94886 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392; FRL–5949.1– 

03–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV70 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is 

promulgating amendments to the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing, as required 

by the Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure 

that all emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from sources in the 

source category are regulated, the EPA 

is promulgating emissions standards for 

the rubber processing subcategory of the 

rubber tire manufacturing industry, 

which is the only unregulated 

subcategory within the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 29, 2024. The incorporation 

by reference (IBR) of certain 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of November 29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website. Although listed, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only as pdf versions that can 

only be accessed on the EPA computers 

in the docket office reading room. 

Certain databases and physical items 

cannot be downloaded from the docket 

but may be requested by contacting the 

docket office at 202–566–1744. The 

docket office has up to 10 business days 

to respond to these requests. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Korbin Smith, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

Mail Drop: D243–04, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2416; and email 

address: smith.korbin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble 

acronyms and abbreviations. 

Throughout this document the use of 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is intended to refer 

to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms 

and terms in this preamble. While this 

list may not be exhaustive, to ease the 

reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

3xRDL three times the representative 

detection level 

BDL below detection limit 

BLDS bag leak detection system 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DLL detection level limited 

DRE destruction and removal efficiency 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

fPM filterable particulate matter 

g gram 

g/Mg grams per megagram 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

ICR information collection request 

km kilometer 

lb pound 

lb/Mton pounds per million tons 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

Mg megagram 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PM particulate matter 

ppm parts per million 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RDL representative detection level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer 

RTR risk and technology review 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

THC total hydrocarbons 

the court United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit 

mg/Nm3 microgram per normal cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

VOC volatile organic compound 

Background information. On 

November 16, 2023, the EPA proposed 

revisions to the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP (88 FR 78692), 

specifically standards for the rubber 

processing subcategory of the rubber tire 

manufacturing industry, to ensure that 

all emissions of HAP from sources in 

the source category are regulated. In this 

action, we are finalizing decisions and 

revisions for the rule. We summarize 

some of the more significant comments 

we timely received regarding the 

proposed rule and provide our 

responses in this preamble. A summary 

of all other public comments on the 

proposal and the EPA’s responses to 

those comments is available in 

Comment Summary and Response 

Document for Proposed NESHAP for 

Rubber Processing in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. A ‘‘track 

changes’’ version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action is available in the docket. 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category and how does the 

NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 

the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category in our November 16, 2023, 

proposal? 

D. What outreach did we conduct 

following the proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category? 

B. What other changes have been made to 

the NESHAP? 

C. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category? 

A. Emission Standards for Unregulated 

Organic HAP Emissions from the Rubber 

Processing Subcategory 

B. Emission Standards for Unregulated 

Metal HAP Emissions from the Rubber 

Processing Subcategory 

C. Emission Testing and Compliance 

Demonstrations 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94887 

188 FR78962, November 16, 2023. 

2 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. 

EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (‘‘LEAN’’). 

3See Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 

699 F3d 524, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (‘‘[W]e have read 

subparagraphs (1) and (3) of section 112(d) to 

require the regulations of all HAPs listed in section 

112(b)(1)’’ citations omitted). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 

14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source 

category NAICS1 code 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart 

XXXX).

326211, 

326212, 

314992. 

1 North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

internet. Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a 

copy of this final action at: https://

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

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version and key technical 

documents at this same website. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (the 

court) by January 28, 2025. Under CAA 

section 307(b)(2), the requirements 

established by this final rule may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the 

EPA to enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that only an objection 

to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment (including 

any public hearing) may be raised 

during judicial review. This section also 

provides a mechanism for the EPA to 

reconsider the rule if the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the 

Administrator that it was impracticable 

to raise such objection within the period 

for public comment or if the grounds for 

such objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule. Any person seeking 

to make such a demonstration should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to 

both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

On November 16, 2023, the EPA 

proposed revisions to the NESHAP for 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing.1 The EPA is 

finalizing in this action amendments to 

the NESHAP to ensure that all 

emissions of HAP from sources in the 

source category are regulated. 

In the Louisiana Environmental 

Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) decision 

issued on April 21, 2020, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA 

has an obligation to address unregulated 

emissions from a major source category 

when the Agency conducts the 8-year 

technology review.2 In setting standards 

for major source categories under CAA 

112(d), EPA has the obligation to 

address all HAP listed under CAA 

112((b).3 The amendments in this 

rulemaking address currently 

unregulated emissions of HAP from the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category, specifically from the rubber 

processing subcategory. Available data 

indicate the following unregulated 

pollutants are emitted from the source 

category: organic HAP compounds and 

metallic HAP compounds. Therefore, 

the EPA is finalizing standards that 

reflect maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) for these pollutants 

emitted by the source category, pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 

Additionally, in accordance with CAA, 

costs are not considered when setting 

these initial MACT standards. 

B. What is the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

The EPA promulgated the initial 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP on 

July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45598). The 

standards are codified in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart XXXX. The Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category consists 

of facilities that produce rubber tire 

components including but not limited to 

rubber compounds, sidewalls, tread, tire 

beads, tire cord, and liners. The source 

category covered by the NESHAP 

currently includes 15 major source 

facilities.Since first established, the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category has been split into 4 

subcategories for different phases of 

rubber tire manufacturing. These 

subcategories include rubber processing, 

tire production, tire cord production, 

and puncture sealant application. In the 

original Rubber Tire Manufactuing 

NESHAP, emission limits were 

established for tire production, tire cord 

production and puncture sealant 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94888 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

application but no standards were 

established for rubber processing. 

The 2002 NESHAP for the Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing source category (67 

FR 45598) established emission limits 

on a subcategory basis as follows. 

1. Rubber Processing 

There are currently no emission limits 

for the rubber processing subcategory. 

The EPA proposed emission limits for 

the rubber processing subcategory on 

November 16, 2023, and the EPA is 

finalizing emission limits for this 

subcategory with this action. 

2. Tire Production 

There are 2 equivalent standards for 

the tire production subcategory, and 

sources can comply with either 

standard. The first standard, is based on 

HAP materials purchased and used in 

the process. This standard considers 

that the quantity of HAP material 

purchased will represent the amount of 

HAP emitted for uncontrolled processes. 

The emission limit requires that 

emissions of each HAP in table 21 to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that is used 

in the tire production process not 

exceed 1,000 grams (g) HAP per 

megagram (Mg) (2 pounds per ton (lb/ 

ton)) of total cements and solvents used 

at the tire production affected source, 

and requires that the amount of each 

HAP not in table 21 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire 

production process not exceed 10,000 g 

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

and solvents used at the tire production 

affected source. 

The second standard is a productionbased emission-limit option. A 

production-based standard sets a 

quantity of emissions allowed per unit 

of production (i.e., amount of HAP 

emitted per ton of rubber produced). For 

this option, emissions of HAP must not 

exceed 0.024 grams per megagram (g/ 

Mg), (0.00005 lb/ton) of rubber 

processed at the tire production affected 

source. 

3. Tire Cord Production 

There are 3 standards for the tire cord 

production subcategory, and sources 

can choose which standard to comply 

with within this subcategory, 

depending, in part, on whether the 

source is an existing or new source. The 

first standard is a production-based 

emission-limit option for existing tire 

cord production affected sources. As 

part of this standard, emissions must 

not exceed 280 g HAP per Mg (0.56 lb/ 

ton) of fabric processed at the tire cord 

production affected source for the 

monthly average. 

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

reconstructed tire cord production 

affected sources. As part of this 

standard, emissions must not exceed 

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

processed at the tire cord production 

affected source. 

The third standard is a HAP 

constituent emission-limit option 

available to both existing and new or 

reconstructed tire cord production 

affected sources. A HAP constituent 

standard requires that no material be 

purchased and used at an affected 

facility that contains HAP in amounts 

above a specific composition limit. To 

comply with this standard, emissions of 

each HAP in table 16 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXXX, that is used in the tire 

cord production process must not 

exceed 1,000 g HAP per Mg (2 lb/ton) 

of total coatings used at the tire cord 

production affected source, and 

emissions of each HAP not in table 16 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that 

is used in the tire cord production 

process must not exceed 10,000 g HAP 

per Mg (20 lb/ton) of total coatings used 

at the tire cord production affected 

source. 

4. Puncture Sealant Application 

There are 3 equivalent standards for 

the puncture sealant application 

subcategory, and sources can choose 

which standard to comply with within 

this subcategory depending, in part, on 

whether the source is an existing or new 

source. The first standard is a percent 

reduction emission-limit option for 

existing puncture sealant application 

spray booths. As part of this standard, 

facilities are required to reduce spray 

booth HAP (measured as volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs)) emissions 

by at least 86 percent by weight. 

The second standard is a percent 

reduction emission-limit option for new 

or reconstructed puncture sealant 

application spray booths. As part of this 

standard, facilities are required to 

reduce spray booth HAP (measured as 

VOCs) emissions by at least 95 percent 

by weight. 

The third standard is a HAP 

constituent emission-limit option for 

both existing and new or reconstructed 

puncture sealant application spray 

booths. As part of this standard, 

emissions of each HAP in table 16 to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must not 

exceed 1,000 g HAP per Mg (2 lb/ton) 

of total puncture sealants used at the 

puncture sealant affected source, and 

emissions of each HAP not in table 16 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, must 

not exceed 10,000 g HAP per Mg (20 lb/ 

ton) of total puncture sealants used at 

the puncture sealant affected source. 

5. Alternatives for Meeting Emission 

Limits 

Compliance alternatives are available 

for the 3 subcategories currently subject 

to emission limits (tire production, tire 

cord production, and puncture sealant 

application) to meet the emission limits 

mentioned earlier in section II.B. of this 

preamble. For more information on 

these compliance alternatives, a detailed 

breakdown of the compliance 

alternatives for these subcategories may 

be found at 40 CFR 63.5985, 40 CFR 

63.5987, and 40 CFR 63.5989, for tire 

production, tire cord production, and 

puncture sealant application, 

respectively. These alternatives are also 

summarized here. 

For tire production, alternatives for 

showing compliance are available for 

both emission standards. For the 

standard option based on the materials 

purchased and used the alternatives are 

to use only cements and solvents that as 

purchased contain no more HAP than 

allowed by the specified emission 

limitations; use cements and solvents 

such that the monthly average HAP 

emissions meet the specified emission 

limitations; or use control devices to 

reduce HAP emissions such that the 

monthly average HAP emissions meet 

the specified emission limitations. For 

the production-based standard option 

the alternatives are to use cements and 

solvents such that the monthly average 

HAP emissions meet the specified 

emissions limitations; or use control 

devices to reduce HAP emissions such 

that the monthly average HAP emissions 

meet the specified emission limitations. 

For tire cord production there are two 

alternative compliance options: use 

coating solutions such that the monthly 

average HAP emissions do not exceed 

the applicable emission limit; or use a 

control device to reduce HAP emissions 

such that the monthly average HAP 

emissions do not exceed the applicable 

emission limitation. 

For puncture sealant application, 

there are two alternative compliance 

options: use an emissions capture 

system and control device and 

demonstrate that the application booth 

emissions meet the specified emission 

limitations and operating limits; or use 

a permanent total enclosure that 

satisfies the Method 204 criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 and demonstrate that the 

control device meets the specified 

operating limits and reduces at least 86 

percent of emissions for existing sources 

and 95 percent of emissions for new 

sources. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94889 

4 It is the practice of the EPA to use the higher 

of the calculated UPL and 3xRDL value when 

setting an emission limit, as describedin the 

memorandum, Data and Procedure for Handling 

Below Detection Level Data in Analyzing Various 

Pollutant Emissions Databases for MACT and RTR 

Emissions Limits, which is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

6. Recent Actions Relating to the 

NESHAP for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Source Category 

In the 2020 Risk and Technology 

Review (RTR) (85 FR 44752), the EPA 

found that the risk associated with air 

emissions from rubber tire 

manufacturing was acceptable 

considering all the health information 

and factors evaluated, and risk 

estimation uncertainty. The EPA found 

that the current NESHAP provides an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. The EPA 

determined that there were no 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technologies that warranted 

revisions to the MACT standards under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). Based on the 

analysis conducted as part of the RTR, 

no revisions to the numerical emission 

limits were made for any of the Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing subcategories. The 

2020 RTR addressed periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by 

clarifying that emissions during SSM 

operations are subject to the NESHAP. 

In addition, the 2020 amendments 

included provisions requiring electronic 

reporting of performance test results and 

reports, compliance reports, and 

Notification of Compliance Status 

reports. 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category in our November 16, 2023, 

proposal? 

In response to the LEAN decision 

requiring the EPA to ensure that missing 

emission standards are promulgated 

when the EPA undertakes a 112(d)(6) 

technology review, on November 16, 

2023, the EPA published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, that took 

into consideration the MACT analyses 

for the rubber processing subcategory. In 

the proposed rule, the EPA proposed 

numerical emissions limits for the 

rubber processing subcategory of the 

rubber tire manufacturing industry, 

which is the only unregulated 

subcategory within the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category with 

unregulated HAP. 

Additionally, EPA solicited comment 

on several aspects of the proposed 

rulemaking. EPA solicited comment on 

the use of THC as a surrogate for organic 

HAP, as well as on the EPA’s approach 

to testing for THC, as opposed to testing 

for individual speciated organic HAP. 

EPA solicited comment on the use of 

THC as a surrogate in place of setting 

emission limits for PAHs, specifically. 

EPA solicited comment on our approach 

regarding the 30-day THC data. EPA 

solicited comment on the proposed 

approach to addressing negative THC 

values. EPA solicited comment on the 

proposed compliance periods, and 

specifically requested submission of 

information from sources in this source 

category regarding specific actions that 

would need to be undertaken to comply 

with the proposed amended provisions 

and the time needed to make the 

adjustments for compliance with any of 

the revised provisions. 

The EPA proposed to establish MACT 

standards for the rubber processing 

subcategory for total hydrocarbons 

(THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP. 

For these MACT standards, we 

proposed a THC emission limit for 

mixers processing silica containing 

compounds and a THC emission limit 

for mixers processing non-silica 

containing compounds. Both limits 

were based on a 15-day rolling average. 

The EPA also proposed MACT 

standards for filterable particulate 

matter (fPM) and metal HAP. The 

emission limits proposed for new and 

existing sources were an emissions limit 

for fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP, 

with an emission limit for total metal 

HAP as an alternative. 

D. What outreach did we conduct 

following the proposal? 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, the EPA offered the opportunity for 

a public hearing, but none was 

requested. However, the USTMA did 

request a meeting with the EPA, and the 

EPA and USTMA met in May 2024 and 

USTMA discussed supplemental testing 

performed by USTMA and the use of 

THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. A 

summary of that meeting is in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the MACT 

provisions of CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category and sets emission 

limitations for the rubber tire processing 

subcategory within the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP based on those 

determinations. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category? 

We are establishing MACT standards 

for the rubber processing subcategory in 

the rubber tire manufacturing source 

category, as required by the CAA. To 

satisfy the requirements of CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3), we are revising the 

NESHAP to include emissions 

limitations for the previously 

unregulated rubber processing 

subcategory including limitations for 

THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP 

emissions; fPM, as a surrogate for metal 

HAP; and an alternative limit for metal 

HAP. The standards in this final rule are 

similar in format to those in the 

proposed rule, but with updates to the 

standards based on public comments 

and additional data received and 

analyzed for the final rule. In the 

proposal, the EPA included separate 

THC standards for silica-containing and 

non-silica-containing processed rubber. 

Based on comments and data received 

during the comment period, the EPA is 

establishing a single MACT standard, 

instead of setting separate standards for 

the mixing of silica-containing and nonsilica containing compounds, as 

proposed. The same THC standard is 

being established for both new and 

existing facilities and is based on 3 

times the representative detection level 

(3xRDL) since this value is larger than 

the calculated Upper Prediction Limit 

(UPL) for THC.4 Also based on the 

public comments, the final rule is 

allowing facility-wide averaging of the 

individual emissions from each mixer to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC 

emission limits. 

The final rule is also setting standards 

for fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP, 

and an alternative standard for metal 

HAP, with the same standards applying 

for new and existing facilities. The final 

standards for fPM and metal HAP are 

also based on the 3xRDL value for fPM 

and metal HAP, since this value is larger 

than the calculated UPL. Also based on 

the public comments, the final rule is 

allowing facility-wide averaging of the 

individual emissions from each mixer to 

demonstrate compliance with the fPM 

emission limits. 

1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

The EPA received data from 5 

facilities for polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions. The PAH 

compounds measured were aniline, 

dibenzofuran, hydroquinone, 

naphthalene, and o-toluidine. The PAH 

emissions were collected using U.S. 

EPA SW–846 Method 0010, extracted 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94890 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw/846/ 

compendium. 

6 In keeping with the EPA’s practice, when all 

pollutant values fall below BDL, no emission limit 

should be established for that pollutant. 

7See the memorandum Data and Procedure for 

Handling Below Detection Level Data in Analyzing 

Various Pollutant Emissions Databases for MACT 

and RTR Emissions Limits, which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

using Method 3542, and analyzed using 

Method 8270E.5

Many of the measured emissions for 

the PAH compounds were below the 

detection limit (BDL) of the approved 

testing method, and others were 

detection level limited (DLL). Results 

are considered BDL when every 

measured result for a compound in a 

test run is less than the laboratory’s 

reported detection level.6 Data is 

considered DLL when only some results 

in a given test run are less than the 

laboratory’s reported detection level for 

that compound. The Agency’s practice 

in establishing emission limits for 

pollutants with DLL values is to use the 

DLL value to calculate the UPL and then 

to compare the calculated UPL to a 

value that is 3 times the pollutant’s RDL 

(3xRDL value). Consistent with our 

practice described in the 

aforementioned memo,7 the larger of the 

UPL calculation or the 3xRDL value 

becomes the emission limit. Reported 

levels of 2 PAH compounds— 

dibenzofuran and hydroquinone—are 

BDL at each facility; therefore, the EPA 

did not propose and is not promulgating 

emission limits for dibenzofuran or 

hydroquinone. The EPA has no data 

indicating the presence of 

polychlorinated dioxins or 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and 

measured unpolychlorinated 

dibenzofuran values are BDL, therefore, 

the EPA did not propose and is not 

promulgating separate emission limits 

for dioxin-like compounds. 

The test results for the remaining PAH 

species—aniline, naphthalene, and otoluidine—were DLL. However, these 

PAH species are also organic HAP and 

hydrocarbons and will be accounted for 

in THC measurements. As such, setting 

both a separate PAH standard in 

addition to a THC standard would be 

redundant and doubly regulate PAH 

emissions. In order to prevent this 

redundance, the EPA did not propose 

and is not promulgating a separate 

emission limit for PAHs and instead 

proposed and is promulgating a limit for 

THC emissions, which will encompass 

PAHs. The THC results include the 

effect of PAH, other organic HAP, and 

VOC contained in exhaust streams and 

are well suited to serve as surrogates for 

these compounds. 

A detailed description of the analysis 

of the PAH data is included in the 

memorandum, Final Rule Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Analysis for the Rubber Processing 

Subcategory in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry, located in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

2. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions 

a. THC Existing Source Standard 

The EPA determined the existing 

source MACT floor THC emission limit 

based on the top 2 performing mixers. 

There are 97 mixers; for a source 

category of this size, the CAA requires 

the EPA to use the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of the existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) when 

establishing the MACT floor level of 

control. The EPA has THC data 

measured for 12 mixers, and 12 percent 

of 12 mixers is 1.44 mixers, which we 

rounded up to 2 mixers for purposes of 

determining the existing source MACT 

floor. The EPA received THC data from 

an additional 5 mixers as a result of the 

ICR, but these data represented the 

uncontrolled emissions from units that 

were collected prior to the emission 

stream entering a regenerative thermal 

oxidizer (RTO) and the EPA did not 

have data for the controlled emissions, 

which would be collected after the 

exhaust stream has passed through the 

RTO. In response to comments, the EPA 

determined the destruction and removal 

efficiency (DRE) of an RTO can vary 

depending on the THC inlet 

concentration, thus a reported DRE 

measured at one THC concentration 

may not be applicable to the THC 

concentrations observed for these 

mixers. As such, without specifically 

measuring DRE values for each THC 

concentration, accurate controlled 

emissions could not be determined for 

these 5 mixers by applying the reported 

DRE to emissions prior to the control 

device. While it is expected that 

emissions from these controlled mixers 

would be low, the EPA does not have 

post-control emission data from these 

mixers. As a result, the EPA is not 

including these 5 mixers in the MACT 

analysis. 

When determining the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources for the MACT floor pool, we 

round fractional amounts to the next 

whole number to ensure that the MACT 

floor calculations are based on no fewer 

than the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources. In this instance, we 

rounded up to 2 mixers for determining 

the existing source MACT floor. The 

EPA is promulgating the MACT floor 

THC emission limit for existing sources 

based on the average 15-day emission 

rate achieved by the 2 best performing 

(i.e. lowest emitting) mixers. From the 

data available, the 2 best performing 

mixers are Continental Mt. Vernon 

mixer #22, which is controlled by an 

RTO, and Goodyear Fayetteville mixer 

#4, which has no control device for 

THC. For these 2 best performing 

mixers, the EPA included each mixer’s 

daily average THC emission rate in a list 

and then calculated 15-day rolling 

averages from the combined daily 

averages. The 15-day rolling averages 

were then used to calculate the 15-day 

UPL THC emission rate in g/Mg rubber 

produced, which was 24 g/Mg. 

The EPA-calculated THC emission 

limits for existing mixers are based on 

the calculated 99 percent UPL or 

3xRDL, whichever is higher, calculated 

from the 15-day rolling averages of the 

data combined from the 2 mixers. 

The 3xRDL for THC for the 2 

combined mixers is 63.1 g/Mg rubber 

produced. Because the 3xRDL value is 

higher than the calculated UPL value 

from the 2 combined mixers, and 

because the EPA rounds up when 

simplifying to 2 significant figures, the 

existing source THC limit in the final 

rule is 64 g/Mg rubber produced. You 

may choose to comply with the THC 

emission limit for each rubber 

processing mixer separately, or for a 

group of rubber processing mixers 

routed to the same control device or 

stack, the emissions and amount of 

rubber processed for the connected 

mixers can be combined. Additionally, 

an alternative facility-wide average for 

THC emissions for all mixers is 

discussed in section A.2.d. 

The maximum THC parts per million 

(ppm) value (from minute-to-minute 

analysis provided during the 

information collection request (ICR)) 

from the 2 best performers is 25 ppm, 

so an appropriate instrument range is 0 

to 50 ppm, which leads to an RDL value 

of 3.082 ppm and a 3xRDL value of 9.25 

ppm. For additional information on how 

the EPA calculated these RDL values 

please see the memorandum titled 

Measurement Detection Capabilities for 

EPA for Instrumental Test Methods 

located in the docket for this rule. When 

this 3xRDL value is combined with the 

average flow rate, and production of the 

best performers, the result is 63.1 g/Mg 

rubber produced. Since the 3xRDL value 

is higher than the UPL value of 24 g/Mg 

rubber produced, the 3xRDL value (63.1 

g/Mg) is the basis for the existing source 

MACT floor for all rubber processing, 

which is then set to 64 g/Mg. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94891 

8CAA section 112(d)(2) provides, in pertinent 

part, that emissions standards promulgated under 

section 112 ‘‘shall require the maximum degree of 

reduction in emisions of the hazardous air 

pollutants,’’ after taking into consideration ‘‘the cost 

of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements,’’ which EPA ‘‘determines is 

achievable.’’ 

Of the 12 mixers for which the EPA 

has measured emissions, 4 mixers (33 

percent) have emissions (based on their 

calculated UPL) that are estimated to be 

greater than the final rule THC limit of 

64 g/Mg rubber produced (rounded to 2 

significant figures) and thus would need 

to install a control device. Therefore, we 

estimate that 33 percent of the 97 mixers 

(33 mixers) located at major sources 

would need to be controlled (e.g., by an 

RTO) to meet the final rule limit. 

Based on data received in response to 

the CAA section 114 information 

request, which shows on average 

currently installed RTOs are shared by 

3 co-located mixers, EPA estimates, on 

average, one RTO will be shared by 3 

mixers for any new RTOs installed as a 

result of this rulemaking. Accounting 

for the current number of mixers and 

RTOs at each major source facility, the 

EPA estimates that a total of 17 RTOs 

(corresponding to a total of 35 mixers) 

would likely be needed to comply with 

this final rule. Given that 9 RTOs 

already exist at the regulated facilities at 

issue, the EPA expects that the 

cumulative impact to industry would be 

the installation of 8 new RTOs. EPA 

acknowledges it is possible some 

facilities may choose to comply with the 

rule through a variety of technology 

pathways including the installation of 

boilers instead of RTOs or a different 

ratio of RTOs to mixers than assumed in 

this analysis. However, EPA has no way 

of accurately knowing how facilities 

will choose to comply thus we are 

unable to determine exactly what 

business decisions firms will make. For 

additional information on how EPA 

calculated the amount of RTOs likely to 

be installed for this rulemaking see the 

memo ‘‘Rubber Processing Control 

Costs, Emission Reductions, and Cost 

Effectiveness’’ available in the docket 

for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

b. THC Beyond-The-Floor Existing 

Source Standard 

In addition to determining the MACT 

floor level of control, as a second step 

in the standard-setting process, the EPA 

must also examine whether to adopt 

additional, and more stringent, 

‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ regulatory options. 

The first step, as discussed in the 

preceding section, requires the 

establishment of an emission floor— 

developed under CAA section 112(d)(3). 

The second step requires consideration 

of whether additional reductions are 

achievable, taking into account the 

factors listed in section 112(d)(2) (i.e., 

cost, non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements). If additional reductions 

are determined to be achievable, taking 

these factors into account, the resulting 

emissions standards are referred to as 

‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ MACT standards.8

Unlike the MACT floor, which 

represents the minimum stringency 

requirement, the EPA must consider 

various impacts of more stringent 

regulatory options when considering 

beyond-the-floor options. If the EPA 

concludes that the more stringent 

regulatory options are not reasonable, 

then EPA selects the MACT floor as the 

final MACT standard. However, if the 

EPA concludes that the beyond-the-floor 

levels of control are reasonable, when 

considering additional emissions 

reductions that would be achieved, then 

those beyond-the-floor measures 

represent the applicable MACT 

standard. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we identify control options or 

techniques that could achieve emission 

reductions beyond the MACT floor level 

of control. The EPA did not identify any 

control options or techniques other than 

what is currently used (i.e., an RTO) that 

could serve as a basis for establishing a 

limit beyond the MACT floor. 

In addition to the lack of additional 

control options, the MACT floor limit 

for the existing source category already 

reflects the lowest concentration that 

can be reliably measured. Following the 

EPA’s well-established approach to 

determining MACT floor limits, the EPA 

is finalizing a MACT floor limit for the 

existing source category that is based on 

the 3xRDL value. This is because—for 

the measurement method and data—the 

value of 3xRDL is higher than the 

combined calculated UPL for the 2 best 

performing sources. This MACT floor 

limit based on 3xRDL reflects the 

detection limit of the measurement 

method and represents the lowest 

concentration that can be reliably 

measured. Because no further 

measurable reductions can be achieved 

from these sources, EPA is unable to 

adopt a beyond-the-floor limit in this 

action. 

c. THC New Source Standard 

The THC MACT emission limits for 

new sources are based on the emission 

limitation achieved by the single best 

performing similar source. However, as 

stated above the MACT floor limit is 

based on the 3xRDL value for the 

measurement method and data because 

the 3xRDL value is higher than the 

combined UPL, and thus represents the 

lowest level at which THC can be 

reliably detected. Because the MACT 

floor limit is based on the 3xRDL value 

for the THC measurements, it is not 

feasible to establish a lower limit. 

Therefore, the final MACT standard for 

new and existing mixers is the MACT 

floor limit and is 64 g/Mg. You may 

choose to comply with the THC 

emission limit for each rubber 

processing mixer separately, or for a 

group of rubber processing mixers 

routed to the same control device or 

stack, the emissions and amount of 

rubber processed for the connected 

mixers can be combined. Additionally, 

an alternative facility-wide average for 

THC emissions for all mixers is 

discussed in section A.2.d. 

d. Alternative THC Standard: FacilityWide Averaging 

In response to the proposed rule, the 

EPA received public comment regarding 

the potential for a facility-wide 

standard. Upon review, the EPA is 

establishing an alternative standard 

based on facility-wide averaging. 

Averaging across rubber mixers is 

appropriate, and consistent with CAA 

section 112(d)(2)–(3), because the total 

quantity of HAP that may be emitted by 

the regulated source is not greater than 

if each mixer complied separately with 

the applicable standard. For additional 

information on EPA’s decision to 

include facility-wide averaging, see the 

Response to Comments document 

available in the docket for this rule 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0392). This standard is based on 

averaging the individual emissions of 

each mixer at a facility. For an 

individual mixer, the THC emission 

limit for both new and existing sources 

is 64 g/Mg (1.3 × 105 lb/Mton) of rubber 

processed; thus, the average for all 

mixers across a facility is also 64 g/Mg. 

Because the THC emission limit is 

already set at the 3xRDL level, no 

emissions discount is applied for setting 

the standard for facility-wide averaging. 

To comply based on averaging, the 

facility would sum the emissions from 

all mixers at the facility over a 15-day 

period and divide the sum of the 

emissions by the sum of the rubber 

processed in all of the mixers at the 

facility over the same 15-day period. 

3. Particulate Matter and Metal HAP 

a. Existing Source Standard 

Based on responses to the CAA 

section 114 information request, the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94892 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA has fPM data from 7 mixers and of 

those metal HAP data is available from 

5 of the mixers. The EPA had no reason 

to assume a difference in fPM and metal 

HAP emissions based on the mixing of 

silica-containing or non-silicacontaining compounds. Thus, a single 

emission standard was calculated for 

mixing all classes of rubber compounds. 

For each mixer, the EPA calculated the 

99 percent UPL for both fPM and the 

sum of the metal HAP that were 

measured (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, 

phosphorous, and selenium). 

Detailed data by individual run and 

for each metal HAP, as well as total 

metal HAP and fPM, were provided and 

are summarized in the memorandum, 

Final Rule Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry, included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In the metal HAP 

measurements for Continental, Mt. 

Vernon, the phosphorous data were 

unreliable because of a contaminated 

reagent and are not included in the table 

and in the total metals. The PM data 

provided from USTMA before proposal 

for Danville mixers #5 and #7 were the 

only data containing fPM and 

corresponding rubber production data. 

The metal HAP data provided for 

Danville mixers #5 and #7 by USTMA 

before proposal were not in the format 

needed to calculate production-based 

emission rates. 

After proposal, the EPA also received 

additional fPM data from USTMA for 4 

mixers as part of their public comments, 

and these data are also summarized in 

Final Rule Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Analysis 

for the Rubber Processing Subcategory 

in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Industry memorandum, available in the 

docket for this rule (Docket ID EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0392). The data for 3 

mixers consisted of at least 3 runs, 

which is consistent with the fPM testing 

that the EPA requested in the ICR, and 

the data for the fourth mixer consisted 

of only 2 runs, which is fewer than the 

minimum number of runs requested in 

the ICR and the number needed to 

calculate a UPL value. 

There are 97 mixers; for a source 

category of this size, the CAA requires 

the EPA to determine the average 

emission limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of the existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has information). 

The EPA has metal HAP data from 5 

mixers. The EPA calculated 12 percent 

of 5 mixers for metal HAP, which 

results in 0.6. When determining the 

best performing 12 percent of existing 

sources for the MACT floor pool, we 

round fractional amounts to the next 

whole number to ensure that the MACT 

floor calculations are based on no fewer 

than the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources. In this instance, we 

rounded the value of 0.6 up to one 

mixer for purposes of determining the 

existing source MACT floor for metal 

HAP. 

Since the EPA has fPM emissions data 

from a total of 10 mixers for which UPL 

values could be calculated, the MACT 

floor final rule limit for fPM is based on 

12 percent of 10 mixers, which is 1.2. 

This includes the 7 tests from the EPA 

ICR, and 3 of the tests from USTMA for 

which a UPL value could be calculated. 

When determining the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources for the 

MACT floor pool, we round fractional 

amounts to the next whole number to 

ensure that the MACT floor calculations 

are based on no fewer than the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources. In this instance, we rounded 

the fPM of 1.2 up to 2 and the metal 

HAP value of 0.6 to one mixer for 

purposes of determining the existing 

source MACT. Because metal HAP are 

emitted as fPM, the EPA is using fPM as 

a surrogate for metal HAP. Additionally, 

the EPA is finalizing an alternative 

emission limit for total metal HAP. Data 

gathered from the CAA section 114 

information request identified that the 

primary control devices utilized for 

metal HAP emissions on rubber tire 

mixers are baghouses and capture of 

fPM will reliably indicate capture of 

metal HAP. It is also practical to use 

fPM as a surrogate for metal HAP 

because the fPM emission limit 

accounts for variability in individual 

metal HAP emission rates among 

different batches of rubber compound 

being mixed. 

The EPA calculated the UPL for fPM 

as 2.5 g/Mg (4900 lb/Mton) of rubber 

produced and total metal HAP emission 

rate of 3.7 × 10¥2 g/Mg (74 lb/Mton) 

rubber produced. The lowest fPM UPL 

emission rate and the lowest metal HAP 

emission rate were measured at the 

same mixer, and the fPM and metal 

HAP emissions were measured 

simultaneously. 

The EPA calculated the 3xRDL for 

fPM using the average flow rate of the 

top 2 mixers. The average flow rate was 

9,622 dry standard cubic feet per minute 

(dscfm) and average production rate was 

17.98 tons per hour (ton/hr) for 

Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1 and 

Goodyear Danville Mixer #7 as 

representative values. The calculations 

also used a fPM RDL of 2 mg and 3xRDL 

of 6 mg in a sample volume of 2 dscm, 

or 3 mg/dscm. These values would 

provide a fPM 3xRDL value of 3.0 g/Mg 

(6,000 lb/Mton) rubber processed. These 

calculations are detailed in the MACT 

memo for the final rule. Because the 

3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the 

final rule fPM emission limit is based on 

the 3xRDLvalue instead of the 99- 

percent UPL value. Rounded to 2 

significant figures, this limit is 3.0 g/Mg 

(6.0 × 103 lb/Mton). 

The EPA also used the flow and 

production data from Goodyear Lawton 

Mixer #1 (top performer) to calculate the 

3xRDL value for total metal HAP. The 

calculations used the RDL values for 

each metal HAP in a sample volume of 

2 dscf. The total metal HAP 3xRDL 

value is 109.7 mg in a sample volume of 

2 dscm, or a value of 5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg 

rubber (110 lb/Mton) rubber processed 

using the flow and production data for 

Goodyear Lawton Mixer #1. Because the 

3xRDL value is greater than the UPL, the 

final rule total metal alternative 

emission limit is based on the 3xRDL 

value instead of the UPL value. 

Rounded to 2 significant figures, this 

limit is 5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg rubber (110 lb/ 

Mton). These calculations are detailed 

in the memorandum titled Final Rule 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Analysis for the 

Rubber Processing Subcategory in the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 

found in the docket for this rule. 

You may choose to comply with the 

fPM emission limit (or the total metal 

HAP alternative) for each rubber 

processing mixer separately, or for a 

group of rubber processing mixers 

routed to the same control device or 

stack, the emissions and amount of 

rubber processed for the connected 

mixers can be combined. Additionally, 

an alternative facility-wide average of 

fPM (or total metal HAP) emissions for 

all mixers is discussed in section A.3.d. 

b. New Source Standard 

The fPM and the total metal HAP 

alternative MACT emission limits for 

new sources are based on the emission 

limitation achieved by the best 

controlled similar source. However, as 

stated above the MACT floor limit is set 

at the value of the 3xRDL for the 

measurement method and data because 

the 3xRDL value is higher than the 

combined UPL. Because the MACT floor 

limit is set at the 3xRDL value for both 

fPM and the total metal alternative 

measurements, it is not feasible to 

establish a lower limit. Therefore, the 

final MACT standard for new and 

existing mixers is the MACT floor limit 

and is 3.0 g/Mg (6,000 lb/Mton) rubber 

processed for fPM and 5.4 × 10¥2 g/Mg 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94893 

9As discussed in supra section III.A.2.b., EPA 

evaluates whether additional regulatory measures 

are appropriate under CAA section 112(d)(2). 

10Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA 716 

F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s 

3-year maximum compliance period applies 

generally to any emission standard . . . 

promulgated under [section 112]’’ (brackets in 

original). 

rubber (110 lb/Mton) for total metal 

HAP. You may choose to comply with 

the fPM emission limit (or the total 

metal HAP alternative) for each rubber 

processing mixer separately, or for a 

group of rubber processing mixers 

routed to the same control device or 

stack, the emissions and amount of 

rubber processed for the connected 

mixers can be combined. Additionally, 

an alternative facility-wide average of 

fPM (or total metal HAP) emissions for 

all mixers is discussed in section A.3.d. 

c. Beyond the Floor Analysis 

In addition to determining the MACT 

floor level of control, the EPA must 

examine more stringent ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ regulatory options when 

establishing the applicable MACT 

emission limitation. Unlike the MACT 

floor minimum stringency requirements, 

when considering beyond-the-floor 

options, the CAA provides that the EPA 

must consider various impacts of the 

more stringent regulatory options in 

determining whether beyond-the-floor 

measures should be included in a final 

MACT emission standard. If the EPA 

concludes that the more stringent 

regulatory options are not reasonable, 

then the EPA selects the MACT floor as 

the final applicable MACT standard. 

However, if the EPA concludes that the 

beyond-the-floor levels of control are 

reasonable considering the additional 

emissions reductions that would be 

achieved, the EPA selects those levels as 

MACT.9

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we identify control options or 

techniques that could achieve emission 

reductions beyond the MACT floor level 

of control. The EPA did not identify any 

control options or techniques other than 

what is currently used. 

The existing source MACT floor limit 

is set at the value of the 3xRDL for the 

measurement method and data because 

the 3xRDL value is higher than the 

average UPL of the 2 lowest emitting 

sources for fPM and the UPL of the 

single lowest emitting source for total 

metal HAP. For both fPM and total 

metal HAP, the existing source MACT 

floor limit is set at the 3xRDL value, 

which represents the lowest 

concentration that can be measured. As 

such, we did not identify additional 

controls for reducing emissions further 

because no further reductions can be 

achieved that are measurable. The final 

MACT standard for existing mixers is 

the MACT floor limit and is set at the 

3×RDL value. 

d. Alternative fPM Standard: FacilityWide Averaging 

In response to the proposed rule, the 

EPA received public comment regarding 

the potential for a facility-wide 

standard. Upon review, the EPA agrees 

with the commenters, and is 

establishing an alternative standard 

based on facility-wide averaging. For 

additional information on EPA’s 

decision to include facility-wide 

averaging, see the Response to 

Comments document available in the 

docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0392). This standard is 

based on averaging the individual 

emissions of every mixer at a facility 

and can be applied to either the fPM or 

total metal HAP standard. For an 

individual mixer, the fPM emission 

limit for both new and existing sources 

is 3.0 g/Mg rubber produced (5.4 × 10¥2

g/Mg for the total metal HAP 

alternative). Averaging this limit across 

all mixers at a facility results in an 

identical emission limit for the facilitywide alternative. Because the facilitywide average emission limit is identical 

to the limit for individual mixers, the 

EPA does not anticipate a difference in 

the achieved emissions reduction. As 

stated above, this approach is consistent 

with CAA section 112(d)(2)–(3), because 

the total quantity of HAP that may be 

emitted by the regulated source is not 

greater than if each mixer complied 

separately with the applicable standard. 

B. What other changes have been made 

to the NESHAP? 

We are updating the electronic 

reporting requirements found in 40 CFR 

63.6009(k) and in 40 CFR 63.6010(g) 

and (h) to reflect new procedures for 

reporting CBI. The update provides an 

email address to which source owners 

and operators can electronically mail 

CBI to the OAQPS CBI Office when 

submitting compliance reports. 

C. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

Amendments to the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP finalized in 

this rulemaking for adoption under CAA 

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

the compliance deadlines outlined in 

the CAA under section 112(i). For 

existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) 

provides that there shall be compliance 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable, but in 

no event later than 3 years after the 

effective date of such standard,’’ subject 

to certain exemptions further detailed in 

the statute.10 In determining what 

compliance period is as ‘‘expeditious as 

practicable,’’ we consider the amount of 

time needed to plan and construct 

projects, as well as any time necessary 

to implement changes in operating 

procedures. As provided in CAA section 

112(i), all new affected sources would 

comply with these provisions by the 

effective date of the final amendments 

to the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is 

later. 

The EPA projects that some existing 

sources may be required to install addon controls to comply with the emission 

limits, including new RTOs and new or 

upgraded baghouses. These sources 

would require time to design, construct, 

conduct performance testing, and 

implement monitoring to comply with 

the revised provisions. Sources would 

also be required to install a THC 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) and conduct 

performance testing. Therefore, the final 

rule allows 3 years for existing sources 

to comply with the new emission 

standards. All affected facilities must 

continue meeting the current provisions 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX, until 

the applicable compliance date of the 

amended rule. This final action does not 

meet the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), 

so the revisions to the MACT standards 

being promulgated by this action are 

effective on November 29, 2024 as 

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

For all affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction on or before November 

16, 2023, the final rule provides 3 years 

after the effective date of the final rule 

(or upon startup, whichever is later) for 

owners and operators to comply with 

the provisions of this action. For all 

affected sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after 

November 16, 2023, owners and 

operators must comply with the 

provisions by the effective date of the 

final rule (or upon startup, whichever is 

later). 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category? 

For each issue, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions 

and amendments, and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94894 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket. 

A. Emission Standards for Unregulated 

Organic HAP Emissions From the 

Rubber Processing Subcategory 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category? 

In the proposed rule, published on 

November 16, 2023, we proposed 

emission limits for THC as a surrogate 

for organic HAP. Separate limits were 

proposed for mixing silica-containing 

and non-silica-containing rubber 

compounds, including different 

emission limits for new and existing 

sources. The proposed emission limits 

were based on the EPA’s determination 

of the MACT floor after options more 

stringent than the MACT floor were 

determined to not be feasible or costeffective. The format of the proposed 

limits was in grams of THC emitted per 

megagram of rubber produced over a 15- 

day period. The proposed limits for 

existing sources were based on the 

average emission rate of the top 2 best 

performing sources, and the limits for 

new sources were based on the lowest 

emitting source. 

2. How did the analysis pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) change 

for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category? 

In the final rule, the EPA is 

promulgating THC emission limits as a 

surrogate for organic HAP for rubber 

processing but has made several 

changes since proposal. First, the EPA 

had proposed separate THC emission 

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

compounds because the EPA believed 

the presence of silica compounds 

impacted the emission profiles. 

However, for the final rule the EPA is 

not promulgating separate standards for 

mixing silica-containing and non-silicacontaining rubber compounds. Second, 

the final THC emission limits for both 

new and existing sources are based on 

the 3xRDL value for THC because that 

value is higher than the calculated UPL 

of the 2 best performing sources for 

THC. Additionally, in response to 

comments, the EPA is not using data 

from mixers that tested and reported 

emissions prior to a control device such 

as an RTO. At proposal the EPA applied 

a DRE to the data from mixers that then 

routed emissions to an RTO, since those 

streams were combined with other 

mixers not being tested at that time. 

Since the EPA does not have true outlet 

data (outlet of control device) from 

those mixers, we determined it is 

inappropriate to use such data to set 

MACT standards. Finally, the EPA is 

allowing facilities to demonstrate 

compliance with the THC emission 

limit by averaging emissions across 

mixers at the same facility. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the analysis pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our 

responses? 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that emissions of organic HAP and THC 

vary too widely between mixers and 

even at different times at the same mixer 

to be practicably measured as the basis 

for an emission standard. The 

commenter noted that data already 

available to the EPA show that emission 

rates and species of organic HAP can 

vary depending on the tire component 

for which the rubber is being mixed, the 

different raw materials added, and the 

mixing conditions. The commenter 

stated that different organic HAP 

emissions are produced during rubber 

mixing from small amounts of organic 

HAP that are contained as impurities in 

the raw materials and are also generated 

by the mixing process when natural and 

synthetic rubbers are mixed at elevated 

temperatures. The commenter added 

that each product formulation may 

include different raw materials and 

ingredients because the unique 

combination of the different raw 

materials and ingredients imparts in a 

tire compound a specific combination of 

certain desired tire properties, such as 

traction, fuel efficiency, noise, vibration, 

robustness, etc. Thus, according to the 

commenter, the organic HAP and THC 

emission profile will differ from tire 

component to tire component and 

within the same tire component, 

between one product formulation and 

another. 

The same commenter added that 

different passes through the mixer 

within the rubber mixing process will 

also impact the levels of organic HAP 

and THC emissions from rubber mixers 

with the 3 major passes (initial, middle, 

and final) being different in terms of the 

raw materials and ingredients added, 

heating temperature, and duration. The 

commenter also noted that each pass 

specification is different from company 

to company and sometimes from plant 

to plant, and the passes that need to be 

run are different from tire component to 

tire component. As a result, according to 

the commenter, each pass will yield 

significantly different organic HAP and 

THC emissions, and the same pass at a 

different tire plant may produce 

significantly different organic HAP and 

THC emissions. The commenter stated 

that these differences in emissions were 

demonstrated by past industry testing, 

the testing in response to the EPA’s ICR, 

and by the supplemental testing results 

submitted with the public comments. 

The commenter argued that 

attempting to determine an appropriate 

emission limitation using an average of 

15 days or longer does not mean that the 

resulting limitation would be 

representative of the actual performance 

of the particular mixers tested for the 

ICR, let alone the entire range of 

operations and designs of the nearly 100 

mixers at major source tire 

manufacturing plants. The commenter 

stated that, depending on when 15 days 

of sampling were conducted, or which 

tire component a mixer happened to be 

processing entirely or primarily during 

emissions testing, the average THC 

concentration emitted could be far 

higher or lower than what would be 

measured during a different 15-day 

interval. The commenter added that 

what each mixer will produce or run, 

however, is entirely dependent on each 

tire plant’s production quota that it 

must meet, and it is nearly impossible 

to forecast more than a couple of weeks 

in advance what each mixer will 

produce or run, such that the results of 

a short-term testing at a mixer that was 

running a certain combination of 

product formulation and pass may not 

be representative or indicative of its 

emission levels at other times. The 

commenter stated that impracticably 

lengthy and wide-ranging testing would 

be required both to ensure that emission 

measurement at such mixers can be 

used to set an emissions standard that 

the mixer can meet at other times and 

to demonstrate compliance with such an 

emissions standard. 

Finally, the commenter noted that 

THC emissions are so variable that the 

agency proposes in its RTR rule to not 

only require each mixer to be equipped 

with a CEMS, but also use a dual-range 

calibration system to capture the range 

of different emission levels. The 

commenter stated that the need to 

install, operate, and maintain a THC 

CEMS device at each mixer carries a 

heavy financial burden which 

underlines the impracticability of 

measuring THC emissions at rubber 

mixers. The commenter estimated that 

based on EPA’s 2007 Cost Tool for 

CEMS, adjusted with current vendor 

costs for continuous monitoring systems 

and updated costs for labor, installing 

continuous THC monitors for all mixers 

would impose a capital cost of millions 

of dollars per facility, with annualized 

capital and operating costs of around 

$180,000 to $1.8 million per plant. The 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94895 

11For calculations of the THC CEMS cost, see the 

memorandum Final Rule—Rubber Processing 

Control Costs Emission Reductions, and Cost 

Effectiveness, available in the docket for this rule 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392. 

commenter estimated that the cost may 

be as much as $9 million annually for 

the rubber tire manufacturing industry 

to monitor THC emissions. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s statement that emissions of 

THC vary too widely to be practicably 

measured. While the EPA acknowledges 

that manufacturing rubber tires, like 

many other manufacturing processes, 

exhibits variable emissions. However, in 

phase I of the 114 information collection 

request, data received showed all 

known mixers within this source 

category have stacks where emissions 

can be measured; as such, emissions 

measured at these point sources may be 

used to set a numerical emission 

standard. The EPA collected from the 

industry and then processed data that 

demonstrate this source variability; the 

EPA obtained from industry test results 

from a variety of mixers at different 

facilities that run different types of 

passes. Data were gathered for 30 days 

per mixer to account for emissions 

variability and show representative data 

during normal operation. Additionally, 

the EPA set emission limits based on a 

15-day average, and the UPL for the 

mixers, which is an approach used by 

the EPA in this and other standards, 

calculated from all 15-day averages in 

the data from each mixer to account for 

variability in emissions. Facilities may 

need to install and operate control 

devices, such as an RTO or similar 

control technology, to account for 

variability while ensuring the emission 

limit is met. 

The Agency agrees with the 

commenter’s assertions that THC CEMS 

are necessary due to variability, as 

stressed by the commenter, but 

disagrees that dual-range calibration 

systems are required, and further 

disagrees that industry would be 

required to pay annualized costs of 

between $180,000 to $1.8 million per 

plant. As mentioned earlier, given the 

potential disparity between and among 

individual mixer emissions, coupled 

with the lack of THC data from source 

owners or operators, the EPA’s ICR 

obtained at least 30 days of continuous 

THC data per mixer. Source owners or 

operators may not have known their 

mixers’ THC emissions or potential 

emission limit during ICR testing; 

however, now that the THC emission 

limit is known, source owners need not 

choose a dual-range THC CEMS; rather 

they can select an instrument with a 

range appropriate for the emission limit. 

Of course, should source owners or 

operators believe additional calibrated 

ranges beyond the emission limit are 

necessary, they are able to select and 

use multiple ranges—but those 

additional range choices represent 

voluntary selection and are not imposed 

by this rule. The EPA agrees that THC 

CEMS have the ability to properly 

measure a wide range of emissions and 

that they also provide those data 

continuously, which allows for ongoing 

compliance demonstration, unlike the 

sporadic compliance demonstration 

offered by periodic testing. As an aside, 

most THC CEMS include a built-in 

variety of ranges, including sitedeveloped and selected ranges, so 

source owners or operators should have 

little trouble narrowing their 

instruments’ focus on a range 

appropriate to the THC emission limit. 

EPA’s Monitoring and Cost Analysis 

Tool shows the initial cost of a THC 

CEMS is less than $145,000 and the 

annualized cost would be less than 

$50,000. Finally, the EPA estimated the 

cost for installing and operating a THC 

CEMS for each individual mixer.11

However, it is likely that facilities will 

choose to share THC CEMS given that 

one THC CEMS should be able to serve 

3 mixers—and perhaps more. 

Comment: One commenter argued the 

EPA should establish work practice 

standards under CAA section 112(h) 

instead of numerical emission limits. 

The commenter stated that the unique 

characteristics of mixing operations at 

tire manufacturing facilities imply that 

not even multiple days of stack testing 

a single mixer would be sufficient to 

produce organic HAP or THC emission 

rates that even that mixer would have a 

high probability of not exceeding during 

other periods of operation. The 

commenter cited Continental’s 2019 

engineering test at Mixer 22, to argue 

that when processing a single worst-case 

rubber formulation or compound most 

likely to generate highest emissions of 

ethanol, the resulting THC emissions 

may be almost 2 times higher than 

during any other time. The commenter 

continued by saying if this single worstcase rubber formulation were processed 

15 days in a row at Mixer 22, it would 

generate THC emissions at rates nearly 

7 times higher than the EPA’s proposed 

THC emission limit for silica-containing 

category for existing sources, even after 

RTO control—despite the fact that the 

EPA identified Continental Mixer 22 as 

the best performing mixer among those 

mixers for which the EPA has test data. 

The commenter stated that it would 

be prohibitively costly and timeconsuming to conduct enough stack 

testing on individual mixers, performed 

on enough mixers, to determine 

emission rates representative of the 

ranges of operations of mixers at tire 

plants, which would be needed to 

support establishment of emissions 

limitations that all mixers would have 

to meet at all times. The commenter 

added that even if stack testing could 

reasonably be accomplished to support 

emission limitations, modifying dozens 

of mixers to allow compliance testing, 

and then conducting enough stack tests 

on each of those mixers to be assured 

that measured emissions fall below the 

emissions limitations, would itself be 

impracticable. 

The commenter argued that mixers, 

therefore, present a clear example of a 

type of source for which the 

measurement of emissions is not 

practicable due to technological or 

economic factors, and so work practice 

standards are authorized and 

appropriate under CAA section 112(h). 

The commenter argues that the 

impracticability of measuring (for 

purposes of establishing emission 

limitations, or for purposes of 

determining compliance) emissions that 

vary widely over time and over the 

variety of products manufactured is 

precisely the kind of situation in which 

the EPA can and should use work 

practice standards. As an example, the 

commenter refers to the EPA rulemaking 

setting MACT standards for periodic 

[batch] brick kilns, where the EPA 

concluded that work standards were 

appropriate due to the wide variety in 

emissions over time and products 

manufactured. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s statement that the EPA 

should recognize that conditions at 

rubber mixers warrant the establishment 

of work practice standards in lieu of 

numerical emissions limits. CAA 

section 112(h) provides, in pertinent 

part, that the EPA may establish a 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard if it is ‘‘not 

feasible’’ for EPA to prescribe or enforce 

an emission standard. CAA section 

112(h)(2)(A) further clarifies that the 

phrase ‘‘not feasible to prescribe or 

enforce an emission standard’’ includes 

situations in which ‘‘a hazardous air 

pollutant or pollutants cannot be 

emitted through a conveyance designed 

and constructed to emit or capture such 

pollutant . . .’’ 

The EPA acknowledges that, like 

many other regulated source categories, 

rubber processing is a ‘‘batch’’ process. 

However, as stated in the 2020 RTR (85 

FR 44752), rubber processing is a 

continuous batch operation which 

generates more consistent emissions 

than other batch processes. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94896 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12See test reports for Continental Mixer 22, 

Goodyear Lawson Mixer 1, Goodyear Fayetteville 

Mixer 8, Goodyear Danville Mixer 7, Michelin 

Mixer 81, and Cooper Mixer 9. Note that Goodyear 

Fayetteville Mixer 8 and Goodyear Lawson Mixer 

1 data are separated according to Belt, Tread, and 

Mixer categories. 

13R-squared values shows the relationship 

between two variable (THC and organic HAP). 

Generally, R-squared values range from 0 to 1. A 

value of 0 implies that there is no relationship, 

while a value of 1indicates a direct relationship. 

Additionally, a 15-day average 

inherently reduces the effect of 

emissions variability and allows owners 

and operators to determine whether it is 

necessary to install and operate a 

control device, such as an RTO, to 

ensure that the emission limit is met at 

all times. As verified in the responses to 

phase I of the ICR, all mixers route to 

stacks which can and should be used for 

testing and for emissions measurements 

to establish appropriate emission limits 

for the rubber processing subcategory. 

As such, since rubber processing 

operations emissions are, or are capable 

of being, routed to stacks, these 

operations do not satisfy the 

requirement described in CAA section 

112(h)(2)(A). 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the test results at 

Continental mixers 12 and 22 in 2019 

support the need for a work practice 

standard. The test results cited by 

commenters were obtained over 

relatively short test runs of only 3 hours 

per test condition. The EPA 

acknowledges that individual mixers 

will exhibit variable emissions, 

depending on the material being mixed 

and the pass of the material through the 

mixer, and this was also shown in the 

phase II emissions testing conducted to 

support this rulemaking. However, the 

EPA has specifically addressed the issue 

of emissions variability by establishing 

the standards based on a 15-day average 

THC emission rate, rather than on shortterm testing. 

The EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that rubber 

processing is comparable to periodic 

[batch] brick kilns. Unlike the process of 

rubber tire production, brick kilns are 

truly batch processes that may take from 

between several days to nearly a week 

(or more) to complete, whereas rubber 

processing is a continuous batch process 

where each batch takes only a few 

minutes, then another batch is mixed 

allowing for more steady emissions. 

Therefore, the type of scenario 

described by commentors (whereby they 

claim that the process with the highest 

emissions could result in exceeding the 

limit seven-fold) is not expected to 

occur during normal business 

operations. In addition, the HAP of 

concern (and their potential surrogates) 

for periodic brick kilns cannot be easily 

measured on a continuous basis, 

whereas THC can be monitored 

continuously with a CEMS. Therefore, 

the situations are not comparable. 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the EPA’s decision to regulate 

organic HAP through the use of THC as 

a surrogate instead of developing a 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard under CAA section 

112(h) because measurement of organic 

HAP emissions from mixing is 

infeasible. The commenter argued that 

the EPA ignored process information 

and emissions testing, provided by 

USTMA members, that showed THC is 

not an appropriate surrogate because it 

is affected primarily by emissions of 

pollutants that are not classified as 

HAPs. The commenter stated that 

organic HAP testing required by the 

EPA through the ICR, as well as 

additional testing conducted at 

numerous USTMA member mixers, 

demonstrated that organic HAP 

emissions are not correlated with THC 

emissions and that HAP emissions are 

affected by different factors. The 

commenter argued that, unlike the 

instances in which the EPA’s use of 

surrogate emission limitations has been 

upheld by the court, in the Rubber 

Processing affected source subcategory, 

even the ‘‘MACT floor’’ best performer 

mixers sometimes do not have emission 

control technologies in place that 

reduce either organic HAPs or THC, nor 

is there some aspect of the mixing 

process that can be controlled that 

affects THC and organic HAPs similarly, 

such as how controlling incomplete 

combustion in a boiler affects both 

carbon monoxide and organic HAP 

emissions. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s statement that THC is not 

a viable surrogate for organic HAP. We 

have long recognized that regulation by 

surrogate is appropriate, so long as 

controlling emissions of the surrogate 

achieves the Act’s requirement to limit 

emissions of corresponding HAPs. See 

Sierra Club v EPA, 863 F.3d at 838 (D.C. 

Cir. 2017); U.S. Sugar v EPA, 830 F.3d 

at 628 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 

EPA acknowledges the commenter 

provided additional data relevant to a 

relationship between THC and volatile 

organic HAP. However, data provided 

by the commenter only shows limited 

data, whereas historical testing (e.g., 

HAP data collected by a predecessor 

rubber tire manufacturing trade 

organization to support the 

development of AP–42 emission factors) 

shows over 40 organic HAP emitted 

from a bench scale mixing operation. 

Additionally, upon further review the 

data submitted relevant to the 

relationship between THC and volatile 

organic HAP was done in short 3 run 

tests, unlike the 30 days of continuous 

THC data collected as part of ICR. As 

the commenter has stated throughout 

their comment document, emissions are 

variable, thus a simple 3 run test for 

THC is not likely to take variability into 

account, unlike the 30-day continuous 

THC data used to set the MACT floor. 

Additionally, the ICR required 

concurrent testing for both semi-volatile 

organic compounds and THC; however, 

the data supplied by the commenter 

were not collected concurrently, greatly 

reducing, if not eliminating, their 

suitability for showing a correlation 

between the datasets due to differing 

operation conditions during data 

collection. Finally, the data collected by 

the commenter were not certified 

according to the requirements of the 

ICR. For these reasons, the EPA is 

unable to assess the usefulness or 

suitability of the data collected and 

submitted by the commenter regarding 

the relationship between THC and 

organic HAP. 

The commenter is expecting a single 

shared correlation to exist across all 

sources; however, the EPA believes each 

source will have its own individual 

relationship between organic HAP and 

THC. The figure below provides an 

example, showing the relationship 

between the concurrently-collected 

organic HAP and THC data obtained 

from the best-performing THC source 

(Continental Mt. Vernon Mixer 22). 

These data were collected, certified, and 

submitted by that source.12 Note that 

THC increases as organic HAP increases 

and that the relationship has an Rsquared value of 0.959, which indicates 

a very high correlation between the THC 

and organic HAP measurements.13

Although the EPA only has concurrent 

organic HAP and THC data from the 

best performing source, we expect, 

based on the data before us, that the 

better performing sources would exhibit 

similarly high correlations. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94897 

14THC vs Organic HAP tables are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

15See EPA’s Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer Fact 

Sheet EPA–452/F–03–021, available at https:// 

nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1008OH5.PDF. 

16See EPA’s Thermal Oxidizer Fact Sheet EPA– 

452/F–03–022, availabe at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2020/11/documents/ 

thermal.pdf. 

17See the memorandum Final Rule—Rubber 

Processing Control Costs, Emission Reductions, and 

Cost Effectiveness available in the docket for this 

rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

Figure 1. Relationship between 

Organic HAP and THC for the best 

performing source. 14

In this case THC encompasses all 

relevant organic HAP emitted. 

Additionally, by using a control device 

such as an RTO, which is currently 

operated in the source category and 

which meets minimum temperature, 

loading, and retention times, one can 

reasonably conclude that the associated 

organic HAP is also being controlled. 

VOC destruction (which includes 

organic HAP) efficiencies range from 95 

to 99 percent, according to EPA’s Air 

Pollution Control Technology Fact 

Sheet.15 Although combustion is a 

complex process that can produce some 

HAP, it is well documented that the use 

of an RTO is an effective way to reduce 

organic HAP.16 While the use of RTOs 

does have secondary impacts,17 the EPA 

expects few HAP emissions created as a 

result of combustion in an RTO: the 

EPA’s experience for any such created 

HAP is that they are below current 

detection levels. 

As a result, the EPA believes THC is 

both a reasonable and viable surrogate 

to represent organic HAP emitted from 

rubber processing. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the EPA cannot subcategorize an 

industry category based on factors that 

are unrelated to HAP emissions, 

including whether silica is an ingredient 

in the rubber compound being mixed, 

whether the mixer has high emissions of 

a non-HAP (THC), or whether the mixer 

already has a particular type of control 

technology. The commenter stated that 

USTMA’s supplemental testing shows 

that high emissions of THC are not 

correlated with high emissions of 

organic HAPs, and thus the EPA should 

not subcategorize mixers or set different 

limitations for mixers where silica is 

used in the compound being mixed 

based on the perception that this leads 

to higher THC emissions. The 

commenter added that even if 

subcategorizing were appropriate 

because of higher THC emissions 

associated with the silanization reaction 

when mixing high-silica tread 

compounds and silane coupling agents 

under certain operating conditions, the 

limits should apply only when silane 

coupling agents are being introduced 

under such operating conditions. The 

commenter argued subcategories should 

not be based solely on the presence of 

silica as an ingredient, because the 

presence of silica as an ingredient on its 

own (without silane coupling agents) is 

not expected to contribute to higher 

THC or organic HAP emissions, and this 

was confirmed by the emissions data the 

EPA collected through the ICR testing 

and supplemental emission testing at 

USTMA member facilities. 

The commenter argued that the EPA’s 

derivation of MACT floor emission 

limitations for THC fails to meet the 

statutory directive because the EPA 

ignored ‘‘emissions information’’ that 

CAA section 112(d)(3) requires it to 

consider, which shows that less than 12 

percent of existing mixers achieve an 

emission limitation reflective of RTO 

controls, because only 4 percent of 

mixers are routed continuously to an 

RTO. The commenter asserted that 

while additional mixers are controlled 

intermittently with an RTO, RTO 

control does not represent an ‘‘emission 

limitation achieved’’ by those additional 

mixers, since an emission limitation, by 

statutory definition and as interpreted 

by the Court and by the EPA, is only a 

level of control that is achieved on a 

continuous basis. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s statement that an increase 

in THC emissions is attributed to the 

addition of both silica and the silane 

coupling agent (forms bonds between 

organic and inorganic materials). Upon 

further evaluation, the EPA agrees there 

are factors other than just the addition 

of silica, such as the inclusion of a 

silane coupling agent, variations in raw 

materials used, and type of rubber being 

processed, that create different emission 

profiles. In response, the EPA decided 

to set a single standard for THC 

emissions from mixers for the final rule. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER29NO24.000</GPH>
94898 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s statement that the EPA 

selected separate standards based on 

what processes were currently 

controlled. As stated in the proposal, 

the EPA determined it was appropriate 

to set separate standards for silicacontaining batches and non-silicacontaining batches due to expected 

different emission profiles between the 

2 processes that use different raw 

materials, because the addition of silica 

leads to chemical reactions producing 

additional organics. The expected 

increase in organics for silica-containing 

batches is represented by higher levels 

of THC emissions compared to nonsilica batches. 

Furthermore, the standard based on 

the application of RTOs as a control 

technology satisfies the CAA’s 

requirement that an emission limitation 

or standard apply continuously. 

Commenters misstate the statutory 

requirements, suggesting that a control 

technology must be used continuously 

for an emission standard to be valid. 

This is incorrect; commenter’s position 

conflates the requirement that a 

standard apply continuously with the 

notion that a control technology, or tool 

used to achieve that standard, apply, or 

be operated continuously. In this MACT 

Final Rule, the EPA determined that one 

standard will apply to all units. The 

requirement to meet this standard is 

‘‘continuous,’’ in that regulated parties 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

emission rate standards at all times (i.e., 

there are no exceptions for periods of 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction). 

However, a regulated party need not 

operate an RTO, if the regulated party 

can demonstrate compliance with the 

emission rate standard. This is 

consistent with other emission 

standards, in that a regulated party is 

generally not required to conform to any 

specific control technology, provided 

they demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standard at all times. 

The EPA disagrees that our MACT 

floor emissions limitation for THC failed 

to meet the statutory directive. The CAA 

provides specific guidance for setting 

MACT standards for source categories 

which include setting the average 

emission limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of the 

existing sources (for which the 

Administrator has emissions 

information). For this source category, 

the EPA only received emissions data 

from 17 mixers, and data from only 12 

mixers represented actual THC 

emissions after the application of any 

controls (THC data from five mixers 

were collected before an RTO and EPA 

was unable to accurately estimate values 

for their emissions after being controlled 

by an RTO); therefore, the EPA set the 

MACT standard for THC using the 

actual THC emissions data from the 12 

mixers that were made available to the 

Administrator as the CAA requires. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

tire plants typically have a number of 

mixers, which may be used for different 

purposes on different days or even 

different portions of a day, and tire 

plants must have the flexibility with the 

mixers to produce the rubber needed for 

various processes within the Tire 

Production affected source, in the 

quantities involved and on the time 

schedule involved. 

The commenter argued that the 

proposed rule treats the mixers as if 

each one operated entirely 

independently of other mixers at the 

plant and would not recognize the 

interplay among mixer exhaust points, 

requiring each mixer exhaust to 

demonstrate compliance with an 

identical emission limitation. 

The commenter recommended that 

instead, numerical emission limitations 

for THC should be expressed as the 

overall average of pounds of THC 

emissions per ton of rubber processed 

for all mixers at the plant. The 

commenter suggested this would 

recognize that mixers are used in an 

interrelated way, and it would allow tire 

plants to more cost-effectively optimize 

controls to prevent excessive emissions 

across the entire facility. The 

commenter noted that the EPA has 

taken this approach for numerous other 

source categories and averaged 

emissions would still reflect MACT. 

The commenter added that expressing 

a THC numerical emission limitation as 

an overall average for all mixers at a 

plant would allow plants to optimize 

their investments by installing controls 

on units where lower emissions can be 

most cost effective, facilitate pollution 

prevention innovations, and facilitate 

tire plants developing measures that 

reduce organic HAP emissions by taking 

advantage of the interconnectedness of 

mixers in ways that might, for example, 

affect emissions only from particular 

compounds or particular passes. 

Finally, the commenter noted that 

emissions averaging may also allow for 

control options that benefit the 

environment by minimizing energy use. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that a facility wide-average 

emission limit for mixers is an 

appropriate approach to account for 

variability in emissions among mixers 

and to provide flexibility in 

demonstrating compliance. In response 

to the comment, the EPA has added an 

alternative compliance option for THC 

that allows facilities to average their 

emissions at all mixers at an individual 

facility to meet the emission limit. (The 

EPA has allowed a similar option for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

limits for fPM described below in 

section IV.B. of this preamble.) 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the final rule? 

For the reasons explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 

78692, November 16, 2023), and in the 

comment responses above in section 

IV.A.3. of this preamble, we are 

finalizing the emission limits for THC as 

a surrogate for organic HAP from rubber 

processing as proposed, but with several 

changes since proposal. First, we are 

establishing a single emission limit for 

THC without separate emission limits 

for subcategories for mixing silicacontaining and non-silica-containing 

compounds to reflect the fact that 

variables other than silica affect 

emissions, such as the inclusion of a 

silane coupling agent, variations in raw 

materials used, and type of rubber being 

processed. Therefore, the EPA 

determined it was not appropriate to 

separate emission limits by silica and 

non-silica. Additionally, by setting a 

single emission limit instead of two 

separate emission limits, the 

compliance demonstration for facilities 

that mix multiple compounds in the 

same mixer at different times will be 

significantly simplified. Second, upon 

additional review of the data and new 

knowledge of emission range that 

contributes to the calculation of 3xRDL, 

we are revising the THC emission limit 

for new and existing rubber processing 

affected sources so that it is equal to the 

3xRDL value for THC emission 

measurements calculated from the 

available testing data. The same 3xRDL 

value will apply to both new and 

existing rubber processing affected 

sources, and the 3xRDL value in the 

final rule is higher than the proposed 

THC emission limits for new and 

existing sources for both silicacontaining and non-silica-containing 

batches. Third, in response to 

comments, we are allowing owners and 

operators to demonstrate compliance 

with the THC emission limit by using 

facility-wide averaging among mixers 

within a single facility. For each 15-day 

compliance period, the owner or 

operator would demonstrate compliance 

using averaging by summing the mass of 

emissions from the mixers included in 

the average over that period and 

dividing that sum by the sum of the 

rubber produced from the same mixers 

over the same period. This change 

results in reducing reporting burden and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94899 

accounts for additional variability 

across the source category. 

B. Emission Standards for Unregulated 

Metal HAP Emissions From the Rubber 

Processing Subcategory 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category? 

Based on responses to the CAA 

section 114 information request, the 

EPA had fPM data from 7 mixers and of 

those metal HAP data from 5 of the 

mixers. The EPA had no reason to 

assume a difference in fPM and metal 

HAP emissions based on the mixing of 

silica-containing or non-silicacontaining compounds, as silica was 

expected to cause an increase in organic 

emissions, which does not impact PM. 

Thus, a single emission standard was 

proposed for mixing of all rubber 

compounds. For each mixer, the EPA 

calculated the 99 percent UPL for both 

fPM and the sum of the metal HAP that 

were measured (antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 

phosphorus, and selenium). The CAA 

requires the EPA to determine the 

average emission limitation achieved by 

the best performing 12 percent of the 

existing sources (for which the 

Administrator has information) when 

establishing the MACT floor level of 

control. There are an estimated 97 

mixers in the source category, and the 

MACT floor is calculated using data 

from the top performing 12 percent of 

mixers for which we have data. At 

proposal, the EPA had fPM data from 7 

mixers and of those metal HAP data for 

5 of the mixers. The EPA calculated 12 

percent of 7 mixers (fPM) and 12 

percent of 5 mixers (metal HAP) which 

results in 0.84 and 0.6, respectively. 

When determining the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources for the 

MACT floor pool, we rounded the 

fractional amounts to the next whole 

number of mixers. In this instance, we 

rounded up to one mixer for purposes 

of determining the existing source 

MACT floors for both the fPM and metal 

HAP emission limits. 

When setting new source MACT 

floors, the emission limit is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source. As a result, the MACT floors for 

both new and existing sources are based 

on the best performing existing source. 

Based on responses to the CAA section 

114 information request, all mixers in 

this subcategory are controlled by a 

baghouse or similar control devices 

which control PM emissions. 

To account for variability in the 

rubber processing operations and 

resulting emissions, the stack test data 

were used to calculate the PM MACT 

floor limits based on the 99 percent 

UPL. 

We calculated the MACT floor UPL 

emission rate for fPM as 1.7 g/Mg (3,410 

pounds per million tons (lb/Mton)) 

rubber produced, and a total metal HAP 

UPL emission rate of 0.037 g/Mg (74.1 

lb/Mton) rubber produced. The lowest 

fPM emission rate and the lowest metal 

HAP emission rate were measured at the 

same mixer, and the fPM and metal 

HAP emissions were measured 

simultaneously. Because metal HAP are 

emitted as fPM, the EPA proposed an 

emission limit for fPM as a surrogate for 

metal HAP, and also an alternative 

emission limit for total metal HAP itself. 

The baghouses that are used to capture 

fPM will also reliably capture metal 

HAP, and the fPM emission limit 

accounts for variability in individual 

metal HAP emission rates among 

different batches of rubber compound 

being mixed. 

Because the proposed standards for 

new and existing sources are based on 

the best performing mixer, which is 

already controlled by a baghouse, and 

no more effective controls than a 

baghouse for PM or metal HAP are in 

use or were identified, we did not 

identify any beyond-the-floor options to 

evaluate for either existing or new 

mixers. 

2. How did the analysis pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) change 

for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category? 

Since proposal, the EPA has received 

additional fPM data for 3 mixers 

(bringing the total to 10) and has 

recalculated the MACT floor to include 

the additional data and has also 

recalculated the 3xRDL values for fPM 

and metal HAP. (The EPA also received 

fPM data for a fourth additional mixer 

in the public comments, but those data 

did not include the production data 

needed to calculate emissions per mass 

of rubber processed, so the fourth mixer 

could not be included in the final rule 

MACT analysis.) The final rule limits 

for fPM and metal HAP have been 

increased since proposal. The existing 

source MACT floor UPL has been 

recalculated using the combined data 

from the 2 lowest emitting mixers 

because they represent 12 percent of the 

10 mixers for which the Administrator 

now has fPM data. The EPA has also 

recalculated the 3xRDL value to reflect 

the higher number of sources for which 

the Administrator has data. 

The final rule limits for fPM and 

metal HAP also include the option of 

facility-wide averaging among mixers to 

demonstrate compliance. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the analysis pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our 

responses? 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the EPA should find that HAP 

metals emissions from mixers are 

already controlled and are incidental to 

the very efficient dust control measures 

that are an integral part of mixing 

operations for materials recovery 

purposes and safety reasons, and 

therefore there is no ‘‘gap’’ that is 

‘‘necessary’’ for the EPA to fill under 

CAA section 112(d)(6), as the EPA 

effectively already recognized in the 

2020 RTR rulemaking. The commenter 

asserted it is inappropriate to impose 

additional costs for essentially no 

benefit, since metals emissions from 

mixing are already low, often below 

detection limits, and the EPA has 

already determined the residual risk 

from metals emissions from all 

processes at tire plants is acceptable. 

However, the commenter agreed that if 

the EPA nevertheless imposes new 

limits on HAP metal emissions from 

mixing, then total fPM is an appropriate 

surrogate, and establishing alternative 

emission limitations for HAP metals as 

the EPA proposed is permissible under 

the CAA. 

The commenter also argued that the 

EPA should base the MACT floor for 

fPM on more than just a single mixer 

and supplied additional particulate test 

data from which the EPA could 

calculate a fPM emission limitation 

substantially higher than what the EPA 

proposed. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that 

there is no ‘‘gap’’ in the standards for 

metal HAPs. While mixers operate 

baghouses to control nuisance PM, the 

current MACT standard does not 

specifically regulate emissions of metal 

HAP or the fPM surrogate from mixers. 

Metal HAPs emitted during rubber 

processing include, antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 

phosphorus, and selenium. 

The court in National Lime 

Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633– 

34 (D.C. Cir. 2000), found that section 

112(d)(1) requires the EPA to set 

emissions standards for all listed HAP 

emitted from each listed major source 

category (or subcategory). The court in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 878 

(D.C. Cir. 2007) confirmed the prior 

holding in National Lime Association 

that section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94900 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

18See LEAN, 955 F.3d 1088 at 109 (‘‘We hold that 

. . . EPA’s section 112(d)(6) review of a source 

category’s emission standard must address all listed 

air toxics the source category emits.’’ 

19The commenter cited the data presented on 

pages 4–6 of Attachment 4 of docket item 

EPA&HQ–OAR–19–0132. 

20The commenter cited, e.g., National Ass’n of 

Clean Water Agencies v . EPA, F.3d 1115, 1132 

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘[A]s we explained in Sierra Club, 

it is reasonable to expect that the incinerator on 

which the MACT floors are based should be able 

to ‘in practice,’ which it could not do unless 

‘achieved in practice’ meant ‘achieved under the 

worst forseeable circumstancfes,’ ’’) (internal 

citations omitted); Mossville Environmental Action 

Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 

(‘‘[E]ven the best performing sources occasionally 

have spikes, and under the standard, each facility 

must meet the 400 ppm standard every day and 

under all operating conditions.’’ 

to set emissions standards for all listed 

HAP emitted from each listed major 

source category (or subcategory). 

Additionally, the LEAN decision 

requires that when the EPA undertakes 

a 112(d)(6) technology review, it must 

set a MACT standard for previously 

unregulated pollutants, even if there is 

a prior risk assessment that identifies 

the risk from those pollutants as 

‘‘low.’’ 18 This requirement, that the 

EPA address all enumerated air toxic 

pollutants, is applicable to the EPA 

regardless of any findings that the EPA 

has made regarding the risk posed by 

the expected emission levels from those 

currently unregulated pollutants, or 

other cited considerations from 

commenters. 

The CAA does not authorize the EPA 

to decline to set the emission limits 

required by 112(d)(1) because a risk 

assessment under 112(f)(2) finds that the 

existing standards provide an ample 

margin of safety. It is clear that Congress 

intended the EPA to set technologybased standards that address all emitted 

HAP, and the EPA does not agree that 

the absence of such limits in an existing 

NESHAP justifies a decision at this 

point not to address all emitted HAP 

from a major source. 

Additionally, the CAA provides 

specific guidance for setting MACT 

standards for source categories, which 

includes setting the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of the existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information). For this 

source category the EPA received fPM 

emissions data from 7 mixers before 

proposal and from 3 more mixers since 

proposal that could be used to calculate 

UPL values for each mixer. Therefore, 

for the proposed rule, the EPA set the 

MACT standard using the top 12 

percent of the 7 mixers data (i.e., the 

best performing mixer) that was made 

available to the administrator at 

proposal, as the act requires. However, 

after proposal the EPA received 

additional fPM data representing 4 more 

mixers, including 3 mixers with enough 

data to calculate a UPL value. (The data 

for one mixer included only 2 runs.) For 

the final rule, the EPA has recalculated 

the MACT floor for existing sources 

using the data from the 2 best 

performing mixers, but the MACT floor 

for new sources is still equal to the best 

performing source. The MACT floor fPM 

UPL emission limit for existing sources 

from the combined data for the 2 lowest 

emitters is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 × 103 lb/Mton). 

However, the recalculated 3xRDL from 

the same 2 mixers is equal to 3.0 g/Mg 

(6.0 × 103 lb/Mton). 

The EPA acknowledges the 

commenter agrees with the EPA that 

fPM is an appropriate surrogate for HAP 

metals, noting that fPM contains HAP 

metals and that fPM control devices 

such as baghouses also collect HAP 

metals, just as THC emissions contain 

organic HAP and that THC control 

devices such as thermal oxidizers also 

control organic HAP emissions. 

This rule correctly applies statutory 

requirements, consistent with past 

Agency practice, to select the best 

performing source and to calculate 

appropriate emission limits. In keeping 

with regulatory requirements and past 

Agency practice, this rule applies 

techniques to ensure source owners or 

operators can determine compliance 

with the rule on a continuous basis. 

While use of PM CEMS could provide 

this information, the rule allows the use 

of bag leak detection system (BLDS) 

parameter measurement to supply data 

upon which compliance can be 

determined. The commenter’s assertion 

that mixer emissions are too variable 

and should escape regulation appears to 

disregard the use of a 15-day averaging 

period, which, as described earlier, 

smooths out production and emissions 

spikes and dips. Contrary to the 

commenter’s view, BLDS parameters 

provide a better description of ongoing 

baghouse operation than the typical 

baghouse continuous parameters of 

pressure drop and flow rate, which 

typically only show catastrophic failure. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the EPA must base the fPM 

emission limitations on stack tests 

conducted while mixing nonproductive 

rubber. The commenter stated that the 

EPA has long recognized that the 

majority of emissions from rubber 

mixing occur during nonproductive 

passes, such as in the documentation 

supporting the AP–42 emission factors 

for rubber tire manufacturing. The 

commenter noted that most of the raw 

materials are added during the 

nonproductive passes, so one would 

expect that fPM emissions during 

nonproductive passes are greater than 

during mixing of productive rubber. The 

commenter noted that the available fPM 

emissions data from both the ICR testing 

and the additional fPM stack testing 

data submitted by the commenter show 

that fPM emissions were higher when 

mixing non-productive passes: over 

twice as high on a concentration basis 

and over 5 times higher on a mass of 

fPM per mass of rubber processed 

basis.19

The commenter asserted that MACT 

floor emissions must represent an 

emissions rate that the best performers 

can achieve under the worst-case 

conditions,20 and an fPM emission 

limitation based on what the best 

performers achieve during productive 

passes would not reflect what those 

mixers can achieve during nonproductive passes. The commenter 

stated that a majority of mixers at majorsource tire plants either are presently 

used or could be used for nonproductive passes, and non-productive 

mixing is essential for processing rubber 

for rubber tire components. The 

commenter added that the EPA would 

have to conduct additional fPM 

emissions testing and data collection 

and re-propose if the EPA wanted to 

create 2 subcategories of mixers for 

productive and non-productive rubber 

fPM emission limitations. Thus, 

according to the commenter, the EPA 

must establish fPM surrogate emissions 

limitations based only on testing that 

occurred while mixing non-productive 

rubber. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that the 

final rule limit cannot be achieved by 

sources during the mixing of nonproductive rubber passes. The emission 

standard was developed based on data 

submitted to EPA by regulated parties, 

and the emission standard is therefore 

‘‘achieved in practice’’ by the best 

controlled similar source. See CAA 

section 112(d)(3). In the data provided 

by USTMA in Attachment 6 to their 

comments, Goodyear Mt. Vernon Mixer 

#14 achieved an average emission rate 

of 2.3 g/Mg while mixing nonproductive rubber on all 3 passes. As 

explained above in the response to 

comments in this same section, the EPA 

has revised the fPM limit in the final 

rule to 3.0 g/Mg and added facility wide 

averaging allowing for increased 

flexibility to account for variability in 

emissions. Therefore, the final rule 

emission limits are achievable during 

the mixing of non-productive rubber on 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94901 

all passes.. For a detailed discussion of 

the EPA stance on worst-case 

performance, see section IV.c. of the 

Response to Comments document found 

in the docket for this rule. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the final rule? 

For the reasons explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 

78692, November 16, 2023), and in the 

comment responses above in section 

IV.B.3. of this preamble, we are 

promulgating emission limits for fPM 

from rubber processing with several 

changes since proposal. First, we are 

revising the emission limit for both fPM 

and metal HAP. For fPM, we are basing 

the existing source MACT floor on the 

average performance of the 2 lowest 

emitting sources instead of the single 

lowest emitting source because we have 

more fPM data than at proposal. We 

have fPM data for 10 mixers and 12 

percent of 10 is 1.2, which is rounded 

up to 2 mixers. The UPL calculated for 

the combined data for the 2 lowest 

emitting mixers is 2.4 g/Mg (4.9 × 103

lb/Mton) rubber produced. 

We have also recalculated the 3xRDL 

value to reflect the higher number of 

mixers for which the Administrator has 

data. The 3xRDL value recalculated for 

the final rule is 3.0 g/Mg (6.0 × 103 lb/ 

Mton) rubber produced. Because this 

value is higher than the revised UPL 

value(s) for new and existing sources, 

the final rule is based on the 3xRDL 

values for fPM. 

C. Emission Testing and Compliance 

Demonstrations 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing source 

category? 

The EPA proposed that facilities 

demonstrate compliance with the THC 

emission limits by monitoring the 

emissions from each mixer with a CEMS 

and also monitoring production and 

calculating the emission rate in grams 

THC per megagram rubber produced (g/ 

Mg) on a 15-day rolling average. The 

EPA proposed that compliance would 

be demonstrated for each mixer 

separately. 

The EPA also proposed that THC 

emissions would be measured at the 

outlet for each RTO on a 5-year interval 

and during the testing operating limits 

would be established for each RTO. 

The EPA proposed that facilities 

could choose to comply with either the 

emission limit for fPM or the alternative 

emission limit for total metal HAP and, 

accordingly, measure fPM emissions 

using EPA Method 5 or the metal HAP 

emissions using EPA Method 29. The 

fPM or metal HAP measurements would 

be required every 5 years. For each 

baghouse, owners and operators would 

need to install and operate a bag leak 

detection system. 

2. How did the analysis pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) change 

for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category? 

The final rule will allow facilities to 

average among mixers to demonstrate 

compliance with both the THC and fPM 

or metal HAP emission limits. The final 

rule does not include the requirement to 

perform a THC compliance test every 5 

years and does not require the facility to 

establish and comply with operating 

limits for the RTO, but instead requires 

the use of THC CEMS. The other 

proposed emission testing and 

monitoring compliance requirements 

have been retained in the final rule. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the analysis pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our 

responses? 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the rule should not require multiple 

THC CEMS at each mixer exhaust point 

instead of allowing for measurement of 

THC emissions at the actual point at 

which they exhaust to the atmosphere. 

The commenter suggested that this 

approach would reduce the number of 

THC CEMS required and also eliminate 

the need for continuous monitoring of 

RTO combustion temperature and a 5- 

year repeat performance test using 

Method 25A. The commenter added that 

if the EPA requires use of CEMS for 

compliance, then parameter monitoring, 

and a 5-year repeat performance test are 

not needed. 

Response: The EPA recognizes that 

because sources will be operating THC 

CEMS that will continuously record the 

THC concentration in the emissions at 

the stack, there is no need to require 

operating limits for the RTOs (e.g., 

operating temperature) if an RTO is 

being used for compliance and there is 

similarly no need for a periodic (e.g., 

every 5 years) performance test of the 

RTO. Therefore, the operating limits for 

RTOs and the periodic THC testing 

requirement have been removed from 

the final rule. 

In addition, as explained above in 

section IV.A., the final rule will allow 

for demonstrating compliance with 

facility-wide emission limits for THC, 

which will also allow for use of a single 

THC CEMS at the exhaust point for 

combined mixer exhausts and reduce 

the number of THC CEMS needed. 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the proposal to require BLDS as the 

continuous compliance demonstration 

method for the proposed PM emission 

limit for rubber processing because they 

were not justified by the current fPM 

and metal HAP from particulate controls 

on mixers and the EPA has not justified 

them as a beyond-the-floor technology. 

The commenter reported that no 

BLDS are currently installed at rubber 

processing facilities, and over 100 BLDS 

will need to be installed as a result of 

the proposed requirement, resulting in 

additional capital costs not only for the 

monitors and data acquisition and 

handling system, but also for stack/duct 

modifications to accommodate a 

monitor. The commenter noted that the 

EPA has estimated that the proposed 

standards will result in a reduction of 

only 318 lb of metal HAP per year and 

asserted that installation of a 

complicated monitoring system that is 

not currently in use in the industry is 

not reasonable for the expected HAP 

reduction. The commenter stated that 

facilities currently employ pressure 

drop and/or visible emissions 

observations along with a program of 

regular internal and external inspections 

and maintenance of the duct work and 

baghouse to ensure compliance with PM 

limits in their air permits. 

The commenter recommended that 

the EPA should replace the requirement 

for BLDS with the use of baghouse 

pressure drop or twice daily visible 

emissions monitoring to ensure 

baghouses are operating properly as the 

continuous compliance determination 

method. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggestion to rely on 

continuous parameter monitoring other 

than that associated with BLDS; those 

other parameters—including visible 

emissions, flow rate, or pressure drop— 

do not provide relevant information 

quickly enough to correct problems 

before emission limits may be 

compromised. For example, the 

commenter mentions twice daily visible 

emission checks; such an approach is 

not continuous and detection with the 

human eye is only possible at 5 percent 

opacity and above. As a result, lower 

opacities may yield fPM values that 

exceed the emission limits but would 

occur undetected by visible emission 

checks. As mentioned earlier, flow rate 

and pressure drop across baghouses can 

indicate catastrophic failures, but not 

provide information to preclude 

baghouse problems before exceedances 

occur. Of course, owners or operators 

could use PM CEMS in lieu of BLDS; 

PM CEMS would provide direct, 

continuous measurement of the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94902 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

21This range of disbenefit estimates is presented 

in 2022 dollars and was calculating by multiplying 

the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) by 17,536 metric 

tons of CO2e reductions for each year in the 

timeframe of 2027 to 2036. We applied near-term 

Ramsey discount rates of 2.5 percent, 2.0 percent, 

and 1.5 percent,and found that the largest disbenefit 

estimate was 2036 when using a 1.5 percent nearterm Ramsey discount rate. Additional information 

on the social cost of carbon and an EPA workbook 

for applying SC-CO2 estimates is found here: 

https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/ 

scghg. 

pollutant of concern and would enable 

source owners or operators to forgo any 

type of fPM control device parameter 

monitoring. Using the process in the 

NESHAP general provisions, mentioned 

earlier, owners or operators could 

request—and expect to receive— 

approval from the EPA for use of PM 

CEMS for rule compliance purposes. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the final rule? 

For the reasons explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 

78692, November 16, 2023), and in the 

comment responses above in section 

IV.C.3. of this preamble, we are 

finalizing emission testing and 

compliance demonstration requirements 

as proposed, but with several changes 

since proposal. 

First, the EPA has removed the 

requirement for a periodic THC 

compliance test and compliance with 

THC operating limits and monitoring 

(e.g., RTO operating temperature) 

because THC emissions will be 

continuously monitored by a THC 

CEMS. The final rule will also allow for 

demonstrating compliance with facilitywide emission limits for THC, which 

will also allow for use of a single THC 

CEMS at the exhaust point for combined 

mixer exhausts and reduce the number 

of THC CEMS needed. 

Second, the EPA believes requiring 

BLDS will provide significantly more 

accurate and continuous feedback on 

the operation of a baghouse and can 

provide an earlier indication of 

potential bag leaks compared to the 

requested visible emission inspections. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

As listed in CFR 63.5982 (b)(4), the 

rubber processing affected source is the 

collection of all rubber mixing processes 

(e.g., banburys and associated drop 

mills) that either mix compounds or 

warm a rubber compound before the 

compound is processed into 

components of rubber tires. The mixed 

rubber compound itself is also included 

in the rubber processing affected source. 

Among the 15 major sources that are 

subject to the NESHAP, 12 facilities 

perform rubber processing, while 3 

facilities do not perform rubber 

processing and use rubber that is 

processed at other facilities. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

This action proposes first-time MACT 

floor-based emission standards for THC 

(as a surrogate for organic HAP), metal 

HAP, and fPM from rubber processing. 

These first-time MACT standards will 

limit HAP emissions and require, in 

some cases, the installation of 

additional controls at rubber tire 

manufacturing plants that are major 

sources of HAP. We estimate that the 

rubber tire manufacturing industry will 

comply with the final standards for 

THC, metal HAP, and fPM through the 

installation and operation of control 

devices. 

For THC, we estimate that the 

installation of RTOs or similar control 

devices will achieve annual reductions 

of THC of 94 Mg (104 tons) across the 

source category. 

For fPM and metal HAP, we estimate 

that the replacement or upgrade of 

baghouses will achieve annual 

reductions of fPM of 61 Mg (67 tons) or 

0.073 Mg (160 lb) of total metal HAP 

(antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, 

phosphorous, and selenium) across the 

source category. 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts are impacts that would result 

from the increased energy usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices (e.g., increased secondary 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

power plants). Energy impacts are due 

to use of natural gas needed to operate 

control devices and other equipment. 

We conclude that the secondary impacts 

of this action are minimal, resulting 

from the operation of the control device, 

and would comprise CO2 and methane 

(CH4) emissions from the combustion of 

the natural gas required to operate an 

RTO. For purposes of assessing the 

projected disbenefits, we estimate that 

the monetized disbenefits would be no 

greater than $8.1 million in any year, 

with estimates ranging from $2.7 

million to $8.1 million per year 

depending on the discount rate 

assumption.21

For the final rule, we estimate that 8 

new RTOs would be needed and each 

RTO would consume about 29,800 

thousand standard feet (mscf) per year 

of natural gas and 1.33 million kilowatt 

hours per year of electricity. For all 8 

new RTOs, the indirect greenhouse gas 

emissions of CO2 and CH4 from the 

combustion of the natural gas and the 

generation of electricity would be 

equivalent to 19,330 tons (17,536 Mg) of 

CO2 emissions. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

This action proposes MACT floorbased emission limits for new and 

existing sources in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category, 

specifically the rubber processing 

subcategory. Although the action 

contains requirements for new sources, 

we are not aware of any new sources 

being constructed now or planned in the 

next 3 years and we are not aware of any 

new additional mixers to existing 

facilities. Consequently, we did not 

estimate any cost impacts for new 

sources. We estimate the total 

annualized cost of the final rule to 

existing sources in the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category to be 

$13.3 million per year. The costs are a 

combination of the annualized capital 

and annual operating costs for installing 

and operating RTOs or similar control 

devices to control THC and organic 

HAP; baghouses and associated BLDSs 

to control fPM and metal HAP; and THC 

CEMS to monitor THC emissions. The 

capital and annual costs are 

summarized in table 2. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS

Cost element 

Total 

capital 

investments 

(million) 

Annualized 

equipment and 

operation and 

maintenance 

costs 

(million) 

RTOs (8 new) ...................................................................................................................................................... $25.0 $4.9 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94903 

22This estimate is based on the use of a ‘‘benefitper-ton’’ (BPT) approach to estimate the benefits of 

this rulemaking assuming that all fPM2.5 These BPT 

estimates provide the estimated monetized human 

health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and 

premature mobidity) of reducing one tone of the 

PM2.5 from a specified source. Specifically, in this 

analysis, we multiplied the estimates from the 

‘‘Synthetic Organic Chemicals’’ sector by the 

corresponding emission reductions. The method 

used to derive these estimates is described in the 

BPT Technical Support Document on Estimating 

the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted 

PM2.5 

23U.S. EPA, 2022. Estimating PM2.5- and OzoneAttributable Health Benefits. Office of Air and 

Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS—Continued 

Cost element 

Total 

capital 

investments 

(million) 

Annualized 

equipment and 

operation and 

maintenance 

costs 

(million) 

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

Total Annual RTO and CEMS Costs ........................................................................................................... ........................ 9.1 

New Baghouses (46 mixers) ............................................................................................................................... 19.6 2.0 

Retrofitted Baghouses (new bags; 34 mixers) .................................................................................................... ........................ 0.5 

BLDS and PM Testing (114 BLDS) ..................................................................................................................... 2.54 1.7 

Total Annual Baghouse, BLDS, and PM Testing Costs .............................................................................. ........................ 4.2 

Totals ............................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 13.3 

The estimated annual costs are based 

on operation and maintenance of the 

added control systems. A memorandum 

titled Final Rule Rubber Processing 

Control Costs, Emission Reductions, 

And Cost Effectiveness, includes details 

of our cost assessment, and is included 

in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The EPA conducted economic impact 

analyses for the final rule in the report 

titled Economic Impact Analysis for the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Amendments, Final, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2019–0392). The economic impacts of 

the final rule are calculated as the 

percentage of total annualized costs 

incurred by affected ultimate parent 

owners compared to their revenues. 

This ratio provides a measure of the 

direct economic impact to ultimate 

parent owners of facilities while 

presuming no impact on consumers. We 

estimate that none of the ultimate parent 

owners affected by this final rule will 

incur total annualized costs of 1 percent 

or greater of their revenues. Thus, these 

economic impacts are low for affected 

companies and the industry impacted 

by the final rule, and there will not be 

substantial impacts on the markets for 

affected products. We lack the 

information necessary to independently 

assess the downtime loss of production 

due to capital improvements or deferred 

maintenance that would be associated 

with these controls for each affected 

facility. The costs of the final rule are 

not expected to result in a significant 

market impact, regardless of whether 

they are passed on to the purchaser or 

absorbed by the firms. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The benefits of this rule include any 

benefits relating to the reduction of 

emissions of organic HAP and fPM. The 

rule is projected to reduce emissions of 

THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP, 

and fPM, as a surrogate for metal HAP, 

through the installation and operation of 

control devices. The reduction in fPM 

can also result in associated reduction 

in PM-related mortality and morbidity. 

The EPA is currently unable to 

monetize most benefits associated with 

HAP reductions. The potential benefits 

from reducing THC were not monetized 

and are therefore not reflected in the 

benefit estimates associated with this 

rulemaking. However, we estimate that 

the final rule amendments would 

reduce THC emissions by 104 tons/yr 

and metal HAP emissions by 160 lb/yr 

and thus lower risk of serious adverse 

health effects from exposure to certain 

HAPs in communities near rubber tire 

manufacturing plants. It is reasonable to 

expect that emissions reductions from 

this rule will improve air quality and 

public health for populations exposed to 

emissions from rubber tire 

manufacturing facilities. Due to 

methodology and data limitations, we 

could not monetize the health benefits 

of HAP reductions for this final 

rulemaking. 

Although we are unable to quantify 

the benefits of reducing HAPs from this 

rulemaking, we are providing a 

qualitative assessment of the benefits of 

reducing both organic and metal HAPs. 

This is detailed in section 4 of Economic 

Impact Analysis for the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Amendments, Final, which is available 

in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). These 

HAPs include, but are not limited to, the 

following: organic HAPs such as 2- 

butanone, acetophenone, cumene, 

hexane, isooctane, methylene chloride, 

phenol, toluene, and xylene, and metal 

HAPs such as antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 

phosphorus, and selenium. 

The control measures are expected to 

reduce fPM by 66.7 tons/yr for the 

source category. Any monetization of 

PM-related health benefits would 

require the EPA to assume the 

percentage of fPM that is PM2.5. As the 

percentage of the fPM reductions that is 

PM2.5 is unknown, it is too uncertain to 

estimate the PM-related benefit impacts 

of this rule. For purposes of assessing 

the economic significance of these 

benefits, we can determine that if all of 

the fPM were PM2.5, the annual benefits 

would be estimated to be no greater than 

$24 million, occurring in 2028.22

Therefore, this action is not 

economically significant based on 

benefit impacts. This rule is expected to 

limit emissions of directly emitted 

PM2.5, which may will in turn reduce 

ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and in 

turn benefit public health. Though EPA 

neither quantified nor monetized these 

benefits, we anticipate reducing PM2.5

concentrations will reduce the 

incidence or premature death, non-fatal 

heart attacks, cases of aggravated 

asthma, lost days of work and school 

and other adverse effects (U.S. EPA, 

2022).23 This rule is also expected to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94904 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

24 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis’’, U.S. 

EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 3–Key 

Analytic Considerations, page 11. https:// 

www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical/ 

guidance/assessing-environmental/justice/ 

regulatory/analysis. 

reduce emissions of Hg. Methylmercury 

(MeHg), which is formed by microbial 

action in the top layers of sediment and 

soils, after mercury has precipitated 

from the air and deposited into 

waterbodies or land, can cause a 

number of adverse effects when 

impacting fishes associated with 

recreational or commercial consumption 

and present at sufficiently elevated 

levels. Though not quantified here, 

these effects include IQ loss measured 

by performance on neurobehavioral 

tests, particularly on tests of attention, 

fine motor-function, language, and 

visual spatial ability. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

For purposes of analyzing regulatory 

impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 

2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory 

Analysis,’’ which provides 

recommendations that encourage 

analysts to conduct the highest quality 

analysis feasible, recognizing that data 

limitations, time, resource constraints, 

and analytical challenges will vary by 

media and circumstance. The Technical 

Guidance states that a regulatory action 

may involve potential environmental 

justice concerns if it could: (1) create 

new disproportionate impacts on 

communities with EJ concerns; (2) 

exacerbate existing disproportionate 

impacts on communities with EJ 

concerns; or (3) present opportunities to 

address existing disproportionate 

impacts on communities with EJ 

concerns through this action under 

development. 

The EPA’s EJ technical guidance 

states that ‘‘[t]he analysis of potential EJ 

concerns for regulatory actions should 

address three questions: (A) Are there 

potential EJ concerns associated with 

environmental stressors affected by the 

regulatory action for population groups 

of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there 

potential EJ concerns associated with 

environmental stressors affected by the 

regulatory action for population groups 

of concern for the regulatory option(s) 

under consideration? (C) For the 

regulatory option(s) under 

consideration, are potential EJ concerns 

created or mitigated compared to the 

baseline?’’ 24

The environmental justice analysis is 

presented for the purpose of providing 

the public with as full as possible an 

understanding of the potential impacts 

of this final action. The EPA notes that 

analysis of such impacts is distinct from 

the determinations finalized in this 

action under CAA section 112, which 

are based solely on the statutory factors 

the EPA is required to consider under 

this section. 

We did not conduct any new 

demographic analyses for this final rule. 

There were no known changes to the 

population of Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing facilities nor any known 

changes to our estimates of HAP 

emissions from Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing facilities since proposal. 

Therefore, the EPA relied on the 

demographic analysis performed for the 

2020 proposal for this final rulemaking. 

In the 2020 proposal, we conducted a 

baseline proximity analysis and baseline 

risk-based analysis (i.e., before 

implementation of any controls 

promulgated by this action). The 

baseline proximity demographic 

analysis is an assessment of individual 

demographic groups in the total 

population living within 5 kilometers 

(km) (approximately 3.1 miles) and 50 

km (approximately 31 miles) of the 

facilities. The baseline risk-based 

demographic analysis is an assessment 

of risks to individual demographic 

groups in the population living within 

5 km and 50 km of the facilities prior 

to the implementation of any controls 

promulgated by this action. The results 

of the proximity demographic analysis 

and the risk-based demographic analysis 

for populations living within 5 km and 

50 km are included in the document 

titled Analysis of Demographic Factors 

for Populations Living Near Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Source Category 

Operations, which is available in the 

docket for this action (see Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392–0069). 

The results of the proximity analysis 

conducted for the 2020 proposal 

indicated that a total of approximately 

516,000 people live within 5 km of the 

21 Rubber Tire Manufacturing facilities. 

The percent of the population that is 

Black (24 percent, 124.000 people) is 

double the national average (12 

percent). The percent of people living 

below the poverty level (21 percent, 

108,000 people) and the percent of 

people over the age of 25 without a high 

school diploma (16 percent, 83,000 

people) are higher than the national 

averages (14 percent and 14 percent, 

respectively). The results of the baseline 

proximity analysis indicate that the 

proportion of other demographic groups 

living within 5 km of Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing facilities is similar to or 

below the national average. 

The baseline risk-based demographic 

analysis conducted for the 2020 

proposal, indicated that emissions from 

the source category, prior to the controls 

we are proposing, expose approximately 

4,500 people living near 21 facilities to 

a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 

(maximum individual risk is 4-in-1 

million) and expose no people to a 

chronic noncancer target organ-specific 

hazard index (TOSHI) greater than 1 

(maximum noncancer HI is 0.2). The 

percent of the baseline population with 

estimated cancer risks great than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million that are Black (25 

percent, 1,000 people) is more than 2 

times the average percentage of the 

national population (12 percent). The 

percent of the population with cancer 

risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 

million resulting from Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing source category 

emissions prior to the proposed controls 

that is Below the Poverty Level (21 

percent, 1,000 people) is above the 

national average (14 percent). 

As indicated in section V.B. of this 

preamble, this final action is projected 

to reduce HAP emissions from Rubber 

Tire Manufacturing facilities by setting 

first time emission limits on the mixing 

operation. As a result, we expect risk for 

all exposed individuals and 

communities will also be reduced. See 

section V.B. of this preamble for more 

details. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

In the July 24, 2020, final Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing RTR rule (85 FR 44752), 

the EPA conducted a residual risk 

assessment and determined that risk 

from the Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

source category was acceptable, and the 

standards provided an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health (see 

Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0392–0013). There are no known 

changes that would increase risk, thus 

the EPA relied on the 2020 demographic 

analysis for this rulemaking. In 

addition, this action promulgates firsttime emissions standards for THC and 

fPM and metal HAP, including mercury 

and lead which are known to cause 

particular impacts to children’s health 

and/or from early life exposure, for the 

rubber processing subcategory, which 

will further reduce emissions. 

Specifically, we estimate that the new 

emission limits will reduce THC and 

fPM emissions by 94 Mg/yr and 61 Mg/ 

yr, respectively. 

This action’s health and risk 

assessments are protective of the most 

vulnerable populations, including 

children, due to how we determine 

exposure and through the health 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94905 

benchmarks that we use. Specifically, 

the risk assessments we perform assume 

a lifetime of exposure, in which 

populations are conservatively 

presumed to be exposed to airborne 

concentrations at their residence 

continuously, 24 hours per day for a 70- 

year lifetime, including childhood. With 

regards to children’s potentially greater 

susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, 

the assessments rely on the EPA’s (or 

comparable) hazard identification and 

dose-response values that have been 

developed to be protective for all 

subgroups of the general population, 

including children. For further details 

on the health and risk assessments can 

be found in the document ‘‘Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Source Category Operations,’’ available 

in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 

14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review 

This action is a ‘‘ significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, 

EPA submitted this action to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Executive Order 12866 review. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the Executive Order 12866 

review is available in the docket. The 

EPA prepared an economic analysis of 

the potential impacts associated with 

this action. This analysis is briefly 

summarized in section V. Summary of 

Cost, Environmental, and Economic 

Impacts and Additional Analyses 

Conducted. This analysis, ‘‘ Economic 

Impact Analysis for the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Amendments, Final’’ (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392), is also 

available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this final rule have been submitted 

for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the PRA. The ICR document that the 

EPA prepared has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 1982.06. You can find a 

copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 

The information collection requirements 

are not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The final rule ICR describes changes 

to the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP associated with 

the incorporation of reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with the new and existing source MACT 

standards for THC, fPM, and metal HAP. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Owners or operators of rubber tire 

manufacturing facilities conducting 

rubber processing operations that are 

major sources. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

XXXX). 

Estimated number of respondents: 12. 

Frequency of response: Initially, 

semiannually, annually. 

Total estimated burden: The average 

annual burden to industry over the next 

3 years from the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements is estimated to 

be 1,162 hours per year. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for all 

facilities to comply with all of the 

requirements in the NESHAP is 

estimated to be $2.12 million per year. 

This includes labor costs of $149,000 

per year and non-labor capital and 

operations and maintenance costs of 

$1.97 million per year for monitoring 

systems for the final rubber processing 

amendments when they are fully 

implemented. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The Agency has determined 

that none of the 4 ultimate parent 

companies owning the potentially 

affected facilities are small entities, as 

defined by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. Details of this analysis 

are presented in ‘‘ Economic Impact 

Analysis for the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

Amendments, Final,’’ which is located 

in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local, or Tribal governments 

or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The EPA does not know of 

any rubber tire manufacturing facilities 

owned or operated by Indian Tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 

(as amended by Executive Order 14094), 

and because the EPA does not believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

risks due to HAP emissions from this 

source category were found to be 

acceptable for all populations (e.g., with 

inhalation cancer risks less than or 

equal to 4-in-1 million for all 

populations and non-cancer hazard 

indexes are less than 1). The 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analyses are included in a 

technical report, Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Demographic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source 

Category Operations, available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). The firstVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:38 Nov 27, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM 29NOR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94906 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

time emission standards for THC and 

fPM (or metal HAP) promulgated by this 

action, will further reduce emissions 

and thereby protect children’s health. 

However, EPA’s Policy on Children’s 

Health applies to this action. 

Information on how the Policy was 

applied is available under ‘‘What 

analysis of children’s environmental 

health did we conduct’’ in section V.G. 

of this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. In 

this final action, the EPA is setting 

emission standards for two previously 

unregulated pollutants. This does not 

impact energy supply, distribution, or 

use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing NESHAP through the 

Enhanced National Standards Systems 

Network (NSSN) Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a 

review of voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) organizations and 

accessed and searched their databases. 

We conducted searches for EPA 

Methods 5, 25A, 29, SW–846, M0010, 

SW–846 M3542, SW–846, M8270E, 

M204, PS 8A, and QA Procedure 2. 

During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title 

or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

that of the EPA’s referenced method, the 

EPA ordered a copy of the standard and 

reviewed it as a potential equivalent 

method. We reviewed all potential 

standards to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data that meet the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering, and 

policy equivalence to procedures in the 

EPA referenced methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for any 

particular VCS. 

Two VCS were identified as 

acceptable alternatives to EPA test 

methods for this final rule. The VCS 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Part 10 of 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

3B (the manual portion only and not the 

instrumental portion). The voluntary 

consensus standard ASTM D6784–16— 

Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method) D6784–16 was revised and 

approved in 2016 to include better 

quality control than the earlier 2008 

version. It is an acceptable alternative to 

EPA Methods 101A and Method 29 

(portion for particulate mercury only) as 

a method for measuring mercury. [Note: 

this acceptability applies to 

concentrations between approximately 

0.5 and 100 micrograms per normal 

cubic meter (mg/Nm3)]. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981– 

Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,’’ a method for quantitatively 

determining the gaseous constituents of 

exhausts resulting from stationary 

combustion and includes a description 

of the apparatus, and calculations which 

are used in conjunction with 

Performance Test Codes to determine 

quantitatively, as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 3B of 

appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 for the 

manual procedures only and not the 

instrumental procedures. The manual 

method segment of the oxygen 

determination is performed through the 

absorption of oxygen. This VCS may be 

obtained from Two Park Avenue, New 

York, NY 10016–5990; phone: (800) 

843–2763; email: CustomerCare@

asme.org; website: https://

www.asme.org. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)’’ as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 

(particulate portion for mercury only) as 

a method for measuring mercury 

concentrations ranging from 

approximately 0.5 to 100 mg/Nm3. This 

test method describes equipment and 

procedures for obtaining samples from 

effluent ducts and stacks, equipment 

and procedures for laboratory analysis, 

and procedures for calculating results. 

VCS ASTM D6784–16 allows for 

additional flexibility in the sampling 

and analytical procedures for the earlier 

version of the same standard VCS 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008). 

The EPA is also incorporating by 

reference EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric 

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

September 1997. This document 

provides guidance on the use of 

triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag 

leak detectors. The document includes 

fabric filter and monitoring system 

descriptions; guidance on monitor 

selection, installation, setup, 

adjustment, and operation; and quality 

assurance procedures. The document is 

reasonably available and can be viewed 

or downloaded at https://nepis.epa.gov/ 

Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF. 

Detailed information on the VCS 

search and determination can be found 

in the memorandum, ‘‘Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Amendments,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0329). The two VCS may be obtained 

from https://www.astm.org or from the 

ASTM Headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428– 

2959. The standards are available to 

everyone at a cost determined by ASTM. 

The costs of obtaining these methods are 

not a significant financial burden, 

making the methods reasonably 

available. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that the human 

health and environmental conditions 

that exist prior to this action do not 

result in disproportionate and adverse 

effects on communities with EJ 

concerns. The risks due to HAP 

emissions from this source category 

were found to be acceptable for all 

populations (e.g., with inhalation cancer 

risks less than or equal to 4-in-1 million 

for all populations and non-cancer 

hazard indexes are less than 1). The 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analyses are included in a 

technical report, Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Demographic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source 

Category Operations, available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0392). 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not likely to result in new 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. We expect this final rule to 

achieve reductions in HAP emissions. 

This final rule will provide additional 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94907 

benefits to all populations, including 

these demographic groups that have a 

greater representation in the 50 km 

radius of modeled facilities, by 

establishing new emission limits for 

rubber processing. 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

section V.F. of this preamble. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action does not meet the 

criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 

part 63 as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Amend § 63.14 by revising 

paragraphs (f)(1), (i)(105), and (o)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], issued 

August 31, 1981; §§ 63.116(c) and (h); 

63.128(a); 63.145(i); 63.309(k); 

63.365(b); 63.457(k); 63.490(g); 63.772(e) 

and (h); 63.865(b); 63.997(e); 63.1282(d) 

and (g); 63.1450(a), (b), (d), (e), (g); 

63.1625(b); table 5 to subpart EEEE; 

§§ 63.3166(a); 63.3360(e); 63.3545(a); 

63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 

63.4766(a); 63.4965(a); 63.5160(d); table 

4 to subpart UUUU; tables 5, 16, and 17 

to subpart XXXX; table 3 to subpart 

YYYY; table 4 to subpart AAAAA; 

§ 63.7322(b); table 5 to subpart DDDDD; 

§§ 63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b); 

63.8000(d); table 4 to subpart JJJJJ; table 

4 to subpart KKKKK; §§ 63.9307(c); 

63.9323(a); 63.9621(b) and (c);table 4 to 

subpart SSSSS; tables 4 and 5 of subpart 

UUUUU; table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ; 

§§ 63.11148(e); 63.11155(e); 63.11162(f); 

63.11163(g); table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ; 

§§ 63.11410(j); 63.11551(a); 63.11646(a); 

63.11945. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(105) ASTM D6784–16, Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in 

Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR 

approved for §§ 63.1450(d); 63.9621; 

table 5 to subpart AAAAA; table 17 to 

subpart XXXX; table 5 to subpart 

UUUUU; appendix A to subpart 

UUUUU. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(4) EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter 

Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

September 1997; IBR approved for 

§§ 63.548(e); 63.864(e); 63.6012(c); 

63.7525(j); 63.8450(e); 63.8600(e); 

63.9632(a); 63.9804(f); 63.11224(f); 

63.11423(e). (Available at: https://

nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf). 

* * * * * 

Subpart XXXX—National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

■ 3. Amend § 63.5981 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 63.5981 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) * * * 

(1) Rubber tire manufacturing 

includes rubber processing, the 

production of rubber tires and/or the 

production of components integral to 

rubber tires, the production of tire cord, 

and the application of puncture sealant. 

Components of rubber tires include, but 

are not limited to, rubber compounds, 

sidewalls, tread, tire beads, tire cord and 

liners. Other components often 

associated with rubber tires but not 

integral to the tire, such as wheels, inner 

tubes, tire bladders, and valve stems, are 

not components of rubber tires or tire 

cord and are not subject to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 63.5982 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.5982 What parts of my facility does 

this subpart cover? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) The tire production affected source 

is the collection of all processes that use 

or process cements and solvents as 

defined in § 63.6022, located at any 

rubber tire manufacturing facility. It 

includes, but is not limited to: Storage 

and mixing vessels and the transfer 

equipment containing cements and/or 

solvents; wastewater handling and 

treatment operations; tread and cement 

operations; tire painting operations; ink 

and finish operations; undertread 

cement operations; process equipment 

cleaning materials; bead cementing 

operations; tire building operations; 

green tire spray operations; extruding, to 

the extent cements and solvents are 

used; cement house operations; marking 

operations; calendar operations, to the 

extent solvents are used; tire striping 

operations; tire repair operations; slab 

dip operations; other tire building 

operations, to the extent that cements 

and solvents are used; and balance pad 

operations. 

* * * * * 

(4) The rubber processing affected 

source is the collection of all rubber 

mixing processes (e.g., banburys and 

associated drop mills) that either mix 

compounds or warm rubber compound 

before the compound is processed into 

components of rubber tires. The mixed 

rubber compound itself is also included 

in the rubber processing affected source. 

On and before November 29, 2024, there 

are no emission limitations or other 

requirements for the rubber processing 

affected source. The emission 

limitations for the rubber processing 

affected source are effective after 

November 29, 2024. 

(c) An affected source that is not a 

rubber processing affected source is a 

new affected source if construction of 

the affected source commenced after 

October 18, 2000, and it met the 

applicability criteria of § 63.5981 at the 

time construction commenced. An 

affected source that is a rubber 

processing affected source is a new 

affected source if construction of the 

affected source commenced after 

November 16, 2023, and it met the 

applicability criteria of § 63.5981 at the 

time construction commenced. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 63.5983 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.5983 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source that is not a rubber 

processing affected source, you must 

comply with the emission limitations 

for existing sources no later than July 

11, 2005. If you own or operate a rubber 

processing affected sources that began 

construction or reconstruction before 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94908 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

November 16, 2023, you must comply 

with the emission limitations for 

existing rubber processing existing 

sources no later than November 29, 

2027. 

* * * * * 

(d) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.6016 according to 

the schedule in § 63.6016 and in subpart 

A of this part. Some of the notifications 

must be submitted before the date you 

are required to comply with the 

emission limitations in this subpart. 

■ 6. Amend § 63.5990 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.5990 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) Before January 21, 2021, you must 

be in compliance with the applicable 

emission limitations specified in tables 

1 through 4 to this subpart at all times, 

except during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction if you are 

using a control device to comply with 

an emission limit. After January 20, 

2021, you must be in compliance with 

the applicable emission limitations 

specified in tables 1 through 4 to this 

subpart at all times. After November 29, 

2024, you must be in compliance with 

the applicable emission limitations for 

rubber processing specified in tables 15 

and 16 to this subpart at all times 

according to the compliance dates in 

§ 63.5983. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Before January 21, 2021, ongoing 

data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general 

requirements of § 63.8(d). After January 

20, 2021, ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d)(1) and 

(2). The owner or operator shall keep 

these written procedures on record for 

the life of the affected source or until 

the affected source is no longer subject 

to the provisions of this part, to be made 

available for inspection by the 

Administrator. If the performance 

evaluation plan is revised, the owner or 

operator shall keep previous (i.e., 

superseded) versions of the performance 

evaluation plan on record to be made 

available for inspection by the 

Administrator, for a period of 5 years 

after each revision to the plan. The 

program of corrective action should be 

included in the plan required under 

§ 63.8(d)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Revise § 63.5992 to read as follows: 

§ 63.5992 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

If you use a control system (add-on 

control device and capture system) to 

meet the emission limitations, you must 

also conduct a performance test at least 

once every 5 years following your initial 

compliance demonstration to verify 

control system performance and 

reestablish operating parameters or 

operating limits for control systems 

used to comply with the emissions 

limits. The requirements of this 

paragraph do not apply to the 

measurement of THC emissions that are 

monitored with a continuous emission 

monitoring system for demonstrating 

compliance with the THC emission 

limitations for rubber processing in 

§ 63.6009. When complying with the 

emission limits for rubber processing in 

§ 63.6009 for fPM or metal HAP based 

on averaging to comply with the facilitywide average alternatives, the 

subsequent performance tests must 

begin no later than 5 years after the first 

test of the averaged mixers is performed. 

■ 8. Revise and republish § 63.5993 to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.5993 What performance tests and 

other procedures must I use? 

(a) If you use a control system to meet 

the emission limitations, you must 

conduct each performance test in table 

5 to this subpart that applies to you, 

except that for the rubber processing 

affected source, you must conduct 

performance tests according to table 17 

instead of table 5. 

(b) Each performance test must be 

conducted according to the specific 

conditions specified in table 5 to this 

subpart, except that for the rubber 

processing affected source, you must 

conduct performance tests according to 

table 17 instead of table 5. 

(c) Before January 21, 2021, you may 

not conduct performance tests during 

periods startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1). 

After January 20, 2021, performance 

tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and 

shutdown unless specified by the 

Administrator or an applicable subpart. 

The owner or operator may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

must record the process information 

that is necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

the entire range of normal operation, 

including operational conditions for 

maximum emissions if such emissions 

are not expected during maximum 

production. The owner or operator shall 

make available to the Administrator 

such records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(d) Before January 21, 2021, you must 

conduct three separate test runs for each 

performance test required in this 

section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1) 

unless otherwise specified in the test 

method. Each test run must last at least 

1 hour. After January 20, 2021, you must 

conduct three separate test runs for each 

performance test required in this 

section, as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section, unless otherwise specified 

in the test method. Each test run must 

last at least 1 hour. 

(e) If you are complying with the 

emission limitations using a control 

system, you must also conduct 

performance tests according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(3) of this section as they 

apply to you. The provisions of 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this 

section do not apply to the rubber 

processing subcategory. 

(1) Determining capture efficiency of 

permanent or temporary total enclosure. 

Determine the capture efficiency of a 

capture system by using one of the 

procedures in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(2) Determining capture efficiency of 

an alternative method. As an alternative 

to constructing a permanent or 

temporary total enclosure, you may 

determine the capture efficiency using 

any capture efficiency protocol and test 

methods if the data satisfy the criteria of 

either the Data Quality Objective or the 

Lower Confidence Limit approach in 

appendix A to subpart KK of this part. 

(3) Determining efficiency of an addon control device. Use Table 5 to this 

subpart to select the test methods for 

determining the efficiency of an add-on 

control device. 

■ 9. Amend § 63.5996 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.5996 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits for tire 

production affected sources? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.6016(e). 

■ 10. Amend § 63.5999 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94909 

§ 63.5999 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits for tire 

cord production affected sources? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.6016(e). 

■ 11. Amend § 63.6002 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6002 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits for 

puncture sealant application affected 

sources? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.6016(e). 

■ 12. Amend § 63.6004 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6004 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits for tire production affected sources? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet an emission 

limit in table 1 to this subpart. You must 

also report each instance in which you 

did not meet the applicable 

requirements in table 10 to this subpart. 

These instances are deviations from the 

emission limits in this subpart. The 

deviations must be reported in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 63.6017(e). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 63.6006 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6006 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits for tire cord production affected 

sources? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet an applicable 

emission limit in table 2 to this subpart. 

You must also report each instance in 

which you did not meet the applicable 

requirements in table 12 to this subpart. 

These instances are deviations from the 

emission limits in this subpart. The 

deviations must be reported in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 63.6017(e). 

■ 14. Amend § 63.6008 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6008 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations for puncture sealant application 

affected sources? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet an applicable 

emission limit in table 3 to this subpart. 

You must also report each instance in 

which you did not meet the applicable 

requirements in table 14 to this subpart. 

These instances are deviations from the 

emission limits in this subpart. The 

deviations must be reported in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 63.6017(e). 

■ 15. Add undesignated center heading 

‘‘Emission Limits for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources’’ immediately 

following § 63.6008. 

■ 16. Redesignate §§ 63.6013 through 

63.6015 as §§ 63.6020 through 63.6022 

and transfer undesignated center ‘‘Other 

Requirements and Information’’ to 

immediately before newly redesignated 

§ 63.6020. 

■ 17. Redesignate §§ 63.6009 through 

63.6012 as §§ 63.6016 through 63.6019 

and transfer undesignated center 

heading ‘‘Notifications, Reports, and 

Records’’ to immediately before newly 

redesignated § 63.6016. 

■ 18. Add new §§ 63.6009 through 

63.6015, undesignated center heading 

‘‘Emission Limits for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources’’ before new 

§§ 63.6009, undesignated center heading 

‘‘Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources’’ immediately 

following new § 63.6010, and 

undesignated center heading 

‘‘Continuous Compliance Requirements 

for Rubber Processing Affected Sources’’ 

immediately following new § 63.6013 to 

read as follows: 

Emission Limits for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources 

§ 63.6009 What emission limits must I meet 

for rubber processing affected sources? 

§ 63.6010 What are my alternatives for 

meeting the emission limits for rubber 

processing affected sources? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources 

§ 63.6011 How do I conduct tests and 

procedures for rubber processing affected 

sources? 

§ 63.6012 What are my rubber processing 

monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements? 

§ 63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits for 

rubber processing affected sources? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements for 

Rubber Processing Affected Sources 

§ 63.6014 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits for 

rubber processing affected sources? 

§ 63.6015 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits for 

rubber processing affected sources? 

Emission Limits for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources 

§ 63.6009 What emission limits must I 

meet for rubber processing affected 

sources? 

(a) You must meet the emission limit 

for total hydrocarbons (THC) and either 

total metal HAP or the alternative 

emission limit for filterable particulate 

matter (fPM) in table 15 to this subpart 

that applies to you. You may choose to 

comply with each emission limit for 

each rubber processing mixer separately 

or for a group of rubber processing 

mixers routed to the same control 

device or stack, or with an alternative 

for all mixers combined based on a 

facility-wide average. 

(b) You must also meet each operating 

limit in table 16 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

§ 63.6010 What are my alternatives for 

meeting the emission limits for rubber 

processing affected sources? 

(a) You must comply with the 

applicable emission limit for THC in 

table 15 of this subpart for each rubber 

processing mixer or a group of rubber 

processing mixers routed to the same 

control device, or you must demonstrate 

compliance by averaging among all 

mixers and comply with the limit as a 

facility-wide emission limit. 

(b) You must demonstrate compliance 

with either the emission limit for fPM 

or the alternative emission limit for total 

metal HAP in table 15 of this subpart; 

if you demonstrate compliance with the 

alternative fPM emission limit, you do 

not have to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for metal HAP. 

You must comply with the applicable 

emission limit for fPM or metal HAP in 

table 15 of this subpart for each rubber 

processing mixer or group of rubber 

processing mixers routed to the same 

control device, or you must demonstrate 

compliance by averaging among all 

mixers and comply with the limit as a 

facility-wide emission limit. 

(c) For each rubber processing mixer, 

you must show that the control device 

and capture system meet the operating 

limits in table 16 to this subpart. 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources 

§ 63.6011 How do I conduct tests and 

procedures for rubber processing affected 

sources? 

(a) Conduct any required compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.5993 (b), (c), and 

(d). 

(b) You must use the methods in table 

17 of this subpart and according to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94910 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this 

section to measure emissions and stack 

gas flow rates and characteristics to 

determine THC and fPM or metal HAP 

mass emission rates in grams per day. 

(1) You must operate a THC CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 63.6012 and Performance 

Specification 8A in appendix B to 40 

CFR part 60. For the purposes of 

conducting the accuracy and quality 

assurance evaluations for CEMS, the 

reference method (RM) is Method 25A 

of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. 

Owners or operators are responsible for 

ensuring their instruments provide 

appropriate data continuously. If a THC 

monitor will be used for an emission 

stream that could have a wide 

variability in THC concentrations 

because of mixing both high-emitting 

and low-emitting compounds at 

different times, then a dual-span 

monitor should be considered for use. If 

the THC monitor is used for emissions 

that are relatively constant, then a dualspan monitor may not be needed, but it 

remains the responsibility of source 

owners or operators to make that 

determination. Owners and operators 

cannot discard from the compliance 

determination THC concentration data 

that exceed the calibration range of the 

monitor. 

(2) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the 

initial compliance test for the first 15 

mixer operating days after the 

applicable compliance date for each 

mixer. All THC values must be used as 

they are recorded by the THC CEMS, 

except that negative values equal to or 

greater than to ¥5 should be treated as 

zeros, and values less than (i.e., more 

negative than) ¥5 cannot be used as 

valid compliance data in the 

calculations. 

(3) To convert the THC concentration 

measurements to mass emission rates, 

you must measure the volumetric flow 

rate in the same duct or stack in which 

the THC concentration is monitored no 

less frequently than once every 5 years. 

You may use the same flow rate 

measurements that are completed for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

emission limits for fPM or total metal 

HAP according to table 17 of this 

subpart. If you change operations in a 

way that would likely result in a change 

to volumetric flow rate, you must 

conduct an additional measurement of 

the new volumetric flow rate. 

(c) You must monitor mixed rubber 

compound processed in each mixer in 

Mg per day during the testing for THC. 

During the testing for fPM or total metal 

HAP, you must monitor the mixed 

rubber compound processed in each 

mixer in Mg for the same periods that 

fPM or total metal HAP testing runs are 

performed, excluding the mass of rubber 

processed during the time between fPM 

or metal HAP sampling runs. 

(d) You must use the methods in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this 

section to calculate the THC emission 

rate for the 15-day initial compliance 

period to demonstrate initial 

compliance. You must use the average 

THC emission rate obtained during the 

first 15 mixer operating days after the 

applicable compliance date to 

determine initial compliance for each 

mixer, group of mixers routed to the 

same control device or stack, or all 

mixers combined if complying with the 

facility-wide average alternative. 

(1) Use Equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section to calculate the 15-day 

average THC emission rate in grams 

THC per megagram of mixed rubber 

compound processed. This emission 

rate is calculated for each rubber mixer 

separately, group of mixers routed to the 

same control device or stack, or for all 

rubber mixers combined if complying 

with the facility-wide average 

alternative. 

Equation 1 to Paragraph (d)(1) 

Where: 

E15 days = Emission rate of the THC emitted 

per total mass of mixed rubber 

compounds processed per 15-day period, 

grams THC per megagram of mixed 

rubber compound processed. 

THCi = Daily THC emissions for each day 

during the 15-day compliance period, 

grams/day, using the methods in 

paragraph (b) of this section. These THC 

emission values are calculated for each 

rubber mixer separately if compliance is 

demonstrated for each mixer separately, 

or for all rubber mixers combined if 

complying with the facility-wide average 

alternative. If you are demonstrating 

compliance for two or more mixers 

routed to the same control device or 

stack, then these THC emission values 

are calculated using the data for the 

combined mixer emissions at the 

common stack. 

RPi = Daily mass of mixed rubber compound 

processed for each day i during the 15- 

day compliance period, megagrams/day. 

These rubber mass processed values are 

calculated for each rubber mixer 

separately if compliance is demonstrated 

for each mixer separately, or for all 

rubber mixers combined if complying 

with the facility-wide emission average 

alternative. If you are demonstrating 

compliance for two or more mixers that 

are routed to the same control device or 

stack, then these rubber mass values are 

calculated for the combined mass 

processed for the mixers that share the 

common stack. 

(2) Use Equation 2 to paragraph (d)(2) 

of this section to calculate the THC 

emission rate in grams per day THC as 

propane for each day i in the 15-day 

initial compliance period for rubber 

processing for each rubber mixer 

emission stack. 

Equation 2 to Paragraph (d)(2) 

Where: 

THCi = Daily THC emissions from rubber 

processing, grams/day for each rubber 

mixer emission stack. 

THCj = Daily average THC concentration, 

parts per million by volume, for each day 

during the 15-day compliance period for 

rubber processing for each rubber mixer 

emission stack, as measured by the THC 

CEMS. 

Q = Average volumetric flow rate of gas, dry 

standard cubic feet per minute, dscfm, 

for each rubber mixer emission stack 

from the most recent available emissions 

test. 

H = Hours per day that rubber processing is 

performed in at least one of the mixers 

vented to the rubber mixer emission 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER29NO24.001</GPH> ER29NO24.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94911 

stack for which emissions are being 

calculated. 

(e) You must use Equation 3 to this 

paragraph to calculate the fPM emission 

rate in grams per megagram of mixed 

rubber compound processed or use 

Equation 4 to of this paragraph to 

calculate the metal HAP emission rate 

in grams per megagram of mixed rubber 

compound processed to demonstrate 

initial compliance. The rubber mass 

processed at each mixer must be 

recorded for the exact same period of 

time as the fPM or metal HAP emissions 

are measured at each mixer. If you are 

demonstrating compliance with the 

facility-wide emission average 

alternative, the relevant measurement of 

fPM or metal HAP, as appropriate, at 

each mixer does not need to be done 

simultaneously for all mixers, but all 

tests of mixers to be averaged must be 

done within the same 3-month period. 

Equations 3 and 4 to Paragraph (e) 

Where: 

EfPM = Emission rate of the fPM emitted in 

grams of fPM per megagram of mixed 

rubber compound processed. 

fPMi = Total grams of fPM emitted during the 

performance test, measured using EPA 

method 5. These fPM emission values 

are calculated for each rubber mixer i 

separately if compliance is demonstrated 

for each mixer separately, and it is 

summed for all rubber mixers combined 

if complying with the facility-wide 

average alternative. 

RPj = Total megagrams of mixed rubber 

compound mass processed rate recorded 

during the fPM (Eq. 3A) or total metal 

HAP emissions test (Eq. 3B). 

EMHAP = Emission rate of the total metal HAP 

in grams of metal HAP per megagram of 

mixed rubber compound processed. 

MHAPi = Total grams of total metal HAP 

emitted during the performance test, 

measured using the methods specified in 

table 17 to this subpart. These total metal 

HAP emission values are calculated for 

each rubber mixer separately if 

compliance is demonstrated for each 

mixer separately, and it is summed for 

all rubber mixers combined if complying 

with the facility-wide average 

alternative. 

N = Number of mixers included if complying 

with the facility-wide average 

alternative. 

§ 63.6012 What are my rubber processing 

monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements? 

(a) You must install and operate a 

THC continuous emission monitoring 

system (CEMS) according to § 63.8 (b) 

and (c) and comply with the monitoring 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section. Standard operating 

procedures must be incorporated into 

the monitoring plan required by 

§ 63.5990(e). 

(1) On each stack used to exhaust 

emissions from a rubber processing 

mixer to the atmosphere, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a THC 

CEMS in accordance with Performance 

Specification 8A of appendix B to 40 

CFR part 60 and comply with all of the 

requirements for CEMS found in the 

general provisions, subpart A of this 

part. The THC CEMS must be installed 

downstream of any organic vapor 

control device (such as a thermal 

oxidizer), if present. A single THC 

CEMS may be used to monitor the 

combined emissions from multiple 

rubber mixers. 

(2) You must operate and maintain 

each CEMS according to the quality 

assurance requirements in Procedure 1 

of appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. Where 

a dual range analyzer is used, the daily 

calibration drift check must be 

performed for each operating range. For 

THC CEMS certified under Performance 

Specification 8A of appendix B to 40 

CFR part 60, conduct the relative 

accuracy test audits required under 

Procedure 1 in accordance with 

Performance Specification 8, sections 8 

and 11 using Method 25A in appendix 

A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 as the reference 

method; the relative accuracy must meet 

the criteria of Performance Specification 

8, section 13.2. 

(b) Parameter monitoring 

requirements. If you have an operating 

limit that requires the use of a 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS), you must install, 

operate, and maintain each CPMS 

according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section by the applicable compliance 

date specified in § 63.5983. Standard 

operating procedures must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by § 63.5990(e). 

(1) The CPMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. You 

must have a minimum of four 

successive cycles of operation to have a 

valid hour of data. 

(2) You must conduct all monitoring 

in continuous operation at all times that 

the mixer is operating. 

(3) Determine the 1-hour block 

average of all recorded readings. 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(c) For each bag leak detection system 

(BLDS), you must meet any applicable 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (10) of this section. Standard 

operating procedures must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by § 63.5990(e). 

(1) The BLDS must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting 

fPM emissions at concentrations of 1.0 

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 

or less. 

(2) The sensor on the BLDS must 

provide output of relative fPM 

emissions. 

(3) The BLDS must be equipped with 

a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. 

(4) The BLDS must have an alarm that 

will sound automatically when it 

detects an increase in relative fPM 

emissions greater than a preset level. 

(5) The alarm must be located in an 

area where appropriate plant personnel 

will be able to hear it. 

(6) For a positive-pressure fabric filter 

baghouse, each compartment or cell 

must have a bag leak detector (BLD). For 

a negative-pressure or induced-air fabric 

filter baghouse, the BLD must be 

installed downstream of the fabric filter. 

If multiple BLD are required (for either 

type of fabric filter baghouse), the 

detectors may share the system 

instrumentation and alarm. 

(7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be 

installed, calibrated, operated, and 

maintained according to EPA–454/R– 

98–015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance, (incorporated by reference; 

see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER29NO24.003</GPH>
94912 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

detection systems must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained 

according to the manufacturer’s written 

specifications and recommendations. 

Standard operating procedures must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by § 63.5990(e). 

(8) At a minimum, initial adjustment 

of the system must consist of 

establishing the baseline output in both 

of the following ways in paragraphs 

(c)(8)(i) and (ii), according to section 5.0 

of the EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter 

Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 63.14): 

(i) Adjust the range and the averaging 

period of the device. 

(ii) Establish the alarm set points and 

the alarm delay time. 

(9) After initial adjustment, the 

sensitivity or range, averaging period, 

alarm set points, or alarm delay time 

may not be adjusted except as specified 

in the monitoring plan required by 

§ 63.5990(e). In no event may the range 

be increased by more than 100 percent 

or decreased by more than 50 percent 

over a 365-day period, unless such 

adjustment follows a complete fabric 

filter inspection that demonstrates that 

the fabric filter is in good operating 

condition, as defined in section 5.2 of 

the EPA–454/R–98–015, Fabric Filter 

Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). 

You must record each adjustment. 

(10) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(d) For each emission unit equipped 

with an add-on air pollution control 

device, you must inspect each capture/ 

collection and closed vent system at 

least once each calendar year to ensure 

that each system vents captured 

emissions through a closed system, 

except that dilution air may be added to 

emission streams for the purpose of 

controlling temperature at the inlet to a 

fabric filter. You must record the results 

of each inspection. 

§ 63.6013 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits for 

rubber processing affected sources? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limit 

that applies to you according to table 17 

to this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.6016(e). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

for Rubber Processing Affected Sources 

§ 63.6014 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the emission limits for rubber 

processing affected sources? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the emission limits for rubber 

processing affected sources as specified 

in table 18 to this subpart. 

(b) You must monitor and collect data 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.6012. 

§ 63.6015 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits for rubber processing affected 

sources? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each applicable 

emission limit in table 15 and each 

operating limit in table 16 to this 

subpart using the methods specified in 

table 18 to this subpart. 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet an applicable 

emission limit in table 15 or operating 

limit in table 16 to this subpart. You 

must also report each instance in which 

you did not meet the applicable 

requirements in table 18 to this subpart. 

These instances are deviations from the 

emission limitations in this subpart. The 

deviations must be reported in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 63.6017(e). 

■ 19. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 63.6016 by revising paragraphs (e) and 

(k) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6016 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

* * * * * 

(e) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, design evaluation, or 

other initial compliance demonstration 

as specified in tables 5 through 8 and 

table 17 to this subpart, you must 

submit a Notification of Compliance 

Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). The 

Notification must contain the 

information listed in table 20 to this 

subpart for compliance reports. The 

Notification of Compliance Status must 

be submitted according to the following 

schedules, as appropriate: 

(1) For each initial compliance 

demonstration required in tables 6 

through 8 and table 17 to this subpart 

that does not include a performance 

test, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status before the close of 

business on the 30th calendar day 

following the completion of the initial 

compliance demonstration. 

(2) Before January 21, 2021, for each 

initial compliance demonstration 

required in tables 6 through 8 and table 

17 to this subpart that includes a 

performance test conducted according 

to the requirements in table 5 to this 

subpart, you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status, 

including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the performance test according to 

§ 63.10(d)(2). After January 20, 2021, for 

each initial compliance demonstration 

required in tables 6 through 8 to this 

subpart that includes a performance test 

conducted according to the 

requirements in table 5 to this subpart, 

you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the 

performance test results, before the 

close of business on the 60th calendar 

day following the completion of the 

performance test according to 

§§ 63.10(d)(2) and 63.6017(h)(1) through 

(3). 

* * * * * 

(k) You must submit to the 

Administrator notification reports of the 

following recorded information. 

Beginning on January 21, 2021, or once 

the reporting form has been available on 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website for 

1-year, whichever date is later, you must 

submit all subsequent notification of 

compliance status reports required in 

§§ 63.9(h) and paragraphs (d) through (i) 

of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. 

The CEDRI interface can be accessed 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov). 

You must use the appropriate electronic 

report form (i.e., template) on the CEDRI 

website (https://www.epa.gov/ 

electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) 

for this subpart. The date on which the 

report form becomes available will be 

listed on the CEDRI website. If the 

reporting form for the notification of 

compliance status report specific to this 

subpart is not available in CEDRI at the 

time that the report is due, you must 

submit the report to the Administrator 

at the appropriate addresses listed in 

§ 63.13. Once the form has been 

available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must 

begin submitting all subsequent 

notification of compliance status reports 

via CEDRI. The applicable notification 

must be submitted by the deadline 

specified in this subpart, regardless of 

the method in which the report is 

submitted. The EPA will make all the 

information submitted through CEDRI 

available to the public without further 

notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to 

submit information you claim as 

confidential business information (CBI). 

Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot 

later be claimed to be CBI. Although we 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94913 

do not expect persons to assert a claim 

of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI, 

if you claim that some of the 

information required to be submitted via 

CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, 

including information claimed to be 

CBI, to the EPA. The report must be 

generated using the appropriate 

electronic reporting form found on the 

CEDRI website. Submit the file on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

medium and clearly mark the medium 

as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 

Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted shall be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

CEDRI as described earlier in this 

paragraph. All CBI claims must be 

asserted at the time of submission. 

Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) 

emissions data is not entitled to 

confidential treatment and requires EPA 

to make emissions data available to the 

public. Thus, emissions data will not be 

protected as CBI and will be made 

publicly available. Where applicable, 

you may assert a claim of the EPA 

system outage, in accordance with 

§ 63.6017(i), or force majeure, in 

accordance with § 63.6017(j), for failure 

to timely comply with this requirement. 

■ 20. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 63.6017 by:z 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) 

introductory text, and (c) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(11); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(2), (g), and (h) 

introductory text; and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6017 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each applicable 

report in table 20 to this subpart. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report by the date 

in table 20 to this subpart and according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(11) For each rubber processing 

affected source, whether you are 

complying with the particulate matter or 

total metal HAP emission limit 

alternative in table 15 to this subpart. 

(d) Before January 21, 2021, for each 

deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that 

occurs at an affected source where you 

are not using a CPMS to comply with 

the emission limitations in this subpart, 

the compliance report must contain the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

when the affected source is operating. 

After January 20, 2021, for each 

deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that 

occurs at an affected source where you 

are not using a CPMS to comply with 

the emission limitations in this subpart, 

the compliance report must contain the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

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

This includes periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction of process, 

air pollution control, and monitoring 

equipment when the affected source is 

operating. 

* * * * * 

(2) Before January 20, 2021, 

information on the number, duration, 

and cause of deviations (including 

unknown cause, if applicable) and the 

corrective action taken. After January 

20, 2021, for each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the cause of deviations (including 

unknown cause, if applicable), affected 

sources or equipment, whether the 

failure occurred during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, an estimate 

of the quantity of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Before July 24, 2021, or once the 

reporting form has been available on the 

CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever 

date is later, if acceptable to both the 

Administrator and you, you may submit 

reports and notifications electronically. 

Beginning on July 24, 2021, or once the 

reporting form has been available on the 

CEDRI website for 1-year, whichever 

date is later, you must submit 

compliance reports required in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this 

section, as applicable, to the EPA via the 

CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be 

accessed through the EPA’s CDX 

(https://cdx.epa.gov). You must use the 

appropriate electronic report form on 

the CEDRI website (https://

www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/cedri) for this subpart. The 

date on which the report form becomes 

available will be listed on the CEDRI 

website. If the reporting form for the 

compliance report specific to this 

subpart is not available in CEDRI at the 

time that the report is due, you must 

submit the report to the Administrator 

at the appropriate addresses listed in 

§ 63.13. Once the form has been 

available in CEDRI for 1-year, you must 

begin submitting all subsequent reports 

via CEDRI. The reports must be 

submitted by the deadlines specified in 

this subpart, regardless of the method in 

which the reports are submitted. The 

EPA will make all the information 

submitted through CEDRI available to 

the public without further notice to you. 

Do not use CEDRI to submit information 

you claim as CBI. Anything submitted 

using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to 

be CBI. Although we do not expect 

persons to assert a claim of CBI, if 

persons wish to assert a CBI, if you 

claim that some of the information 

required to be submitted via CEDRI is 

CBI, submit a complete report, 

including information claimed to be 

CBI, to the EPA. The report must be 

generated using the appropriate 

electronic reporting form found on the 

CEDRI website. Submit the file on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

medium and clearly mark the medium 

as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 

Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted shall be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

CEDRI as described earlier in this 

paragraph. All CBI claims must be 

asserted at the time of submission. 

Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) 

emissions data is not entitled to 

confidential treatment and requires EPA 

to make emissions data available to the 

public. Thus, emissions data will not be 

protected as CBI and will be made 

publicly available. 

(h) After January 20, 2021, if you use 

a control system (add-on control device 

and capture system) to meet the 

emission limitations, you must also 

conduct a performance test at least once 

every 5 years following your initial 

compliance demonstration to verify 

control system performance and 

reestablish operating parameters or 

operating limits for control systems 

used to comply with the emissions 

limits. Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

required by this subpart, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test following the procedures specified 

in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this 

section. The provisions of this 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94914 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraph (h) and (h)(1) and (h)(3) do 

not apply to control devices and capture 

systems to control THC emissions from 

rubber processing when monitored by a 

THC CEMS. 

* * * * * 

(k) For each THC CEMS, within 60 

days after the reporting period ends, you 

must report all of the calculated 15-day 

rolling average values derived from the 

THC CEMS for THC emissions in grams 

of THC per megagram (g/Mg) of rubber 

processed, either for each mixer 

individually, or for all mixers that use 

a single control device or stack, or that 

are averaged to comply on the basis of 

the facility-wide average alternative. 

■ 21. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 63.6018 by redesignating paragraph (e) 

as paragraph (f) and adding new 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6018 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(e) For each rubber processing 

affected source, you must keep the 

records specified in table 19 to this 

subpart to show continuous compliance 

with each emission limit that applies to 

you. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Revise newly redesignated 

§ 63.6020 to read as follows: 

§ 63.6020 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 22 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. 

■ 23. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 63.6021 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.6021 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.5981 through 

63.5984, 63.5986, 63.5988, and 63.6009. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 63.6022 by adding the definitions ‘‘Bag 

leak detector system (BLDS)’’ and 

‘‘Particulate matter (PM) detector’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 63.6022 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Bag leak detector system (BLDS) is a 

type of PM detector used on fabric 

filters to identify an increase in PM 

emissions resulting from a broken filter 

bag or other malfunction and sound an 

alarm. 

* * * * * 

Particulate matter (PM) detector 

means a system that is continuously 

capable of monitoring PM loading in the 

exhaust of a fabric filter in order to 

detect bag leaks, upset conditions, or 

control device malfunctions and sounds 

an alarm at a preset level. A PM detector 

system includes, but is not limited to, 

an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light 

transmittance, or other effects to 

continuously monitor relative 

particulate loadings. A BLDS is a type 

of PM detector. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Revise tables 1 through 3 to 

subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as 

follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Emission Limits for Tire Production 

Affected Sources 

As stated in § 63.5984, you must 

comply with the emission limits for 

each new, reconstructed, or existing tire 

production affected source in the 

following table: 

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

1. Option 1—HAP constituent option.a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 

pounds per ton) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source, and b. Emissions of each HAP not in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per megagram 

(20 pounds per ton) of total cements and solvents used at the tire production affected source. 

2. Option 2—production-based option.Emissions of HAP must not exceed 0.024 grams per megagram (0.00005 pounds per ton) of rubber used 

at the tire production affected source. 

Table 2 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Emission Limits for Tire Cord 

Production Affected Sources 

As stated in § 63.5986, you must 

comply with the emission limits for tire 

cord production affected sources in the 

following table: 

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

1. Option 1.a (production-based option)—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. Option 1.b (production-based option)—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. 

3. Option 2 (HAP constituent option)—Existing, new or reconstructed tire cord production affected source.a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 

pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source, and 

b. Emissions of each HAP not in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per 

megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total coatings used at the tire cord production affected source. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94915 

Table 3 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Emission Limits for Puncture Sealant 

Application Affected Sources 

As stated in § 63.5988(a), you must 

comply with the emission limits for 

puncture sealant application affected 

sources in the following table: 

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

1. Option 1.a (percent reduction option)—Existing puncture sealant 

application spray booth.

Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as volatile organic compounds (VOC)) emissions by at least 86 percent by weight. 

2. Option 1.b (percent reduction option)—New or reconstructed 

puncture sealant application 

spray booth.

Reduce spray booth HAP (measured as VOC) emissions by at least 95 percent by weight. 

3. Option 2 (HAP constituent option) Existing, new or reconstructed puncture sealant application spray booth.a. Emissions of each HAP in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 1,000 grams HAP per megagram (2 

pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected source, and 

b. Emissions of each HAP not in table 21 to this subpart must not exceed 10,000 grams HAP per 

megagram (20 pounds per ton) of total puncture sealants used at the puncture sealant affected source. 

■ 26. Revise table 5 to subpart XXXX of 

part 63 to read as follows: 

Table 5 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

As stated in § 63.5993, you must 

comply with the requirements for 

performance tests in the following table: 

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

1. A thermal oxidizer a. Measure total HAP emissions, 

determine destruction efficiency 

of the control device, and establish a site-specific firebox secondary chamber temperature 

limit at which the emission limit 

that applies to the affected 

source is achieved.

i. Method 25 or 25A performance 

test and data from the temperature monitoring system.

(1). Measure total HAP emissions and determine the destruction efficiency of the control device using Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). You may use Method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7) if: an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 

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

standard; the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to 

the control system and the required level of control are such that 

exhaust volatile organic matter concentrations are 50 ppmv or 

less; or because of the high efficiency of the control device exhaust, is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration. 

(2). Collect firebox secondary chamber temperature data every 15 

minutes during the entire period of the initial 3-hour performance 

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

hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15- 

minute reading. 

2. A carbon 

adsorber (regenerative).

a. Measure total 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.

i. Method 25 or Method 25A performance test and data from the 

carbon bed temperature monitoring device.

(1). Measure total HAP emissions using Method 25. You may use 

Method 25A, if an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less; or because of the high efficiency of the 

control device, exhaust is 50 ppmv or less is required to comply 

with the standard; the volatile organic matter concentration 

(VOMC) at the inlet to the control system and the required level of 

control are such that exhaust VOMCs are 50 ppmv or less; or because of the high efficiency of the control device, exhaust is 50 

ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration. 

(2). Collect carbon bed total regeneration mass or volumetric flow for 

each carbon bed regeneration cycle during the performance test. 

(3). Record the maximum carbon bed temperature data for each carbon bed regeneration cycle during the performance test. 

(4). Record the carbon bed temperature within 15 minutes of each 

cooling cycle during the performance test. 

(5). Determine the average total regeneration mass or the volumetric 

flow over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average 

of all of the readings. 

(6). Determine the average maximum carbon bed temperature over 

the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 

readings. 

(7). Determine the average carbon bed temperature within 15 minutes of the cooling cycle over the 3-hour performance test. 

3. Any control device 

other than a 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 affected 

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 ports’ location 

and the number of traverse 

ports.

Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A.

Locate sampling sites at the inlet and outlet of the control device 

and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94916 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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

b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate.Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

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

part 60 appendix A; as an alternative to the manual portion of 

Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 63.14).

d. Measure moisture content of 

the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 CFR part 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 of 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 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.

Table 8 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Initial Compliance With the Emission 

Limits for Puncture Sealant Application 

Affected Sources 

■ 27. Revise the heading of table 8 to 

subpart XXXX of part 63 to read as set 

forth above. 

■ 28. Redesignate tables 15 through 17 

to subpart XXXX of part 63 as tables 20 

through 22 to subpart XXXX of part 63. 

■ 29. Add new tables 15 through 17 and 

tables 18 and 19 to subpart XXXX of 

part 63 to read as follows: 

Table 15 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Emission Limits for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources 

As stated in § 63.6009(a), you must 

comply with the emission limits for 

each new, reconstructed, or existing 

rubber processing affected source in the 

following table: 

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

1. Existing rubber processing affected sources.a. THC emissions, measured as propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, based on a 15-day rolling average. 

b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, or metal HAP emissions must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed. 

2. New or reconstructed rubber 

processing affected sources.

a. THC emissions, measured as propane must not exceed 64 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, based on a 15-day rolling average. 

b. fPM emissions must not exceed 3.0 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed, or metal HAP emissions must not exceed 0.051 grams/Mg mixed rubber compound processed. 

Table 16 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Operating Limits for Rubber Processing 

Control Devices 

As stated in § 63.6009(b) you must 

comply with the operating limits for 

rubber processing affected sources in 

the following table: 

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. For each rubber processing 

mixer.

a. Inspect each emission capture system or enclosure and closed vent system at least once each calendar 

year to ensure that each system or enclosure vents captured emissions through a closed system, except 

that dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling temperature at the inlet 

to a fabric filter. You must record the results of each inspection. 

2. Each mixer equipped with a fabric filter.a. Maintain and operate the fabric filter such that the BLDS detector alarm condition does not exist for 

more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month period; and comply with the requirements in 

§ 63.6012(c). Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by 

§ 63.5990(e). 

Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Initial Compliance With the Emission 

Limits for Rubber Processing Affected 

Sources 

As stated in § 63.6011, you must show 

initial compliance with the emission 

limits for the rubber processing affected 

source and conduct performance tests 

according to the following table: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94917 

For the following emission limit . . . You must do the following . . . 

1. The applicable THC emission 

limit in table 15 to this subpart.

a. Continuously measure THC emissions using a THC CEMS and mass of mixed rubber compounds processed over a period of not less than 15 days. 

b. Use the applicable methods in item 2 in this table to measure exhaust flow rate in dry standard cubic 

feet per minute to determine THC mass emissions in grams per day using the equations and procedures 

in § 63.6011. 

c. Demonstrate that you have achieved the applicable THC emission limits in table 15 to this subpart according to the applicable procedures in § 63.6011. 

2. The applicable fPM emission 

limit in table 15 to this subpart.

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

b. Measure fPM and the mass of mixed rubber compound processed for at least 3 runs lasting at least 1 

hour per run. 

c. Use Method 5 in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60 to measure fPM emissions. 

d. Select sampling ports’ location and the number of traverse ports according to Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–1. 

e. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate according to Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. 

f. Conduct the gas analysis according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2; as an alternative to the manual portion of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 63.14). 

g. Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. 

h. Demonstrate that you have achieved the applicable fPM emission limit in table 15 to this subpart according to the applicable procedures in § 63.6011. 

i. Install, operate, and maintain the BLDS according to the requirements in § 63.6012(c) at the time of the 

initial compliance test. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). 

3. The applicable metal HAP alternative emission limit in table 15 

to this subpart.

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

b. Measure metal HAP emissions and mass of mixed rubber compound processed for at least 3 runs lasting at least 1 hour per run. 

c. Use Method 29 in appendix A–8 to 40 CFR part 60 to measure metal HAP emissions. As an alternative 

to Method 29 for mercury only, you may use the particulate mercury portion of ASTM D6784–16 to 

measure particulate mercury emissions (incorporated by reference; see § 63.14). 

d. Select sampling ports’ location and the number of traverse ports according to Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–1. 

e. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate according to Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. 

f. Conduct the gas analysis according to Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2; as an alternative to the manual portion of Method 3B, you may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 63.14). 

g. Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. 

h. Demonstrate that you have achieved the applicable metal HAP emission limit in table 15 to this subpart 

according to the applicable procedures in § 63.6011. 

i. Install, operate, and maintain the BLDS according to the requirements in § 63.6012(c) at the time of the 

initial compliance test. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by § 63.5990(e). 

Table 18 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Continuous Compliance With the 

Emission Limitations for Rubber 

Processing Affected Sources 

As stated in § 63.6014(a), you must 

show continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations for rubber 

processing affected sources according to 

the following table: 

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

1. Each THC continuous emissions 

monitoring system installed in a 

rubber processing mixer affected 

source.

a. Continuously monitoring and record the THC concentration and calculate the daily THC emissions in 

grams per day. 

2. Each rubber processing affected 

source.

a. Continuously monitor the daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for each mixer in 

megagrams per day. 

3. Each rubber processing affected 

source fabric filter.

a. Maintain and operate the fabric filter so that the alarm on the BLDS is not activated and an alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6-month reporting period; 

and continuously recording the output from the BLDS detection system; and 

b. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions within 1 hour of the 

alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted (if the owner or operator takes longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions); if inspection of the fabric filter system demonstrates that no corrective 

actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94918 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 19 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Minimum Data for Continuous 

Compliance With the Emission 

Limitations for Rubber Processing 

Affected Sources 

As stated in § 63.6018(e), you must 

maintain minimum data to show 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations for rubber 

processing affected sources according to 

the following table: 

For . . . You must maintain . . . 

1. Rubber processing affected 

sources using an emission capture system or enclosure to capture emissions and performing 

the inspections specified in table 

16 to this subpart.

a. Records of the annual inspections of the enclosure and closed vent system specified in table 16 to this 

subpart. 

2. Rubber processing affected 

sources using a continuous emissions monitoring system to comply with the THC limits in table 

15 to this subpart.

a. Records of each THC concentration measurement and each inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

b. Records of each flow rate measurement. 

3. Rubber processing affected 

sources subject to the THC emission limit in table 15 to this subpart.

a. Records of daily mass of mixed rubber compound processed for each mixer, in megagrams per day. 

b. Records of each calculated 15-day rolling average THC emission rate, in grams THC per Mg rubber 

processed for each mixer separately or for all mixers combined and complying with the facility-wide 

emission limit. 

4. Rubber processing affected 

sources subject to the fPM or 

metal HAP emission limits in 

table 15 to this subpart.

a. Records of applicable periodic fPM or metal HAP performance tests. 

b. Records of mass of mixed rubber compound processed during the periodic fPM or metal HAP performance test. 

c. Records of the calculated fPM or metal HAP emission rate, in grams fPM or metal HAP per Mg rubber 

processed for each mixer separately or for all mixers combined and complying with the facility-wide 

emission limit. 

d. Records of each inspection, calibration, and validation check of the bag leak detection system. 

e. Records of each bag leak detection system alarm, the amount of time taken to initiate corrective action 

after the alarm, and the response and corrective action taken. 

■ 30. Revise newly redesignated table 

20 to subpart XXXX of part 63 to read 

as follows: 

Table 20 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Requirements for Reports 

As stated in § 63.6017, you must 

submit each report that applies to you 

according to the following table. 

You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. Compliance report .................................. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were 

no deviations from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period. If there were no periods during 

which the CPMS was out-of-control as specified in 

§ 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods 

during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the 

reporting period.

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6017(b), unless you meet 

the requirements for annual reporting in 

§ 63.6017(f) for the tire production affected source only. 

b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation 

during the reporting period at an affected source 

where you are not using a CPMS, the report must 

contain the information in § 63.6010(d). If the deviation occurred at a source where you are using a 

CMPS or if there were periods during which the 

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

the report must contain the information required by 

§ 63.5990(f)(3).

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6017(b), unless you meet 

the requirements for annual reporting in 

§ 63.6017(f) for the tire production affected source only. 

c. Before January 21, 2021, If you had a startup, shutdown, and malfunction during the reporting period 

and you took actions consistent with your startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). 

After January 20, 2021, this information is no longer 

required.

Before January 21, 2021, semiannually 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.6017(b), unless you meet the requirements for annual reporting in 

§ 63.6017(f). After January 20, 2021, 

this information is no longer required. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94919 

You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

2. Before January 21, 2021, immediate 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction during the reporting period 

that is not consistent with your startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan. After 

January 20, 2021, this report is no 

longer required.

a. Before January 21, 2021, actions taken for the 

event. After January 20, 2021, this report is no longer 

required.

Before January 21, 2021, by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. 

After January 20, 2021, this report is 

no longer required. 

b. Before January 21, 2021, the information in 

(§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). After January 20, 2021, this report 

is no longer required.

Before January 21, 2021, by letter within 

7 working days after the end of the 

event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting 

authority (§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). After January 20, 2021, this report is no longer 

required. 

3. Performance Test Report ....................... If you use a control system (add-on control device and 

capture system) to meet the emission limitations.

Conduct a performance test at least once 

every 5 years following your initial compliance demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.5993. 

■ 31. Amend newly redesignated table 

22 to subpart XXXX of part 63 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text to the 

first table (that applies before January 

21, 2021); and 

■ b. Revising the second table (that 

applies after January 20, 2021). 

The revisions read as follows: 

Table 22 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

This Subpart XXXX 

Before January 21, 2021, as stated in 

§ 63.6020, you must comply with the 

applicable General Provisions (GP) 

requirements according to the following 

table: 

* * * * * 

After January 20, 2021, as stated in 

§ 63.6020, you must comply with the 

applicable General Provisions (GP) 

requirements according to the following 

table: 

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 CAA 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].

§ 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.Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no 

later than 3 years after effective date; for CAA section 

112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective 

date unless compliance extension.

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

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ...... [Reserved].

§ 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].

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ... Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................. No. See § 63.5990(a) ........... No. See 

§ 63.5990(a). 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii)–(2) Operation and Maintenance Operate to minimize emissions at all times; correct malfunctions as soon as practicable; and operation and 

maintenance requirements independently enforceable; 

information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met.

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

§ 63.6(e)(3) ............ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan............................................................................................... No ......................................... No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ............. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemption............................................................................................... No. See § 63.5990(a) ........... 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94920 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections 

Applicable to subpart XXXX? 

Using a 

control device 

Not using a 

control device 

§ 63.6(h) ................ Opacity/Visible Emissions 

(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) ............ CAA 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: test 

plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; and 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.

Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

No. See § 63.5993(c) ............ No. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) ............ Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Must conduct according to rule and the EPA test methods 

unless Administrator approves alternative.

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

§ 63.7(e)(3) ............ Test Run Duration ................ Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; and 

conditions when data from an additional test run can be 

used.

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.Must include raw data in performance test report; must 

submit performance test data 60 days after end of test 

with the Notification of Compliance Status report; and 

keep data for 5 years.

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

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) ............ Performance Specifications .. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 

60 apply.

Yes, if using a CEMS ........... Yes, if using a 

CEMS. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ............ [Reserved].

§ 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.Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; 

must install on each effluent before it is combined and 

before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring 

system on an emission point, must report all monitoring 

system results, unless one monitoring system is a 

backup.

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

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

and Maintenance.

Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practices.

Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(e) and (f).

Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(e) and 

(f). 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ......... Routine and Predictable 

Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction.

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

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ........ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction not in Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Plan.

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

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

and Maintenance Requirements.

How the Administrator determines if source complying with 

operation and maintenance requirements; review of 

source operation and maintenance procedures, records, 

manufacturer’s instructions, recommendations, and inspection of monitoring system.

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

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ...... Monitoring System Installation.Must install to get representative emission and parameter 

measurements; must verify operational status before or 

at performance test.

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

§ 63.8(c)(4) ............ CMS Requirements .............. .............................................................................................. Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(f).

Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(f). 

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

Procedures.

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

§ 63.8(c)(6) ............ CMS Requirements .............. .............................................................................................. Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(e).

Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(e). 

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


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 94921 

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections 

Applicable to subpart XXXX? 

Using a 

control device 

Not using a 

control device 

§ 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ...... CMS Quality Control ............. .............................................................................................. Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(e) and (f).

Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(e) and 

(f). 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ............ Written Procedures for CMS .............................................................................................. No. See § 63.5990(f)(2). ....... No. See 

§ 63.5990(f)(2). 

§ 63.8(e) ................ CMS Performance Evaluation.Performance evaluation of continuous monitoring systems Yes ........................................ Yes. 

§ 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.Requesting an alternative to the relative accuracy test for 

a CEMS.

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

§ 63.8(g) ................ Data Reduction ..................... How to reduce CMS data .................................................... Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(f).

Applies as modified by 

§ 63.5990(f). 

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

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ...... Initial Notifications ................. Submit notification 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct/reconstruct, notification of 

commencement of construct/reconstruct, notification of 

startup; and 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 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.

Additional notification requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems.Yes ........................................ Yes. 

§ 63.9(h) ................ Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test or 

other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE, 

which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal 

vs. State authority.

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. 

§ 63.9(k) ................. Notification ............................ Electronic reporting procedures ........................................... Yes, as specified in § 63.9(j) Yes, as specified 

in § 63.9(j). 

§ 63.10(a) .............. Recordkeeping/Reporting ..... Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners 

of more than 1 source.

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

§ 63.10(b)(1) .......... Recordkeeping/Reporting ..... General Requirements; keep all records readily available; 

and keep for 5 years.

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) and 

(iv–v).

Records related to Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction.

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...... Recordkeeping of failures to 

meet a standard.

.............................................................................................. No. See 63.6017 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time, 

cause, and duration; (2) 

listing of affected source or 

equipment, whether the 

failure occurred during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the 

standard and the method 

used to estimate the emissions; and (3) actions to 

minimize emissions and 

correct the failure.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 

(vi), and (x)–(xi).

CMS Records ....................... Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control; calibration 

checks; adjustments, maintenance.

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)– 

(ix).

Records ................................ Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emission 

limitations; performance test, performance evaluation, 

and VE observation results; and measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations.

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

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ... Records ................................ Emission levels relative to the criterion for obtaining permission to use an alternative to the relative accuracy 

test.

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ... Records ................................ All documentation supporting Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status.Yes ........................................ Yes. 

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

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(14) .. Records ................................ Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with 

continuous monitoring systems.

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

§ 63.10(c)(15) ........ Use of SSM plan .................. .............................................................................................. No ......................................... No. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
94922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Citation Subject Brief description of applicable sections 

Applicable to subpart XXXX? 

Using a 

control device 

Not using a 

control device 

§ 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.See § 63.6017(d) for malfunction reporting requirements ... No ......................................... No. 

§ 63.10(e) .............. Additional CMS Reports ....... Additional reporting requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems.Yes ........................................ Yes. 

§ 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. 2024–26895 Filed 11–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2