you have an area source that

increases its emissions or its potential to

emit such that it becomes a major source

of HAP, the affected source(s) must be

in compliance with existing source

emission limitations no later than 3

years after the date on which the area

source became a major source.

(d) You must meet the notification

requirements in § 63.6009 according to

the schedule in § 63.6009 and in subpart

A of this part. Some of the notifications

must be submitted before the date you

are required to comply with the

emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations for Tire

Production Affected Sources

§ 63.5984 What emission limitations must I

meet for tire production affected sources?

You must meet one of the two

emission limitations in Table 1 of this

subpart that applies to you.

§ 63.5985 What are my alternatives for

meeting the emission limitations for tire

production affected sources?

You must use one of the compliance

alternatives in paragraphs (a) through (c)

of this section to meet either of the

emission limitations in § 63.5984.

(a) Purchase alternative. Use only

cements and solvents that, aspurchased, contain no more HAP than

allowed by the emission limitations in

Table 1, option 1 (HAP constituent

option 1 only), of this subpart.

(b) Monthly average alternative,

without using an add-on control device.

Use cements and solvents such that the

monthly average HAP emissions do not

exceed the emission limitations in Table

1 of this subpart, option 1 or option 2.

(c) Monthly average alternative, using

an add-on control device. Use a control

device to reduce HAP emissions such

that the monthly average HAP emissions

do not exceed the emission limitations

in Table 1 of this subpart, option 1 or

option 2.

Emission Limitations for Tire Cord

Production Affected Sources

§ 63.5986 What emission limitations must I

meet for tire cord production affected

sources?

You must meet each emission

limitation in Table 2 of this subpart that

applies to you.

§ 63.5987 What are my alternatives for

meeting the emission limitations for tire

cord production affected sources?

You must use one of the compliance

alternatives in paragraph (a) or (b) of

this section to meet the emission

limitations in § 63.5986.

(a) Monthly average alternative,

without using an add-on control device.

Use coatings such that the monthly

average HAP emissions do not exceed

the emission limitations in Table 2 of

this subpart.

(b) Monthly average alternative, using

an add-on control device. Use a control

device to reduce HAP emissions such

that the monthly average HAP emissions

do not exceed the emission limitations

in Table 2 of this subpart.

Emission Limitations for Puncture

Sealant Application Affected Sources

§ 63.5988 What emission limitations must I

meet for puncture sealant application

affected sources?

(a) You must meet each emission

limitation in Table 3 of this subpart that

applies to you.

(b) If you use an add-on control

device to meet the emission limitations

in Table 3 of this subpart, you must also

meet each operating limit in Table 4 of

this subpart that applies to you.

§ 63.5989 What are my alternatives for

meeting the emission limitations for

puncture sealant application affected

sources?

You must use one of the compliance

alternatives in paragraph (a) or (b) of

this section to meet the emission

limitations in § 63.5988.

(a) Overall control efficiency

alternative. Use an emissions capture

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62435

system and control device and

demonstrate that the application booth

emissions meet the emission limitations

in Table 3 of this subpart, and the

control device and capture system meet

the operating limits in Table 4 of this

subpart.

(b) Permanent total enclosure and

control device efficiency alternative. Use

a permanent total enclosure that

satisfies the Method 204 criteria in 40

CFR part 51. Demonstrate that the

control device reduces at least 86

percent of emissions for existing sources

and 95 percent of emissions for new or

reconstructed sources. You must also

show that the control device and

capture system meet the operating limits

in Table 4 of this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

§ 63.5990 What are my general

requirements for complying with this

subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with

the applicable emission limitations

specified in Tables 1 through 3 of this

subpart at all times, including periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(b) Except as provided in

§ 63.5982(b)(4), you must always

operate and maintain your affected

source, including air pollution control

and monitoring equipment, according to

the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(c) During the period between the

compliance date specified for your

source in § 63.5983 and the date upon

which continuous compliance

monitoring systems have been installed

and validated and any applicable

operating limits have been set, you must

maintain a log detailing the operation

and maintenance of the process and

emission control equipment.

General Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements

§ 63.5991 By what date must I conduct an

initial compliance demonstration or

performance test?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed

affected source, you must conduct each

required initial compliance

demonstration or performance test

within 180 calendar days after the

compliance date that is specified for

your new or reconstructed affected

source in § 63.5983(a). If you are

required to conduct a performance test,

you must do so according to the

provisions of § 63.7(a)(2).

(b) If you have an existing affected

source, you must conduct each required

initial compliance demonstration or

performance test no later than the

compliance date that is specified for

your existing affected source in

§ 63.5983(b). If you are required to

conduct a performance test, you must

do so according to the provisions of

§ 63.7(a)(2).

(c) If you commenced construction or

reconstruction between October 18,

2000, and the effective date of this

subpart, you must demonstrate initial

compliance with either the proposed

emission limitations or the promulgated

emission limitations no later than 180

calendar days after the effective date of

this subpart or within 180 calendar days

after startup of the source, whichever is

later, according to § 63.7(a)(2)(ix).

§ 63.5992 When must I conduct

subsequent performance tests?

If you use a control system (add-on

control device and capture system) to

meet the emission limitations, you must

also conduct a performance test at least

once per year following your initial

compliance demonstration to verify

control system performance and

reestablish operating parameters for

control systems used to comply with the

emissions limitations for tire production

and tire cord production, and to verify

control system performance and

reestablish operating limits for control

systems used to comply with the

emissions limitations and operating

limits for puncture sealant application.

§ 63.5993 What performance tests and

other procedures must I use?

(a) If you use a control system to meet

the emission limitations, you must

conduct each performance test in Table

5 of this subpart that applies to you.

(b) Each performance test must be

conducted according to the

requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under

the specific conditions specified in

Table 5 of this subpart.

(c) You may not conduct performance

tests during periods of startup,

shutdown, or malfunction, as specified

in § 63.7(e)(1).

(d) You must conduct three separate

test runs for each performance test

required in this section, as specified in

§ 63.7(e)(1), unless otherwise specified

in the test method. Each test run must

last at least 1 hour.

(e) If you are complying with the

emission limitations using a control

system, you must also conduct

performance tests according to the

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)

through (3) of this section as they apply

to you.

(1) Capture efficiency by permanent

or temporary total enclosure. Determine

the capture efficiency (CE) of a capture

system by using one of the procedures

in Table 5 of this subpart.

(2) Capture efficiency by an

alternative method. As an alternative to

constructing a permanent or temporary

total enclosure, you may determine the

capture efficiency using any capture

efficiency protocol and test methods if

the data satisfy the criteria of either the

Data Quality Objective or the Lower

Confidence Limit approach in appendix

A to subpart KK of this part.

(3) Efficiency of an add-on control

device. Use Table 5 of this subpart to

select the test methods for determining

the efficiency of an add-on control

device.

Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements for Tire Production

Affected Sources

§ 63.5994 How do I conduct tests and

procedures for tire production affected

sources?

(a) Methods to determine the mass

percent of each HAP in cements and

solvents. You must obtain the following

information from the in-house

collection of information or from

manufacturers or suppliers, as

appropriate. Use one of the methods

specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of

this section.

(1) Method 311 (appendix A of this

part). Use Method 311 to determine the

mass percent organic HAP in cements

and solvents.

(2) Alternative test method. Instead of

using Method 311, you may use an

alternative test method once we have

approved it. See § 63.7(f) for the

procedure you must follow to submit an

alternative test method to us for

approval.

(b) Methods to demonstrate

compliance with the HAP constituent

emission limitations in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1). Use the method in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section to

demonstrate initial and continuous

compliance with the applicable

emission limitations for tire production

affected sources using the compliance

alternative described in § 63.5985(a),

purchase alternative. Use the equations

in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this

section to demonstrate initial and

continuous compliance with the

emission limitations for tire production

affected sources using the monthly

average compliance alternatives

described in § 63.5985(b) and (c).

(1) Determine the mass percent of

each HAP in each cement and solvent

according to the procedures in

paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Use Equation 1 of this section to

calculate the daily HAP emission rate

when complying by using cements and

solvents without using an add-on

control device such that the monthly

average HAP emissions do not exceed

62436 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the HAP constituent emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart (option 1).

E

HAP TMASS

TMASS

day

i i

i

n

i

i

n =

( )( ) 









( ) =

=

∑

∑

1

1

10 000 ,

[Eq. 1]

Where:

Eday = mass of the specific HAP emitted

per total mass cements and solvents

from all cements and solvents used

in tire production in the day, grams

per megagram.

HAPi = mass percent of the specific

HAP, as-purchased, in cement and

solvent i, determined in accordance

with paragraph (a) of this section.

TMASSi = total mass of cement and

solvent i used in the day, grams.

n = number of cements and solvents

used in the day.

(3) Use Equation 2 of this section to

calculate the daily HAP emission rate

when complying by using a control

device to reduce HAP emissions such

that the monthly average HAP emissions

do not exceed the HAP constituent

emission limits in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

E

HAP TMASS HAP TMASS EFF HAP TMASS

TMASS TMASS TMASS

day

i i

i

n

j j

j

m

k k

k

p

i j

j

m

i

n

k

k

p =

( )( ) 









 + ( )( ) 









 − 





 + ( )( )





















( )

+ +

== =

= = =

∑∑ ∑

∑ ∑ ∑

11 1

1 1 1

1

100

10 000 ,

[Eq. 2]

Where:

Eday = mass of the specific HAP emitted

per total mass cements and solvents

used in tire production in the day,

grams per megagram.

HAPi = mass percent of the specific

HAP in cement and solvent i, as

purchased, determined in

accordance with paragraph (a) of

this section for cements and

solvents used in the day in

processes that are not routed to a

control device.

TMASSi = total mass of cement and

solvent i used in the day in

processes that are not routed to a

control device, gram.

n = number of cements and solvents

used in the day in processes that are

not routed to a control device.

HAPj = mass percent of the specific

HAP, in cement and solvent j, aspurchased, determined in

accordance with paragraph (a) of

this section, for cements and

solvents used in the day in

processes that are routed to a

control device during one or more

hourly periods when the control

system is operating within the

operating range established during

the performance test and when

monitoring data are collected.

TMASSj = total mass of cement and

solvent j used in the day in

processes that are routed to a

control device during all hourly

periods when the control system is

operating within the operating

range established during the

performance test and when

monitoring data are collected,

grams.

EFF = efficiency of the control system

(capture system efficiency x control

device efficiency), percent.

m = number of cements and solvents

used in the day that are routed to

a control device during hourly

periods when the control device is

operating within the operating

range established during the

performance test.

HAPk = mass percent of the specific

HAP, as-purchased, in cement and

solvent, as purchased, determined

in accordance with paragraph (a) of

this section, for cements and

solvents used during the day in

processes that are routed to a

control device during one or more

hourly periods when either the

control system is not operating

within the operating range

established during the performance

test or when monitoring data are

not collected.

TMASSk = total mass of cement or

solvent k used in the day in

processes that are routed to a

control device during all hourly

periods when either the control

system is not operating within the

operating range established during

the performance test or when

monitoring data are not collected,

grams.

p = number of cements and solvents

used in the day that are routed to

a control device during hourly

periods when either the control

system is not operating within the

operating range established during

the performance test or when

monitoring data are not collected.

(4) Use Equation 3 of this section to

calculate the monthly average.

E

E TMASS

TMASS

avg

day day

i

n

day

i

n =

( )( ) =

=

∑

∑

, ,

,

 i i

 i

[Eq. 3] 1

1

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62437

Where:

Eavg = monthly average of the emission

rate of the specific HAP, grams per

megagram.

Eday,i = emission rate of the specific HAP

for day i, grams per megagram.

TMASSday,i = total mass of cements and

solvents used in day i, megagrams.

n = number of operating days in the

month.

(c) Methods to demonstrate

compliance with the production-based

emission limitation in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 2). Use the methods and

equations in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(5) of this section to demonstrate initial

and continuous compliance with the

production-based emission limitations

for tire production affected sources

using the compliance alternatives

described in § 63.5985(b) and (c).

(1) Methods to determine the mass

percent of each HAP in cements and

solvents. Determine the mass percent of

each HAP in cements and solvents using

the applicable methods specified in

paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Quantity of rubber processed into

tires. Determine your quantity of rubber

processed into tires (megagrams) by

accounting for the total mass of rubber

that enters all processes subsequent to

the mixing process.

(3) Compliance without use of an addon control device. If you do not use an

add-on control device to meet the

emission limitations, use Equation 1 of

this section to calculate grams of HAP

emitted per megagram of rubber

processed into tires, using the quantity

of rubber processed into tires per day

(megagrams), RMASS, as determined in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section in place

of the TMASS variables in the

denominator.

(4) Compliance with use of an add-on

control device. If you use a control

device to meet the emission limitations,

use Equation 2 of this section to

calculate grams of HAP emitted per

megagram of rubber processed into tires,

using the quantity of rubber processed

into tires per day (megagrams), RMASS,

as determined in paragraph (c)(2) of this

section in place of the TMASS variables

in the denominator.

(5) Monthly average calculation. Use

Equation 3 of this section to calculate

the monthly average grams of emissions

per megagram of rubber processed into

tires, except substitute the quantity of

rubber process per day (megagrams),

RMASS, for the TMASS variable in the

denominator.

(d) Specific performance test

requirements for tire production

affected sources.

(1) Conduct any required performance

tests according to the requirements in

§ 63.5993.

(2) If you are demonstrating

compliance with the HAP constituent

option in Table 1 of this subpart (option

1), conduct the performance tests using

cements and solvents that are

representative of cements and solvents

typically used at your tire production

affected source.

(3) Establish an operating range that

corresponds to the control efficiency as

described in Table 5 of this subpart.

(e) How to take credit for HAP

emissions reductions from add-on

control devices. If you want to take

credit in Equation 2 of this section for

HAP emissions reduced using a control

system (EFF), you must meet the

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) and

(2) of this section.

(1) Monitor the established operating

parameters as appropriate.

(i) If you use a thermal oxidizer,

monitor the firebox secondary chamber

temperature.

(ii) If you use a carbon adsorber,

monitor the total regeneration stream

mass or volumetric flow for each

regeneration cycle and the carbon bed

temperature after each regeneration and

within 15 minutes of completing any

cooling cycle.

(iii) If you use a control device other

than a thermal oxidizer or a regenerative

carbon adsorber, install and operate a

continuous parameter monitoring

system according to your site-specific

performance test plan submitted

according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i).

(iv) If you use a permanent total

enclosure, monitor the face velocity

across the natural draft openings (NDOs)

in the enclosure. Also, if you use an

enclosure, monitor to ensure that the

sizes of the NDOs have not changed,

that there are no new NDOs, and that a

HAP emission source has not been

moved closer to an NDO since the last

performance test was conducted.

(v) If you use other capture systems,

monitor the parameters identified in

your monitoring plan.

(2) Maintain the operating parameters

within the operating range established

during the performance test.

(f) How to take credit for HAP

emissions reductions when streams are

combined. When performing material

balances to demonstrate compliance, if

the storage of materials, exhaust, or the

wastewater from more than one affected

source are combined at the point where

control systems are applied, any credit

for emissions reductions needs to be

prorated among the affected sources

based on the a ratio of their contribution

to the uncontrolled emissions.

§ 63.5995 What are my monitoring

installation, operation, and maintenance

requirements?

(a) For each operating parameter that

you are required by § 63.5994(e)(1) to

monitor, you must install, operate, and

maintain a continuous parameter

monitoring system (CPMS) according to

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (5) of this section.

(1) The CPMS must complete a

minimum of one cycle of operation for

each successive 15-minute period.

(2) Determine the hourly average of all

recorded readings.

(3) Determine the daily average of all

recorded readings for each operating

day.

(4) Determine the monthly average for

each monthly period during the

semiannual reporting period described

in Table 15 of this subpart.

(5) You must record the results of

each inspection, calibration, and

validation check of the CPMS.

(b) For each temperature monitoring

device, you must meet the requirements

in paragraph (a) and in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (8) of this section.

(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a

position that provides a representative

temperature.

(2) For a non-cryogenic temperature

range, use a temperature sensor with a

minimum tolerance of 2.2 degrees

centigrade or 0.75 percent of the

temperature value, whichever is larger.

(3) For a cryogenic temperature range,

use a temperature sensor with a

minimum tolerance of 2.2 degrees

centigrade or 2 percent of the

temperature value, whichever is larger.

(4) Shield the temperature sensor

system from electromagnetic

interference and chemical

contaminants.

(5) If a chart recorder is used, it must

have a sensitivity in the minor division

of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

(6) Perform an electronic calibration

at least semiannually according to the

procedures in the manufacturer’s

owners manual. Following the

electronic calibration, you must conduct

a temperature sensor validation check in

which a second or redundant

temperature sensor placed near the

process temperature sensor must yield a

reading within 16.7 degrees centigrade

of the process temperature sensor’s

reading.

(7) Conduct calibration and validation

checks any time the sensor exceeds the

manufacturer’s specified maximum

operating temperature range or install a

new temperature sensor.

(8) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity and all

electrical connections for continuity,

oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.

62438 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(c) For each integrating regeneration

stream flow monitoring device

associated with a carbon adsorber, you

must meet the requirements in

paragraph (a) and in paragraphs (c)(1)

and (2) of this section.

(1) Use a device that has an accuracy

of ±10 percent or better.

(2) Use a device that is capable of

recording the total regeneration stream

mass or volumetric flow for each

regeneration cycle.

(d) For any other control device, or for

other capture systems, ensure that the

CPMS is operated according to a

monitoring plan submitted to the

Administrator with the compliance

status report required by § 63.9(h). The

monitoring plan must meet the

requirements in paragraphs (a) and

(d)(1) through (3) of this section.

Conduct monitoring in accordance with

the plan submitted to the Administrator

unless comments received from the

Administrator require an alternate

monitoring scheme.

(1) Identify the operating parameter to

be monitored to ensure that the control

or capture efficiency measured during

the initial compliance test is

maintained.

(2) Discuss why this parameter is

appropriate for demonstrating ongoing

compliance.

(3) Identify the specific monitoring

procedures.

(e) For each pressure differential

monitoring device, you must meet the

requirements in paragraph (a) and in

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Conduct a quarterly Method 2

procedure on the applicable NDOs and

use the results to calibrate the pressure

monitor if the difference in results are

greater than 10 percent.

(2) Inspect the NDOs monthly to

ensure that their size has not changed,

that there are no new NDOs, and that no

HAP sources have been moved closer to

the NDOs than when the last

performance test was conducted.

§ 63.5996 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission limitations

for tire production affected sources?

(a) You must demonstrate initial

compliance with each emission

limitation that applies to you according

to Table 6 of this subpart.

(b) You must submit the Notification

of Compliance Status containing the

results of the initial compliance

demonstration according to the

requirements in § 63.6009(e).

Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements for Tire Cord Production

Affected Sources

§ 63.5997 How do I conduct tests and

procedures for tire cord production affected

sources?

(a) Methods to determine the mass

percent of each HAP in coatings. You

must obtain the following information

from the in-house collection of

information or from manufacturers or

suppliers, as appropriate. Use the

methods specified in paragraph (a)(1) or

(2) of this section.

(1) Method 311 (appendix A of the

part). Use Method 311 to determine the

mass percent organic HAP in coatings.

(2) Alternative test method. Instead of

using Method 311, you may use an

alternative test method once we have

approved it. See § 63.7(f) for the

procedure you must follow to submit an

alternative method to us for approval.

(b) Methods to determine compliance

with the emission limitations in Table 2

of this subpart. Use the following

equations to demonstrate initial and

continuous compliance with the

emission limitations for tire cord

production sources using the

compliance alternatives described in

§ 63.5987(a) and (b).

(1) Use Equation 1 of this section to

calculate the daily HAP emission rate

when complying by using coatings

without using an add-on control device

such that the monthly average HAP

emissions do not exceed the emission

limits in Table 2 of this subpart.

E

HAP TCOAT

TFAB day

i i

i

n

=

( )( ) =

∑

1 [Eq. 1]

Where:

Eday = mass of the specific HAP emitted

per total mass of fabric processed in

the day, grams per megagram.

HAPi = mass percent of the specific

HAP, as-purchased, in the coating i,

determined in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section.

TCOATi = total mass of coating i used

in the day, grams.

n = number of coatings used in the day.

TFAB = total mass of fabric processed

in the day, megagrams.

(2) Use Equation 2 of this section to

calculate the HAP emission rate when

complying by using an add-on control

device.

E

HAP TCOAT HAP TCOAT EFF HAP TCOAT

TFAB day

ii jj

j

m

k k

k

p

i

n

=

( )( ) + ( )( ) 









 − 





 + ( )( )

















 = = =  ∑ ∑ ∑

1 1 1

1

100

[Eq. 2]

Where:

Eday = mass of the specific HAP emitted

per total mass of fabric processed in

the day, grams per megagram.

HAPi = mass percent of the specific

HAP in coating i, as-purchased,

determined in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section, for

coatings used in the day in

processes that are not routed to a

control device.

TCOATi = total mass of coating i used

in the day in processes that are not

routed to a control device, grams.

n = number of coatings used in the day

in processes that are not routed to

a control device.

HAPj = mass percent of the specific

HAP in coating j, as-purchased,

determined in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section, for

coatings used in the day in

processes that are routed to a

control device during one or more

hourly periods when the control

system is operating within the

operating range established during

the performance test and when

monitoring data are collected.

TCOATj = total mass of coating j used

in the day in processes that are

routed to a control device during all

hourly periods when the control

system is operating within the

operating range established during

the performance test and when

monitoring data are not collected,

grams.

EFF = efficiency of the control system

(capture system efficiency * control

device efficiency), percent.

m = number of coatings used in the day

that are routed to a control device

during hourly periods when the

control device is operating within

the operating range established

during the performance test.

HAPk = mass percent of the specific

HAP in coating k, as-purchased,

determined in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section, for

coatings used in the day in

processes that are routed to a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62439

control device during one or more

hourly periods when either the

control system is not operating

within the operating range

established during the performance

test or when monitoring data are

not collected.

TCOATk = total mass of coating k used

in the day in processes that are

routed to a control device during all

hourly periods when either the

control system is not operating

within the operating range

established during the performance

test or when monitoring data are

collected, grams.

p = number of coatings used in the day

that are routed to a control device

during all hourly periods when

either the control system is not

operating within the operating

range established during the

performance test or when

monitoring data are not collected.

TFAB = total mass of fabric processed

in the day, megagrams.

(3) Use Equation 3 of this section to

calculate the monthly average.

E

E TFAB

TFAB

avg

day i day i

i

n

day i

i

n =

( )( ) =

=

∑

∑

, ,

,

[ 1

1

Eq. 3]

Where:

Eavg = monthly average of the emission

rate of the specific HAP, grams per

megagram.

Eday,i = emission rate of the specific HAP

for day i, grams per megagram.

TFABday,i = total mass of fabric

processed during day i, megagrams.

n = number of operating days in the

month.

(c) Specific performance test

requirements for tire cord production

affected sources.

(1) Conduct any required performance

tests according to the requirements in

§ 63.5993.

(2) Conduct the performance test

using a coating from the list of coatings

described in § 63.6011(c)(7), with

average mass percent HAP that is

representative of the coatings typically

used at your tire cord production

affected source.

(3) Establish an operating range that

corresponds to the control efficiency as

described in Table 5 of this subpart.

(d) How to take credit for HAP

emissions reductions from add-on

control devices. If you want to take

credit in Equation 2 of this section for

HAP emissions reduced using a control

system (EFF), you must meet the

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and

(2) of this section.

(1) Monitor the established operating

parameters as appropriate.

(i) If you use a thermal oxidizer,

monitor continuously the firebox

secondary chamber temperature.

(ii) If you use a carbon adsorber,

monitor the total regeneration stream

mass or volumetric flow for each

regeneration cycle and the carbon bed

temperature after each regeneration and

within 15 minutes of completing any

cooling cycle.

(iii) If you use a control device other

than a thermal oxidizer or a regenerative

carbon adsorber, install and operate a

continuous parameter monitoring

system according to your site-specific

performance test plan submitted

according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i).

(iv) If you use a permanent total

enclosure, monitor the face velocity

across the NDOs in the enclosure. Also,

if you use an enclosure, monitor to

ensure that the sizes of the NDOs have

not changed, that there are no new

NDOs, and that a HAP emission source

has not been moved closer to an NDO

since the last performance test was

conducted.

(v) If you use other capture systems,

monitor the parameters identified in

your monitoring plan.

(2) Maintain the operating parameter

within the operating range established

during the performance test.

(e) How to take credit for HAP

emissions reductions when streams are

combined. When performing material

balances to demonstrate compliance, if

the storage of materials, exhaust, or the

wastewater from more than one affected

source are combined at the point where

control systems are applied, any credit

for emissions reductions needs to be

prorated among the affected sources

based on the a ratio of their contribution

to the uncontrolled emissions.

§ 63.5998 What are my monitoring

installation, operation, and maintenance

requirements?

For each operating parameter that you

are required by § 63.5997(d) to monitor,

you must install, operate, and maintain

a continuous parameter monitoring

system according to the provisions in

§ 63.5995(a) through (e).

§ 63.5999 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission limitations

for tire cord production affected sources?

(a) You must demonstrate initial

compliance with each emission

limitation that applies to you according

to Table 7 of this subpart.

(b) You must submit the Notification

of Compliance Status containing the

results of the initial compliance

demonstration according to the

requirements in § 63.6009(e).

Testing and Initial Compliance

Requirements for Puncture Sealant

Application Affected Sources

§ 63.6000 How do I conduct tests and

procedures for puncture sealant application

affected sources?

(a) Follow the test procedures

described in § 63.5993 to determine the

overall control efficiency of your

system.

(b) You must also meet the

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2) of this section.

(1) Conduct the performance test

using a puncture sealant with an

average mass percent HAP that is

representative of the puncture sealants

typically used at your puncture sealant

application affected source.

(2) Establish all applicable operating

limit ranges that correspond to the

control system efficiency as described in

Table 5 of this subpart.

(c) Use Equation 1 of this section to

calculate the overall efficiency of the

control system. If you have a permanent

total enclosure that satisfies EPA

Method 204 criteria, assume 100 percent

capture efficiency for variable F.

R F E = 





 − 



100  1100 [Eq. 1]

Where:

R = overall control system efficiency.

F = capture efficiency of the capture

system on add-on control device,

percent.

E = control efficiency of add-on control

device k, percent.

(d) Monitor the established operating

limits as appropriate.

(1) If you use a thermal oxidizer,

monitor the firebox secondary chamber

temperature.

(2) If you use a carbon adsorber,

monitor the total regeneration stream

mass or volumetric flow for each

regeneration cycle and the carbon bed

temperature after each regeneration and

within 15 minutes of completing any

cooling cycle.

(3) For each control device used other

than a thermal oxidizer or a regenerative

carbon adsorber, install and operate a

continuous parameter monitoring

system according to your site-specific

performance test plan submitted

according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i).

(4) If you use a permanent total

enclosure, monitor the face velocity

across the NDOs in the enclosure. Also,

if you use an enclosure, monitor to

ensure that the sizes of the NDOs have

not changed, that there are no new

NDOs, and that a HAP emission source

has not been moved closer to an NDO

since the last performance test was

conducted.

62440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(5) If you use other capture systems,

monitor the parameters identified in

your monitoring plan.

(e) Maintain the operating parameter

within the operating range established

during the performance test.

§ 63.6001 What are my monitoring

installation, operation, and maintenance

requirements?

(a) For each operating limit that you

are required by § 63.6000(b)(2) to

monitor, you must install, operate, and

maintain a continuous parameter

monitoring system according to the

provisions in § 63.5995(a) through (e).

§ 63.6002 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission limitations

for puncture sealant application affected

sources?

(a) You must demonstrate initial

compliance with each emission

limitation that applies to you according

to Table 8 of this subpart.

(b) You must submit the Notification

of Compliance Status containing the

results of the initial compliance

demonstration according to the

requirements in § 63.6009(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

for Tire Production Affected Sources

§ 63.6003 How do I monitor and collect

data to demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission limitations for tire

production affected sources?

(a) You must monitor and collect data

as specified in Table 9 of this subpart.

(b) Except for periods of monitoring

malfunctions, associated repairs, and

required quality assurance or control

activities (including, as applicable,

calibration checks and required zero

and span adjustments), you must

monitor continuously (or collect data at

all required intervals) while the affected

source is operating.

(c) In data average calculations and

calculations used to report emission or

operating levels, you may not use data

recorded during periods of monitoring

malfunctions or associated repairs, or

recorded during required quality

assurance or control activities. Nor may

such data be used in fulfilling any

applicable minimum data availability

requirement. You must use all the data

collected during all other periods in

assessing the operation of the control

device and associated control system.

§ 63.6004 How do I demonstrate

continuous compliance with the emission

limitations for tire production affected

sources?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous

compliance with each applicable

limitation in Table 1 of this subpart

using the methods specified in Table 10

of this subpart.

(b) You must report each instance in

which you did not meet an emission

limitation in Table 1 of this subpart.

You must also report each instance in

which you did not meet the applicable

requirements in Table 10 of this subpart.

These instances are deviations from the

emission limitations in this subpart. The

deviations must be reported in

accordance with the requirements in

§ 63.6010(e).

(c) You also must meet the following

requirements if you are complying with

the purchase alternative for tire

production sources described in

§ 63.5984(a).

(1) If, after you submit the

Notification of Compliance Status, you

use a cement or solvent for which you

have not previously verified percent

HAP mass using the methods in

§ 63.5994(a), you must verify that each

cement and solvent used in the affected

source meets the emission limit, using

any of the methods in § 63.5994(a).

(2) You must update the list of all the

cements and solvents used at the

affected source.

(3) With the compliance report for the

reporting period during which you used

the new cement or solvent, you must

submit the updated list of all cements

and solvents and a statement certifying

that, as purchased, each cement and

solvent used at the affected source

during the reporting period met the

emission limitations in Table 1 of this

subpart.

Continuous Compliance Requirements

for Tire Cord Production Affected

Sources

§ 63.6005 How do I monitor and collect

data to demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission limitations for tire cord

production affected sources?

(a) You must monitor and collect data

as specified in Table 11 of this subpart.

(b) You must monitor and collect data

according to the requirements in

§ 63.6003(b) and (c).

§ 63.6006 How do I demonstrate

continuous compliance with the emission

limitations for tire cord production affected

sources?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous

compliance with each applicable

emission limitation in Table 2 of this

subpart using the methods specified in

Table 12 of this subpart.

(b) You must report each instance in

which you did not meet an applicable

emission limitation in Table 2 of this

subpart. You must also report each

instance in which you did not meet the

applicable requirements in Table 12 of

this subpart. These instances are

deviations from the emission limitations

in this subpart. The deviations must be

reported in accordance with the

requirements in § 63.6010(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

for Puncture Sealant Application

Affected Sources

§ 63.6007 How do I monitor and collect

data to demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission limitations for puncture

sealant application affected sources?

(a) You must monitor and collect data

as specified in Table 13 of this subpart.

(b) You must monitor and collect data

according to the requirements in

§ 63.6003(b) and (c).

§ 63.6008 How do I demonstrate

continuous compliance with the emission

limitations for puncture sealant application

affected sources?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous

compliance with each applicable

emission limitation in Tables 3 and 4 of

this subpart using the methods specified

in Table 14 of this subpart.

(b) You must report each instance in

which you did not meet an applicable

emission limitation in Table 3 of this

subpart. You must also report each

instance in which you did not meet the

applicable requirements in Table 14 of

this subpart. These instances are

deviations from the emission limitations

in this subpart. The deviations must be

reported in accordance with the

requirements in § 63.6010(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§ 63.6009 What notifications must I submit

and when?

(a) You must submit all of the

notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c),

63.8(f)(4) and (6), and 63.9 (b) through

(e) and (h) that apply to you by the dates

specified.

(b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you

startup your affected source before the

effective date of this subpart, you must

submit an Initial Notification not later

than 120 calendar days after the

effective date of this subpart.

(c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you

startup your new or reconstructed

affected source on or after the effective

date, you must submit an Initial

Notification not later than 120 calendar

days after you become subject to this

subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a

performance test, you must submit a

notification of intent to conduct a

performance test at least 60 calendar

days before the performance test is

scheduled to begin as required in

§ 63.7(b)(1).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62441

(e) If you are required to conduct a

performance test, design evaluation, or

other initial compliance demonstration

as specified in Tables 5 through 8 of this

subpart, you must submit a Notification

of Compliance Status according to

§ 63.9(h)(2)(ii). The Notification must

contain the information listed in Table

15 of this subpart for compliance

reports.

(1) For each initial compliance

demonstration required in Table 6 or 7

of this subpart that does not include a

performance test, you must submit the

Notification of Compliance Status before

the close of business on the 30th

calendar day following the completion

of the initial compliance demonstration.

(2) For each initial compliance

demonstration required in Tables 6

through 8 of this subpart that includes

a performance test conducted according

to the requirements in Table 5 of this

subpart, you must submit the

Notification of Compliance Status,

including the performance test results,

before the close of business on the 60th

calendar day following the completion

of the performance test according to

§ 63.10(d)(2).

(f) For each tire production affected

source, the Notification of Compliance

Status must also identify the emission

limitation option in § 63.5984 and the

compliance alternative in § 63.5985 that

you have chosen to meet.

(g) For each tire production affected

source complying with the purchase

compliance alternative in § 63.5985(a),

the Notification of Compliance Status

must also include the information listed

in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this

section.

(1) A list of each cement and solvent,

as-purchased, that is used at the affected

source and the manufacturer or supplier

of each.

(2) The individual HAP content

(percent by mass) of each cement and

solvent as applied that is used.

(h) For each tire production or tire

cord production affected source using a

control device, the Notification of

Compliance Status must also include

the information in paragraphs (h)(1) and

(2) of this section for each operating

parameter in §§ 63.5994(e)(1) and

63.5997(d)(1) that applies to you.

(1) The operating parameter value

averaged over the full period of the

performance test (for example, average

secondary chamber firebox temperature

over the period of the performance test

was 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit).

(2) The operating parameter range

within which HAP emissions are

reduced to the level corresponding to

meeting the applicable emission

limitations in Tables 1 and 2 of this

subpart.

(i) For each puncture sealant

application affected source, the

Notification of Compliance Status must

include the information listed in

paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) For each applicable operating

parameter in Table 4 of this subpart, the

operating parameter value averaged over

the full period of the performance test.

(2) For each applicable operating

parameter in Table 4 of this subpart, the

operating parameter range within which

HAP emissions do not exceed the levels

in Table 3 of this subpart.

§ 63.6010 What reports must I submit and

when?

(a) You must submit each applicable

report in Table 15 of this subpart.

(b) Unless the Administrator has

approved a different schedule for

submission of reports under § 63.10(a),

you must submit each report by the date

in Table 15 of this subpart and

according to the requirements in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this

section.

(1) The first compliance report must

cover the period beginning on the

compliance date that is specified for

your affected source in § 63.5983 and

ending on June 30 or December 31,

whichever date is the first date

following the end of the first calendar

half after the compliance date that is

specified for your source in § 63.5983.

(2) The first compliance report must

be postmarked or delivered no later than

July 31 or January 31, whichever date

follows the end of the first calendar half

after the compliance date that is

specified for your affected source in

§ 63.5983.

(3) Each subsequent compliance

report must cover the semiannual

reporting period from January 1 through

June 30 or the semiannual reporting

period from July 1 through December

31.

(4) Each subsequent compliance

report must be postmarked or delivered

no later than July 31 or January 31,

whichever date is the first date

following the end of the semiannual

reporting period.

(5) For each affected source that is

subject to permitting subparts pursuant

to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and

if the permitting authority has

established dates for submitting

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the

first and subsequent compliance reports

according to the dates the permitting

authority has established instead of

according to the dates in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must

contain information specified in

paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this

section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official,

with that official’s name, title, and

signature, certifying the accuracy of the

content of the report.

(3) Date of report and beginning and

ending dates of the reporting period.

(4) If there are no deviations from any

emission limitations (emission limit or

operating limit) that applies to you, a

statement that there were no deviations

from the emission limitations during the

reporting period.

(5) If there were no periods during

which the operating parameter

monitoring systems were out-of-control

as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement

that there were no periods during which

the operating parameter monitoring

systems or CPMS were out-of-control

during the reporting period.

(6) For each tire production affected

source, the emission limitation option

in § 63.5984 and the compliance

alternative in § 63.5985 that you have

chosen to meet.

(7) For each tire production affected

source complying with the purchase

compliance alternative in § 63.5985(a),

for each annual reporting period during

which you use a cement and solvent

that, as-purchased, was not included in

the list submitted with the Notification

of Compliance Status in § 63.6009(e)(1),

an updated list of all cements and

solvents used, as-purchased, at the

affected source. You must also include

a statement certifying that each cement

and solvent, as-purchased, that was

used at the affected source during the

reporting period, met the HAP

constituent limits (option 1) in Table 1

of this subpart.

(d) For each deviation from an

emission limitation (emission limit or

operating limit) that occurs at an

affected source where you are not using

a CPMS to comply with the emission

limitations in this subpart, the

compliance report must contain the

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3) of this section and the information

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of

this section.

(1) The total operating time of each

affected source during the reporting

period.

(2) Information on the number,

duration, and cause of deviations

(including unknown cause, if

applicable) and the corrective action

taken.

62442 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(e) Each affected source that has

obtained a title V operating permit

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR

part 71 must report all deviations as

defined in this subpart in the

semiannual monitoring report required

by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source

submits a compliance report pursuant to

Table 10 of this subpart along with, or

as part of, the semiannual monitoring

report required by 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance

report includes all required information

concerning deviations from any

emission limitation (including any

operating limit), or work practice

requirement in this subpart, submission

of the compliance report shall be

deemed to satisfy any obligation to

report the same deviations in the

semiannual monitoring report.

However, submission of a compliance

report shall not otherwise affect any

obligation the affected source may have

to report deviations from permit

requirements to the permit authority.

(f) Upon notification to the

Administrator that a tire production

affected source has eliminated or

reformulated cement and solvent such

that the source can demonstrate

compliance using the purchase

alternative in § 63.5985(a), future

compliance reports for this affected

source may be submitted annually as

specified in paragraph § 63.6010(c)(7).

§ 63.6011 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of

this section.

(1) A copy of each notification and

report that you submitted to comply

with this subpart, including all

documentation supporting any Initial

Notification or Notification of

Compliance Status that you submitted,

according to the requirements in

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) Records of performance tests as

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii).

(b) For each tire production affected

source, you must keep the records

specified in Table 9 of this subpart to

show continuous compliance with each

emission limitation that applies to you.

(c) For each tire cord production

affected source, you must keep the

records specified in Table 11 of this

subpart to show continuous compliance

with each emission limitation that

applies to you.

(d) For each puncture sealant

application affected source, you must

keep the records specified in Table 13

of this subpart to show continuous

compliance with each emission

limitation that applies to you.

§ 63.6012 In what form and how long must

I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form

suitable and readily available for

expeditious review, according to

§ 63.10(b)(1).

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you

must keep each record for 5 years

following the date of each occurrence,

measurement, maintenance, corrective

action, report, or record.

(c) You must keep each record on site

for at least 2 years after the date of each

occurrence, measurement, maintenance,

corrective action, report, or record,

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep

the records offsite for the remaining 3

years.

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.6013 What parts of the General

Provisions apply to me?

Table 17 of this subpart shows which

parts of the General Provisions in

§§ 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.

§ 63.6014 Who implements and enforces

this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a

delegated authority such as your State,

local, or tribal agency. You should

contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office

to find out if this subpart is delegated

to your State, local, or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraph (c) of this

section are retained by the

Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are

not transferred to the State, local, or

tribal agency.

(c) The authorities that will not be

delegated to State, local, or tribal

agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1)

through (4) of this section.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the

emissions standards in §§ 63.5984,

63.5986, and 63.5988 under 63.6(g).

(2) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under §§ 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

63.7(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

§ 63.6015 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR

63.2, the General Provisions, and in this

section.

As-purchased means the condition of

a cement and solvent as delivered to the

user, prior to any mixing, blending, or

dilution.

Capture system means a hood,

enclosed room, or other means of

collecting organic HAP emissions into a

closed-vent system that conveys these

emissions to a control device.

Cements and solvents means the

collection of all organic chemicals,

mixtures of chemicals, and compounds

used in the production of rubber tires,

including cements, solvents, and

mixtures thereof as process aides in

storage tanks, wastewater, and research

and development areas. Cements and

solvents include, but are not limited to,

tread end cements, undertread cements,

bead cements, tire building cements and

solvents, green tire spray, blemish repair

paints, side wall protective paints,

marking inks, general cleaning solvents,

and slab dip mixtures. Cements and

solvents do not include coatings used in

tire cord production, puncture sealant

application, or chemicals and

compounds that are not used in the tire

production process such as restroom

cleaning compounds, office supplies

(e.g., dry-erase markers, correction

fluid), architectural paint, or any

substance to the extent it is used for

personal, family, or household

purposes, or is present in the same form

and concentration as a product

packaged for distribution to and use by

the general public.

Coating means a compound or

mixture of compounds that is applied to

a fabric substrate in the tire cord

production operation that allows the

fabric to be prepared (e.g., by heating,

setting, curing) for incorporation into a

rubber tire.

Components of rubber tires means any

piece or part used in the manufacture of

rubber tires that becomes an integral

portion of the rubber tire when

manufacture is complete and includes

rubber compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire

beads, and liners. Other components

often associated with rubber tires such

as wheels, valve stems, and inner tubes

are not considered components of

rubber tires for the purposes of these

standards. Tire cord and puncture

sealant, although components of rubber

tires, are considered as separate affected

sources in these standards and are

defined separately.

Control device means a combustion

device, recovery device, recapture

device, or any combination of these

devices used for recovering or oxidizing

organic hazardous air pollutant vapors.

Such equipment includes, but is not

limited to, absorbers, carbon adsorbers,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62443

condensers, incinerators (oxidizers),

flares, boilers, and process heaters.

Control system efficiency means the

product of the organic HAP emissions

recovered or destroyed by a control

device (in percent) and the total organic

HAP emissions that are captured and

conveyed to the control device (as a

percent).

Deviation means any instance in

which an affected source, subject to this

subpart, or an owner or operator of such

a source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or

obligation established by this subpart,

including but not limited to any

emission limitation (including any

operating limit), or work practice

standard;

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition

that is adopted to implement an

applicable requirement in this subpart

and that is included in the operating

permit for any affected source required

to obtain such a permit; or

(3) Fails to meet any emission

limitation (including any operating

limit) or work practice standard in this

subpart during startup, shutdown, or

malfunction, regardless or whether or

not such failure is permitted by this

subpart.

Emission limitation means any

emission limit, opacity limit, operating

limit, or visible emission limit.

Mixed rubber compound means the

material, commonly referred to as

rubber, from which rubber tires and

components of rubber tires are

manufactured. For the purposes of this

definition, mixed rubber compound

refers to the compound that leaves the

primary rubber mixing process (for

example, banburys) and is then

processed into components from which

rubber tires are manufactured.

Operating day means the period

defined in the Notification of

Compliance Status. It may be from

midnight to midnight or a portion of a

24-hour period.

Monthly operating period means the

period in the Notification of Compliance

Status comprised of the number of

operating days in the month.

Primary rubber mixing means the

physical process of combining

components to make mixed rubber

compound. Internal process mixing may

occur at a facility that produces rubber

tires or components of rubber tires or at

a stand-alone facility that then transfers

the mixed rubber compound to a facility

that produces rubber tires or

components of rubber tires.

Puncture sealant means a mixture

that may include solvent constituents,

rubber, and process oil that is applied

to the inner liner of a finished tire for

the purpose of sealing any future hole

which might occur in the tread when an

object penetrates the tire.

Responsible official means

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR

70.2.

Rubber means the compound of

components (for example, natural

rubber, synthetic rubber, carbon black,

oils, sulfur) that are combined in

specific formulations for the sole

purpose of making rubber tires or

components of rubber tires.

Rubber processed means the amount

in pounds of rubber delivered to the tire

component and tire processing

operations in a tire manufacturing

facility (e.g., warm-up mills, extruders,

calendars, or other tire component and

tire manufacturing equipment).

Rubber tire means a continuous solid

or pneumatic cushion typically

encircling a wheel and usually

consisting, when pneumatic, of an

external rubber covering.

Tire cord means any fabric (for

example, polyester, cotton, steel) that is

treated with a coating mixture that

allows the fabric to more readily accept

impregnation with rubber to become an

integral part of a rubber tire.

Tables to Subpart XXXX of Part 63

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART XXXX—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE PRODUCTION AFFECTED SOURCES

Option* Emission limitation

Option 1—HAP Constituent Option .......................................................... 1. Emissions of each HAP in Table 16 of this subpart must not exceed

1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 pounds per ton) of total cements

and solvents used at the tire production affected source, and

2. Emissions of each HAP not in Table 16 of this subpart must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total

cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source.

Option 2—Production-based Option ........................................................ Emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per megagram

(0.00005 pounds per ton) of rubber processed into tires at the tire

production affected source.

* For each new, reconstructed, or existing tire production affected source, you must meet either the emission limitations in option 1 or the emission limitation in option 2.

You must comply with the emission limitations for tire cord production affected sources in the following table:

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART XXXX—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE CORD PRODUCTION AFFECTED SOURCES

For each. . . You must meet the following emission limitations

1. Existing tire cord production affected source ....................................... Emissions must not exceed 280 grams HAP per megagram (0.56

pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source.

2. New or reconstructed tire cord production affected source ................. Emissions must not exceed 220 grams HAP per megagram (0.43

pounds per ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord production affected source.

You must comply with the emission limitations for puncture sealant application affected sources in the following

table:

62444 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART XXXX—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR PUNCTURE SEALANT APPLICATION AFFECTED SOURCES

For each. . . You must meet the following emission limitation

1. Existing puncture sealant application spray booth .............................. Reduce spray booth emissions by at least 86 percent by weight.

2. New or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booth ........ Reduce spray booth emissions by at least 95 percent by weight.

You must comply with the operating limits for puncture sealant application affected sources in the following table:

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART XXXX—OPERATING LIMITS FOR PUNCTURE SEALANT APPLICATION CONTROL DEVICES

For each. . . You must. . .

1. Thermal oxidizer to which puncture sealant application spray booth

emissions are ducted.

Maintain the daily average firebox secondary chamber temperature

within the operating range established during the performance test.

2. Carbon adsorber (regenerative) to which puncture sealant application spray booth emissions are ducted.a. Maintain the total regeneration mass, volumetric flow, and carbon

bed temperature at the operating range established during the performance test.

b. Reestablish the carbon bed temperature to the levels established

during the performance test within 15 minutes of each cooling cycle.

3. Other type of control device to which puncture sealant application

spray booth emissions are ducted.

Maintain your operating parameter(s) within the range(s) established

during the performance test.

4. Permanent total enclosure capture system ......................................... a. Maintain the face velocity across any natural draft openings (NDOs)

at least at the levels established during the performance test.

b. Maintain the size of NDOs, the number of NDOs, and their proximity

to HAP emission sources consistent with the parameters established

during the performance test.

5. Other capture system ........................................................................... Maintain the operating parameters identified in the monitoring plan and

established during the performance test.

You must comply with the requirements for performance tests for existing, new, or reconstructed affected sources

in the following table:

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART XXXX.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR EXISTING, NEW, OR RECONSTRUCTED

AFFECTED SOURCES

If you are using . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following

requirements . . .

1. A thermal oxidizer Measure total HAP emissions, determine destruction efficiency of the

control device, and establish a sitespecific firebox secondary chamber

temperature limit at which the emission limit that applies to the affected

source is achieved.

Method 25 or 25A performance test

and data from the temperature monitoring system.

a. Measure total HAP emissions and

determine the destruction efficiency

of the control device using Method

25. You may use method 25A, if (i)

an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 parts per million (ppmv) or less is required to

comply with the standard, (ii) the

volatile organic matter concentration

at the inlet to the control system and

the required level of control are such

to result in exhaust volatile organic

matter concentration of 50 ppmv or

less, or (iii) because of the high efficiency of the control device exhaust

is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of the

inlet concentration.

b. Collect firebox secondary chamber

temperature data every 15 minutes

during the entire period of the initial

3-hour performance test, and determine the average firebox temperature over the 3-hour performance

test by computing the average of all

of the 15-minute readings.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62445

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART XXXX.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR EXISTING, NEW, OR RECONSTRUCTED

AFFECTED SOURCES—Continued

If you are using . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following

requirements . . .

2. A carbon

adsorber (regenerative).

Measure total organic HAP emissions,

establish the total regeneration mass

or volumetric flow, and establish the

temperature of the carbon bed within

15 minutes of completing any cooling cycles. The total regeneration

mass, volumetric flow, and carbon

bed temperature must be those at

which the emission limit that applies

to the affected source is achieved.

Method 25 or Method 25A performance test and data from the carbon

bed temperature monitoring device.

a. Measure total HAP emissions using

Method 25. You may use Method

25A, if (i) an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50

parts per million (ppmv) or less is required to comply with the standard,

(ii) the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the control

system and the required level of

control are such to result in exhaust

volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less, or (iii) because of the high efficiency of the

control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or

less, regardless of the inlet concentration.

b. Collect carbon bed total regeneration mass or volumetric flow for each

carbon bed regeneration cycle during the performance test.

c. Record the maximum carbon bed

temperature data for each carbon

bed regeneration cycle during the

performance test.

d. Record the carbon bed temperature

within 15 minutes of each cooling

cycle during the performance test.

e. Determine the average total regeneration mass or the volumetric flow

over the 3-hour performance test by

computing the average of all of the

readings.

f. Determine the average maximum

carbon bed temperature over the 3-

hour performance test by computing

the average of all of the readings.

g. Determine the average carbon bed

temperature within 15 minutes of the

cooling cycle over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the readings.

3. Any control device other than a

thermal oxidizer or

carbon adsorber.

Determine control device efficiency

and establish operating parameter

limits with which you will demonstrate continuous compliance with

the emission limit that applies to the

affect source.

EPA-approved methods and data from

the continuous parameter monitoring

system.

Conduct the performance test according to the site-specific plan submitted according to § 63.7(c)(2)(i).

4. All control devices a. Select sampling port’s location and

the number of traverse ports.

Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR 60, appendix A.Locate sampling sites at the inlet and

outlet of the control device and prior

to any releases to the atmosphere.

b. Determine velocity and volumetric

flow rate.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40

CFR 60, appendix A.

c. Conduct gas analysis ....................... Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR 60,

appendix A.

d. Measure Method 4 of moisture 40

CFR 60, appendix A.

5. A permanent total

enclosure (PTE).

Measure the face velocity across natural draft openings and document

the design features of the enclosure.

Method 204, CFR part 51, Appendix M Capture efficiency is assumed to be

100 percent if the criteria are met.

6. Temporary total

enclosure (TTE).

Construct a temporarily installed enclosure that allows you to determine

the efficiency of your capture system

and establish operating parameter

limits.

Method 204 and the appropriate combination of Methods 204A–204F, 40

CFR part 51, Appendix M.

62446 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

You must show initial compliance with the emission limitations for tire production affected sources according to

the following table:

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART XXXX.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE PRODUCTION AFFECTED

SOURCES

For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if

...

1. Sources complying with the purchase compliance alternative in § 63.5985(a).The HAP constituent option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

You demonstrate for each monthly period that

no cements and solvents were purchased

and used at the affected source containing

HAP in amounts above the composition limits in Table 1 of this subpart, option 1, determined according to the procedures in

§ 63.5994(a) and (b)(1).

2. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative without using a control

device in § 63.5985(b).

The HAP constituent option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

You demonstrate that the monthly average

HAP emissions for each monthly operating

period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 1, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(a), (b)(2) and (4).

3. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative using a control device

in § 63.5985(c).

The HAP constituent option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

You demonstrate that the monthly average

HAP emissions for each monthly operating

period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 1, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(a), (b)(3) and (4), (d)

and (e).

4. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative without use of a control device in § 63.5985(b).

The production-based option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 2).

You demonstrate that the monthly average

HAP emissions for each monthly operating

period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 2, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(c)(1) through (3) and (5).

5. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative using a control device

in § 63.5985(c).

The production-based option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 2).

You demonstrate that the monthly average

HAP emissions for each monthly operating

period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 2, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(c)(1) and (2) through (5),

(d), and (e).

You must show initial compliance with the emission limitations for tire cord production affected sources according

to the following table:

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART XXXX.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE CORD PRODUCTION

AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if

...

1. Sources complying with the monthly average

alternative without using an add-on control

device according to § 63.5987(a).

In Table 2 of this subpart ................................. You demonstrate that the monthly average

HAP emissions for each monthly operating

period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 2 of this subpart, determined according to the procedures in § 63.5997(a), (b)(1)

and (3).

2. Sources complying with the monthly average

alternative using an add-on control device according to § 63.5987(b).

In Table 2 of this subpart ................................. You demonstrate that the monthly average

HAP emissions for each monthly operating

period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 2 of this subpart, determined according to the procedures in § 63.5997(a), (b)(2)

and (3), (c) and (d).

You must show initial compliance with the emission limitations for puncture sealant application affected sources

according to the following table:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62447

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART XXXX.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR PUNCTURE SEALANT

APPLICATION AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance

if . . .

1. Sources complying with the overall control

efficiency alternative in § 63.5989(a).

In Table 3 of this subpart ................................. You demonstrate that you conducted the performance tests required by § 63.6000, determined the overall efficiency of your control system, demonstrated that the applicable limits have been achieved, and established the operating limits for your equipment.

2. Sources complying with the permanent total

enclosure and control device efficiency alternative in § 63.5989(b).

In Table 3 of this subpart ................................. You demonstrate that you conducted the performance tests required by § 63.6000, determined the individual efficiencies of your

capture and control systems, demonstrated

that the applicable limits have been

achieved, and established the operating

limits for your equipment.

You must maintain minimum data to show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for tire production

affected sources according to the following table:

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART XXXX—MINIMUM DATA FOR CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE

PRODUCTION AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . You must maintain . . .

1. Sources complying with purchase compliance alternative in

§ 63.5985(a) that are meeting the HAP constituent emission limitation

(option 1) in Table 1 of this subpart.

a. A list of each cement and solvent as-purchased and the manufacturer or supplier of each.

b. A record of Method 311, or approved alternative method, test results

indicating the mass percent of each HAP for each compliance cement and solvent as-purchased.

2. Sources complying with the monthly average compliance alternative

without using a control device in § 63.5985(b) that are meeting emission limitations in Table 1 of this subpart.

a. A record of the Method 311, or approved alternative method, test results, indicating the mass percent of each HAP for each cement and

solvent, as-purchased.

b. The mass of each cement and solvent used each operating day.

c. The total mass of rubber processed into tires each operating day (if

complying with the production-based emission limitation, option 2, in

Table 1 of this subpart).

d. All data and calculations used to determine the monthly average

mass percent for each HAP for each operating month.

e. Monthly averages of emissions in the appropriate emission limitation

format.

3. Sources complying with the monthly average compliance alternative

using a control device in § 63.5985(c) that are meeting emission limitations in Table 1 of this subpart.

The same information as sources complying with the monthly average

alternative that are not using a control device, except add records of

operating parameter values for each monthly operating parameter

that applies to you.

You must show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for tire production affected sources according

to the following table:

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART XXXX. —CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE PRODUCTION

AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance

by . . .

1. Sources complying with purchase compliance alternative in § 63.5985(a).The HAP constituent option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

Demonstrating for each monthly period that

no cements and solvents were purchased

and used at the affected source containing

HAP in amounts above the composition limits in Table 1 of this subpart, option 1, determined according to the procedures in

§ 63.5994(a) and (b)(1).

62448 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART XXXX. —CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR TIRE PRODUCTION

AFFECTED SOURCES—Continued

For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance

by . . .

2. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative without using a control

device in § 63.5985(b).

The HAP constituent option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

Demonstrating that the monthly average HAP

emissions for each monthly operating period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 1, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(a), (b)(2) and (4).

3. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative using a control device

in § 63,5985(c).

The HAP constituent option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 1).

Demonstrating that the monthly average HAP

emissions for each monthly operating period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 1, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(a), (b)(3) and (4), (d)

and (e).

4. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative without using a control

device in § 63.5985(b).

The production-based option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 2).

Demonstrating that the monthly average HAP

emissions for each monthly operating period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 2, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(c)(1) through (3) and (5).

5. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative using a control device

in § 63.5985(c).

The production-based option in Table 1 of this

subpart (option 2).

Demonstrating that the monthly average HAP

emissions for each monthly operating period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 2, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5994(c)(1) and (2) through (5),

(d), and (e).

You must maintain minimum data to show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for tire cord production affected sources according to the following table:

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART XXXX. —MINIMUM DATA FOR CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR

TIRE CORD PRODUCTION AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . You must maintain . . .

1. Sources complying with the monthly average alternative without

using an add-on control device according to § 63.5987(a) that are

meeting emission limitations in Table 2 of this subpart.

a. A record of the Method 311, or approved alternative method, test results, indicating the mass percent of each HAP for coating used.

b. The mass of each coating used each operating day.

c. The total mass of fabric processed each operating day.

d. All data and calculations used to determine the monthly average

mass percent for each HAP for each operating month.

e. Monthly averages of emissions in the appropriate emission limitation

format.

2. Sources complying with the monthly average alternative using an

add-on control device according to § 63.5987(b) that are meeting

emission limitations in Table 2 of this subpart.

The same information as sources complying with the monthly average

alternative that are not using a control device, except add records of

operating parameter values for each operating parameter that applies to you.

You must show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for tire cord production affected sources according to the following table:

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART XXXX. —CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS FOR TIRE CORD PRODUCTION

AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . For the following emission limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance

by . . .

1. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative without use of a control device in § 63.5987(a).

In Table 2 of this subpart ................................. Demonstrating that the monthly average HAP

emissions for each monthly operating period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 2 of this subpart, determined according to the applicable procedures in

§ 63.5997(a), (b)(1) and (3).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62449

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART XXXX. —CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS FOR TIRE CORD PRODUCTION

AFFECTED SOURCES—Continued

For . . . For the following emission limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance

by . . .

2. Sources complying with the monthly average

compliance alternative using a control device

in § 63.5987(b).

In Table 2 of this subpart ................................. Demonstrating that the monthly average HAP

emissions for each monthly operating period do not exceed the emission limits in

Table 1 of this subpart, option 2, determined according to the applicable procedures in § 63.5997(a), (b)(2) and (3), (c),

and (d).

You must maintain minimum data to show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for puncture sealant

application affected sources according to the following table:

TABLE 13 TO SUBPART XXXX.—MINIMUM DATA FOR CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS FOR

PUNCTURE SEALANT APPLICATION AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . You must maintain . . .

1. Each thermal oxidizer used to reduce HAP emissions so that they

do not exceed the operating limits in Table 4 of this subpart.

Records of the secondary chamber firebox temperature for 100 percent

of the hours during which the process was operated.

2. Each carbon adsorber used to reduce HAP emissions so that they

do not exceed the operating limits in Table 4 of this subpart.

Records of the total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow for

each regeneration cycle for 100 percent of the hours during which

the process was operated, and a record of the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration, and within 15 minutes of completing

any cooling cycle for 100 percent of the hours during which the process was operated.

3. Other type of control device to which puncture sealant application

spray booth HAP emissions are ducted so that they do not exceed

the operating limits in Table 4 of this subpart.

Records of operating parameter values for each operating parameter

that applies to you.

4. Permanent total enclosure capture system used to capture HAP

emissions so that they do not exceed the operating limits in Table 4

of this subpart.

Records of the face velocity across any natural draft openings (NDOs),

the size of NDOs, the number of NDOs, and their proximity to HAP

emission sources.

5. Other capture system used to capture HAP emissions so that they

do not exceed the operating limits in Table 4 of this subpart.

Records of operating parameter values for each operating parameter

that applies to you.

You must show continuous compliance with the emission limitations for puncture sealant application affected sources

according to the following table:

TABLE 14 TO SUBPART XXXX.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS FOR PUNCTURE SEALANT

APPLICATION AFFECTED SOURCES

For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .

1. Each carbon adsorber used to comply with the emission

limits in Table 3 of this subpart.

a. Monitoring and recording every 15 minutes the total regeneration stream mass

OR volumetric flow, and the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration,

and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle, and

b. Maintaining the total regeneration stream mass OR the volumetric flow, and

the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration, and within 15 minutes of

completing any cooling cycle within the operating levels established during

your performance test.

2. Each thermal oxidizer used to comply with the emission

limits in Table 3 of this subpart.

a. Continuously monitoring and recording the firebox temperature every 15 minutes, and

b. Maintaining the daily average firebox temperature within the operating level

established during your performance test.

3. Other ‘‘add-on’’ control or capture system hardware used

to comply with the emission limits in Table 3 of this subpart.

Continuously monitoring and recording specified parameters identified through

compliance testing and identified in the Notification of Compliance Status.

You must submit a compliance report semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6010(b), unless you meet

the requirements for annual reporting in § 63.6010(c)(7). The report must also include the information in § 63.6010(c)(1)

through (8). The report must include the following:

62450 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 15 TO SUBPART XXXX.—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

If . . . Then you must submit a report or statement that:

1. There are no deviations from any emission limitations that apply to

you.

There were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period.

2. There were no periods during which the operating parameter monitoring systems were out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7).There were no periods during the which the CPMS were out- of-control

during the reporting period.

3. There was a deviation from any emission limitation during the reporting period.Contains the information in § 63.6010(c).

4. There were periods during which the operating parameter monitoring

systems were out-of-control, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7).

Contains the information in § 63.6010(e).

You must use the information listed in the following table to determine which emission limitation in Table 1

of this subpart is applicable to you if own or operate a tire production affected source:

TABLE 16 TO SUBPART XXXX.—SELECTED HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

CAS No. Selected hazardous air pollutants

50000 ........................................................................................................ Formaldehyde.

51796 ........................................................................................................ Ethyl carbamate (Urethane).

53963 ........................................................................................................ 2-Acetylaminofluorene.

56235 ........................................................................................................ Carbon tetrachloride.

57147 ........................................................................................................ 1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine.

57578 ........................................................................................................ beta-Propiolactone.

58899 ........................................................................................................ Lindane (all isomers).

59892 ........................................................................................................ N-Nitrosomorpholine.

60117 ........................................................................................................ Dimethyl aminoazobenzene.

62759 ........................................................................................................ N-Nitrosodimethylamine.

64675 ........................................................................................................ Diethyl sulfate.

67663 ........................................................................................................ Chloroform.

67721 ........................................................................................................ Hexachloroethane.

71432 ........................................................................................................ Benzene (including benzene from gasoline).

75014 ........................................................................................................ Vinyl chloride.

75070 ........................................................................................................ Acetaldehyde.

75092 ........................................................................................................ Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane).

75218 ........................................................................................................ Ethylene oxide.

75558 ........................................................................................................ 1,2-Propylenimine (2-Methyl aziridine).

75569 ........................................................................................................ Propylene oxide.

77781 ........................................................................................................ Dimethyl sulfate.

79061 ........................................................................................................ Acrylamide.

79447 ........................................................................................................ Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride.

79469 ........................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane.

88062 ........................................................................................................ 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.

91941 ........................................................................................................ 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene.

92671 ........................................................................................................ 4-Aminobiphenyl.

92875 ........................................................................................................ Benzidine.

95534 ........................................................................................................ o-Toluidine.

95807 ........................................................................................................ 2,4-Toluene diamine.

96128 ........................................................................................................ 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.

96457 ........................................................................................................ Ethylene thiourea.

98077 ........................................................................................................ Benzotrichloride.

101144 ...................................................................................................... 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).

101779 ...................................................................................................... 4,4-Methylenedianiline.

106467 ...................................................................................................... 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p).

106898 ...................................................................................................... Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane).

106934 ...................................................................................................... Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane).

106990 ...................................................................................................... 1,3-Butadiene.

107062 ...................................................................................................... Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane).

107131 ...................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile.

107302 ...................................................................................................... Chloromethyl methyl ether.

117817 ...................................................................................................... Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP).

118741 ...................................................................................................... Hexachlorobenzene.

119904 ...................................................................................................... 3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine.

119937 ...................................................................................................... 3,3-Dimethyl benzidine.

122667 ...................................................................................................... 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.

123911 ...................................................................................................... 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide).

127184 ...................................................................................................... Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene).

140885 ...................................................................................................... Ethyl acrylate.

302012 ...................................................................................................... Hydrazine.

542756 ...................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene.

542881 ...................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62451

TABLE 16 TO SUBPART XXXX.—SELECTED HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS—Continued

CAS No. Selected hazardous air pollutants

680319 ...................................................................................................... Hexamethylphosphoramide.

684935 ...................................................................................................... N-Nitroso-N-methylurea.

1120714 .................................................................................................... 1,3-Propane sultone.

1332214 .................................................................................................... Asbestos.

1336363 .................................................................................................... Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors).

1746016 .................................................................................................... 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.

8001352 .................................................................................................... Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene).

Arsenic Compounds.

Chromium Compounds.

Coke Oven Emissions.

You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:

TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART XXXX

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections

Applicable to Subpart

XXXX?

Using a

control

device

Not using

a control

device

§ 63.1 ............................ Applicability ..................................... Initial applicability determination, applicability after

standard established, permit requirements, extensions, notifications.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.2 ............................ Definitions ....................................... Definitions for part 63 standards ................................. Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.3 ............................ Units and Abbreviations .................. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ............ Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.4 ............................ Prohibited Activities ........................ Prohibited activities, compliance date, circumvention,

severability.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.5 ............................ Construction/ Reconstruction .......... Applicability; applications; approvals ........................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ....................... Applicability ..................................... GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to

area sources that become major.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ............ Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources.Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction

or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(5) ................... Notification ...................................... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal.Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(6) ................... [Reserved] ....................................... ...................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(7) ................... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources that

Become Major.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ............. Compliance Dates for Existing

Sources.

1. Comply according to date in subpart, which must

be no later than 3 years after effective date.

Yes .......... Yes.

2. For section 112(f) standards, comply within 90

days of effective date unless compliance extension.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ............. [Reserved] ....................................... ...................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(5) ................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area

Sources that Become Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with

major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3

years).

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(d) ....................... [Reserved] ....................................... ...................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ............ Operation & Maintenance ............... 1. Operate to minimize emissions at all times ............ Yes .......... Yes

2. Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable .......... Yes .......... Yes.

3. Operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator

will use to determine if operation and maintenance

requirements were met.

Yes .......... Yes.

62452 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART XXXX—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections

Applicable to Subpart

XXXX?

Using a

control

device

Not using

a control

device

§ 63.6(e)(3) ................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Plan (SSMP).

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) .................... Compliance Except During SSM .... ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance.Compliance based on performance test, operation

and maintenance plans, records, inspection.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ............ Alternative Standard ....................... Procedures for getting an alternative standard ........... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ....................... Opacity/Visible Emission (VE)

Standards.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.6(i) ........................ Compliance Extension .................... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant

compliance extension.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) ........................ Presidential Compliance Exemption President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule.Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ............ Performance Test Dates ................. ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.7(a)(3) ................... Section 114 Authority ..................... Administrator may require a performance test under

CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(b)(1) ................... Notification of Performance Test .... Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ...... Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(b)(2) ................... Notification of Rescheduling ........... If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, must

notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date

of rescheduled date.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(c) ....................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan .......... Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days

before the test or on date Administrator agrees

with:

1. Test plan approval procedures ............................... Yes .......... No.

2. Performance audit requirements ............................. Yes .......... No.

3. Internal and External quality assurance procedures

for testing.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(d) ....................... Testing Facilities ............................. Requirements for testing facilities ............................... Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(e)(1) ................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests.1. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions.Yes .......... No.

2. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM ..... Yes .......... No.

3. Not a violation to exceed standard during SSM ..... Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(e)(2) ................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests.Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative.Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(e)(3) ................... Test Run Duration .......................... 1. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each Yes .......... No.

2. Compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three

runs.

Yes .......... No.

3. Conditions when data from an additional test run

can be used.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(f) ........................ Alternative Test Method .................. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method.Yes .......... No.

§ 63.7(g) ....................... Performance Test Data Analysis .... 1. Must include raw data in performance test report .. Yes .......... No.

2. Must submit performance test data 60 days after

end of test with the Notification of Compliance Status.

Yes .......... No.

3. Keep data for 5 years ............................................. Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.7(h) ....................... Waiver of Tests ............................... Procedures for Administrator to waive performance

test.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.8(a)(1) ................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements.Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard .... Yes .......... Yes.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62453

TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART XXXX—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections

Applicable to Subpart

XXXX?

Using a

control

device

Not using

a control

device

§ 63.8(a)(2) ................... Performance Specifications ............ Performance Specifications in appendix B of part 60

apply.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.8(a)(3) ................... [Reserved] ....................................... ...................................................................................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(4) ................... Monitoring with Flares .................... ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(b)(1) ................... Monitoring ....................................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative.Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............ Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems.1. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems.Yes .......... Yes.

2. Must install on each effluent before it is combined

and before it is released to the atmosphere unless

Administrator approves otherwise.

Yes .......... Yes.

3. If more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup.Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1) ................... Monitoring System Operation and

Maintenance.

Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent

with good air pollution control practices.

Yes .......... No.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ................ Routine and Predictable SSM ........ ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............... SSM not in SSMP ........................... ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Compliance with Operation and

Maintenance Requirements.

1. How Administrator determines if source complying

with operation and maintenance requirements.

Yes .......... Yes.

2. Review of source operation and maintenance procedures, records, manufacturer’s instructions, recommendations, and inspection of monitoring system.Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............. Monitoring System Installation ........ 1. Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements.Yes .......... No.

2. Must verify operational status before or at performance test.Yes .......... No.

§ 63.8(c)(4) ................... Continuous Monitoring System

(CMS) Requirements.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(c)(5) ................... Continuous Opacity Monitoring

Systems (COMS) Minimum Procedures.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(c)(6) ................... CMS Requirements ........................ ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ............. CMS Requirements ........................ Out-of-control periods, including reporting:.

1. If you are a puncture sealant application affected

source.

Yes .......... No.

2. If you are a tire production or tire cord production

affected source.

No ............ No.

§ 63.8(d) ....................... CMS Quality Control ....................... ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(e) ....................... CMS Performance Evaluation ........ ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............. Alternative Monitoring Method ........ Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative

monitoring.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) .................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy

Test.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.8(g) ....................... Data Reduction ............................... ...................................................................................... No ............ No

§ 63.9(a) ....................... Notification Requirements ............... Applicability and state delegation ................................ Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ............ Initial Notifications ........................... 1. Submit notification 120 days after effective date .... Yes .......... Yes.

62454 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART XXXX—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections

Applicable to Subpart

XXXX?

Using a

control

device

Not using

a control

device

2. Notification of intent to construct/reconstruct, notification of commencement of construct/reconstruct,

notification of startup.

Yes .......... Yes.

3. Contents of each ..................................................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.9(c) ....................... Request for Compliance Extension Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed

best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.9(d) ....................... Notification of Special Compliance

Requirements for New Source.

For sources that commence construction between

proposal and promulgation and want for to comply

3 years after effective date.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ....................... Notification of Performance Test .... Notify Administrator 60 days prior ............................... Yes .......... No.

§ 63.9(f) ........................ Notification of VE/Opacity Test ....... ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.9(g) ....................... Additional Notifications When Using

CMS.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.9(h) ....................... Notification of Compliance Status. 1. Contents .................................................................. Yes .......... Yes.

.

2. Due 60 days after Status end of performance test

or other compliance demonstration, except for

opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after.

Yes .......... Yes.

3. When to submit to Federal vs. Sate authority. ....... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.9(i) ........................ Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines Procedures for Administrator to approve change in

when notifications must be submitted.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.9(j) ........................ Change in Previous Information ..... Must submit within 15 days after the change ............. Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ............... 1. Applies to all, unless compliance extension ........... Yes .......... Yes.

2. When to submit to Federal vs. State authority ....... Yes .......... Yes

3. Procedures for owners of more than 1 source ....... Yes .......... Yes

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................. Recordkeeping/Reporting ............... 1. General Requirements ............................................ Yes .......... Yes

2. Keep all records readily available ........................... Yes .......... Yes

3. Keep for 5 years ...................................................... Yes .......... Yes

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv) ....... Records related to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction....................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and

(x)–(xi).

CMS Records ................................. 1. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control:

a. If you are a puncture sealant application affected

source.

Yes .......... No.

b. If you are a tire production or tire cord production

affected source.

No ............ No.

2. Calibration checks:.

a. If you are a puncture sealant application affected

source.

Yes .......... No.

b. If you are a tire production or tire cord production

affected source.

No ............ No.

3. Adjustments, maintenance:.

a. If you are a puncture sealant application affected

source.

Yes .......... No.

b. If you are a tire production or tire cord production

affected source.

No ............ No.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) .... Records ........................................... 1. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with

emission limitations.

Yes .......... Yes.

2. Performance test, performance evaluation, and

visible emission observation results.

Yes .......... Yes.

3. Measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations.Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ........... Records ........................................... Records when under waiver ........................................ Yes .......... Yes.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62455

TABLE 17 TO SUBPART XXXX.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART XXXX—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections

Applicable to Subpart

XXXX?

Using a

control

device

Not using

a control

device

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................. Records ........................................... Applicability Determinations ........................................ Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.10(c) ..................... Records ........................................... ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.10(d)(1) ................. General Reporting Requirements ... Requirement to report ................................................. Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(2) ................. Report of Performance Test Results.When to submit to Federal or State authority ............. Yes .......... No.

§ 63.10(d)(3) ................. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations....................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.10(d)(4) ................. Progress Reports ............................ Must submit progress reports on schedule if under

compliance extension.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Reports.

...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.10(e) ..................... Additional CMS Reports ................. ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.10(f) ...................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting.Procedures for Administrator to waive ........................ Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.11 .......................... Flares .............................................. ...................................................................................... No ............ No.

§ 63.12 .......................... Delegation ....................................... State authority to enforce standards ........................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.13 .......................... Addresses ....................................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests

are sent.

Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.14 .......................... Incorporation by Reference ............ Test methods incorporated by reference .................... Yes .......... Yes.

§ 63.15 .......................... Availability of Information ................ Public and confidential information ............................. Yes .......... Yes.

[FR Doc. 00–26224 Filed 10–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P