[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19777-19782]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09229]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9993-18-OECA]

See the Item Specific Docket Numbers Provided in the Text;
Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; See Item
Specific ICR Titles Provided in the Text

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit the below listed information collection requests (ICR) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below. These are
proposed extensions of 41 currently approved ICRs. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers
provided for each item in the text, online using www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, (Mail
Code 2227A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). EPA will consider the comments received
and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be
submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR
to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    General Abstract: For all the listed ICRs in this notice, owners
and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with
reporting and record keeping requirements for the general provisions of
40 CFR part 60, subpart A or part 63, subpart A, as well as the
applicable specific standards. This includes submitting initial
notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and
maintaining records of maintain records of the occurrence and duration
of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an
affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with
the standards.
    (1) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0646; NSPS for Incinerators
(40 CFR part 60, subpart E) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1058.13; OMB
Control Number 2060-0040; Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Incinerators that charge more than 45 metric tons per
day (50 tons per day) of solid waste.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart E).
    Estimated number of respondents: 82.
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Estimated annual burden: 8,490 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $717,000, includes $205,000 annualized
capital or operations & maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (2) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0499; NSPS for Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1088.15; OMB Control Number 2060-
0072; Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Industrial/commercial/institutional steam generating
units (boilers).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1846.
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 1,690,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $210,000,000, includes $35,100,000
annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (3) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0662; NESHAP for Gasoline
Distribution Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart R) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 1659.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0325; Expiration date November
30, 2019.
    Respondents: Bulk gasoline terminals with throughputs greater than
75,700 liters/day.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart R).
    Estimated number of respondents: 492.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 15,900 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $2,000,000, includes $357,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (4) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0664; NESHAP for Commercial
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization and Fumigation Operations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart O) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1666.11; OMB Control Number 2060-
0283; Expiration date November 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Commercial ethylene oxide sterilization and fumigation
operations.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart O).
    Estimated number of respondents: 125.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 9,200 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,630,000, includes $681,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (5) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0681; NSPS for Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart
CCC) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1926.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0450;
Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 30.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 6,520 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,080,000, includes $406,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (6) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0685; Emission Guidelines
for Existing Commerce and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (40
CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1927.08; OMB
Control Number 2060-0451; Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart DDDD).
    Estimated number of respondents: 90.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 19,700 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $3,250,000, includes $1,220,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (7) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0686; NESHAP for Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1963.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0539;
Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Organic liquids (non-gasoline) distribution
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 381.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 115,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $20,500,000, includes $8,560,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (8) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0687; NESHAP for Stationary
Combustion Turbines (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 1967.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0540; Expiration date November
30, 2019.
    Respondents: Stationary combustion turbines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYY).
    Estimated number of respondents: 131.
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 2,220 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $239,000, includes $9,700 annualized capital
or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (9) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0690; NESHAP for Automobile
and Light-duty Truck Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII)
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2045.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0550;
Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Facilities that perform surface coating on automobiles
and light-duty trucks.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIII).
    Estimated number of respondents: 65.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 26,700 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $2,830,000, includes $78,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected decrease in burden due
to anticipated shutdown of existing sources.
    (10) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0695; NESHAP for Site
Remediation (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
2062.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0534; Expiration date November 30,
2019.
    Respondents: Facilities with site remediation activities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGGGG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 286.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 140,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $13,900,000, includes $582,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (11) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0697; NESHAP for Iron and
Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 2096.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0543; Expiration date November
30, 2019.
    Respondents: Iron and steel foundries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 98.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 30,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $3,490,000, includes $400,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (12) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0701; NESHAP for
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH)
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2115.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0535;
Expiration date November 30, 2019.
    Respondents: Facilities that manufacture a miscellaneous coating,
including inks, paints, or adhesives.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: 44.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 55,800 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $6,690,000, includes $928,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (13) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0318; NSPS for Magnetic
Tape Coating Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart SSS) (Renewal); EPA
ICR Number 1135.13; OMB Control Number 2060-0171; Expiration date
January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Magnetic tape coating facilities constructed or
modified after January 22, 1986.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart SSS).
    Estimated number of respondents: 6.
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 2,030 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $295,000, includes $86,400 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (14) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0334; NSPS for Secondary
Brass and Bronze Production, Primary Copper Smelters, Primary Zinc
Smelters, Primary Lead Smelters, Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, and
Ferroalloy Production Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subparts M, P, Q, R,
S, Z) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1604.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0110;
Expiration date January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Secondary brass and bronze production, primary copper
smelters, primary zinc smelters, primary lead smelters, primary
aluminum reduction plants, and ferroalloy production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts M, P, Q, R, S, and Z).
    Estimated number of respondents: 18.
    Frequency of response: Initially, monthly, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 3,880 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $527,000, includes $127,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (15) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0336; NESHAP for Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart DD) (Renewal);
EPA ICR Number 1717.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0313; Expiration date
January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Off-Site waste management and recovery operations.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DD).
    Estimated number of respondents: 45.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 40,600 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $5,060,000, includes $874,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (16) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0676; NESHAP for Phosphoric
Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (40 CFR part
63, subparts AA and BB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1790.09; OMB Control
Number 2060-0361; Expiration date January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer
production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subparts AA and BB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13.
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, annually, and
semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 2,200 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $413,000, includes $186,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (17) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0679; NESHAP for Petroleum
Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Reforming and Sulfur Units (40
CFR part 63, subpart UUU) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1844.09; OMB
Control Number 2060-0554; Expiration date January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Fluid catalytic cracking units, catalytic reforming
units, and sulfur recovery units at petroleum refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUU).
    Estimated number of respondents: 142.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 20,200 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $10,900,000, includes $8,820,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (18) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0338; NESHAP for the
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO)
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1869.11; OMB Control Number 2060-0434;
Expiration date January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of amino/phenolic resins.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart OOO).
    Estimated number of respondents: 19.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 23,300 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $3,360,000, includes $958,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (19) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0339; NESHAP for Boat
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
1966.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0546; Expiration date January 31,
2020.
    Respondents: Boat manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVV).
    Estimated number of respondents: 144.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and
semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 23,500 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $2,430,000, includes $800 annualized capital
or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected decrease in burden due
to anticipated shutdown of existing sources.
    (20) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0341; NESHAP for Plywood
and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) (Renewal);
EPA ICR Number 1984.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0552; Expiration date
January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDD).
    Estimated number of respondents: 228.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 11,900 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,250,000, includes $16,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.

    (21) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0345; NESHAP for Metal Can
Manufacturing Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK) (Renewal);
EPA ICR Number 2079.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0541; Expiration date
January 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Metal can manufacturing facilities that use 5,700
liters (1,500 gallons) per year or more of surface coatings.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart KKKK).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 1,940 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $206,000, includes $6,000 annualized capital
or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (22) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0310; NSPS for Sewage
Sludge Treatment Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart O) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 1063.14; OMB Control Number 2060-0035; Expiration date March 31,
2020.
    Respondents: Incinerators at sewage sludge treatment plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart O).
    Estimated number of respondents: 86.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 9,690 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $4,050,000, includes $3,050,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected decrease in burden due
to anticipated shutdown of existing sources.
    (23) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0314; NSPS for Phosphate
Rock Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart NN) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
1078.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0111; Expiration date March 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Phosphate rock plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart NN).
    Estimated number of respondents: 15.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 1,860 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $333,000, includes $141,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (24) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0329; NSPS for Rubber Tire
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
1158.13; OMB Control Number 2060-0156; Expiration date March 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Rubber tire manufacturers.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 41.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 17,700 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,850,000, includes $16,400 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (25) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0335; NESHAP for Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG)
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1687.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0314;
Expiration date March 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 144.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 115,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $12,000,000, includes $108,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (26) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0342; NESHAP for Lime
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
2072.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0544; Expiration date March 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Lime manufacturing plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 68.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 16,300 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $2,010,000, includes $325,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (27) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0301; NESHAP for Beryllium
(40 CFR part 61, subpart C) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 0193.13; OMB
Control Number 2060-0092; Expiration date March 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Facilities processing beryllium ore, beryllium,
beryllium oxides, beryllium alloys, or beryllium-containing waste.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart C).
    Estimated number of respondents: 33.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and monthly.
    Estimated annual burden: 2,670 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $310,000, includes $35,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (28) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0340; NESHAP for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1975.11; OMB Control Number 2060-0548;
Expiration date April 30, 2020.
    Respondents: Stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines
(RICE).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 906,640.
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 3,610,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $407,000,000, includes $35,100,000
annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (29) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0313; NSPS for Stationary
Gas Turbines (40 CFR part 60, subpart GG) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
1071.13; OMB Control Number 2060-0028; Expiration date May 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Stationary gas turbines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 535.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 69,100 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $7,130,000, includes $0 annualized capital
or O&M costs.

    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (30) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0302; NSPS for the Graphic
Arts Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
0657.13; OMB Control Number 2060-0105; Expiration date May 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Facilities with publication rotogravure printing
presses.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 1,920 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $198,000, includes $0 annualized capital or
O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of new or modified sources subject to the
regulation.
    (31) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0319; NSPS for VOC
Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1136.13; OMB Control Number
2060-0172; Expiration date June 30, 2020.
    Respondents: Petroleum refinery wastewater systems.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 149.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 10,200 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,070,000, includes $19,400 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (32) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0321; NSPS for Sewage
Sludge Incinerators (40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 2369.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0658; Expiration date June 30,
2020.
    Respondents: Sewage sludge incineration units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart LLLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 1,270 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $825,000, includes $694,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (33) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0317; NESHAP for Gold Mine
Ore Processing (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEEE) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 2383.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0659; Expiration date June 30,
2020.
    Respondents: Gold mine ore processing and production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEEEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 2,840 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $521,000, includes $227,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (34) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0325; NESHAP for Benzene
Emission from Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke Oven By-Product Recovery
Plants (40 CFR part 61, subparts L and Y) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number
1080.16; OMB Control Number 2060-0185; Expiration date August 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of benzene storage vessels and
coke oven by-product recovery plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subparts L and Y).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 3,220 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $332,000, includes $0 annualized capital or
O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (35) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0315; NSPS for Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units (40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCCC) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2384.05; OMB Control Number
2060-0662; Expiration date August 31, 2020.
    Respondents: Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 1,450 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $779,000, includes $630,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (36) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0063; NESHAP for Polyether
Polyols Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 1811.11; OMB Control Number 2060-0415; Expiration date September
30, 2020.
    Respondents: Polyether polyols production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: 23.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 3,710 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $383,000, includes $0 annualized capital or
O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (37) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0350; The Consolidated Air
Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1854.11; OMB Control Number 2060-
0443; Expiration date September 30, 2020.
    Respondents: Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 65).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5,198.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and
annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 2,210,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $337,000,000, includes $105,000,000
annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (38) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0353; NSPS for Stationary

Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR part 60, subpart
JJJJ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2227.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0610;
Expiration date September 30, 2020.
    Respondents: Stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 18,570.
    Frequency of response: Initially and annually.
    Estimated annual burden: 35,100 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $6,140,000, includes $2,480,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (39) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2016-0009; NESHAP for Group IV
Polymers and Resins (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ) (Renewal); EPA ICR
Number 2457.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0682; Expiration date September
30, 2020.
    Respondents: Thermoplastic resin production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 31.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and
semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 177,000 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $28,000,000, includes $9,350,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.
    (40) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0034; NSPS for Kraft Pulp
Mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2485.04;
OMB Control Number 2060-0690; Expiration date September 30, 2020.
    Respondents: Kraft pulp mills.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 10.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 3,950 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,230,000, includes $821,000 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due
to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.
    (41) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0303; NSPS for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and
GGGa) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 0983.16; OMB Control Number 2060-0067;
Expiration date September 30, 2020.
    Respondents: Petroleum refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts GGG and GGGa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 116.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated annual burden: 183,400 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $18,940,000, includes $0 annualized capital
or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in burden hours from the
previous ICR.

    Dated: April 17, 2019.
Martha Segall,
Acting Director, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division,
Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-09229 Filed 5-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44488-44494]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18513]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0115; FRL-9701-9]
RIN 2060-AQ23

Method 16C for the Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur
Emissions From Stationary Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates Method 16C for measuring total reduced
sulfur (TRS) emissions from stationary sources. Method 16C offers the
advantages of real-time data collection and uses procedures that are
already in use for measuring other pollutants. Method 16C will be a
testing option that is used at the discretion of the tester.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0115. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility and the Public Reading
Room are open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Foston Curtis, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-1063; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of Method 16C
IV. Public Comments on Proposed Method 16C
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Method 16C applies to TRS measurement from kraft pulp mills subject
to Subpart BB of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The
methods required under Subpart BB for TRS are sometimes used under the
petroleum refineries NSPS (Subpart J). Method 16C may also be
applicable to sources regulated by state and local regulations that
adopt the Subpart BB testing requirements.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected
include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   NAICS       Examples of regulated
            Category                \a\               entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................   322110  Kraft Pulp Mills.
Industry........................   324110  Petroleum Refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists examples of the types of entities the EPA is
now aware could potentially be affected by this final action. Other
types of entities not listed could also be affected. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (www) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's
signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September
28, 2012. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to
this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this action may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.

II. Background

    Method 16C was proposed in the Federal Register on September 2,
2010, with a public comment period that ended November 1, 2010. Two
comment letters were received from the public.

III. Summary of Method 16C

    Method 16C uses the sampling procedures of Method 16A and the
analytical procedures of Method 6C to measure TRS. Total reduced sulfur
is defined as hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and
dimethyl disulfide. As in Method 16A, the sample is collected from the
source through a heated probe and immediately conditioned in a citrate
buffer scrubber. The conditioned sample is oxidized in a tube furnace
to convert TRS to sulfur dioxide (SO2). The oxidized sample
is then analyzed for SO2 using a real-time SO2
analyzer as in Method 6C.
    This method may be used as an alternative to Methods 16, 16A, and
16B for determining TRS. Its use has been allowed on a case-by-case
basis and, based on our experience, it is a good alternative. Method
16C offers advantages over currently required methods by supplying
real-time data in the field using analyzers and procedures that are
currently used for other pollutants. Performance checks contained in
the method ensure that bias and calibration precision are periodically
checked and maintained.
    This rule will not require the use of Method 16C but will allow it
as an alternative method at the discretion of the user. This method
does not impact testing stringency; data are collected under the same
conditions and time intervals as the current methods.

IV. Public Comments on Proposed Method 16C

    Two public comment letters were received on the proposed rule. The
comments pointed out contradictions in different sections of the method
for the analyzer calibration error test and the system bias check. In
one instance, the analyzer calibration acceptance criterion was listed
as 5 percent and in another place it was listed as 2 percent. The rule
was corrected to state that 5 percent is the correct criterion for this
test. For the system bias check, unclear language was amended to
specifically state that the pre-test bias check is mandatory, not
optional. An additional comment led to the dropping of the sample
correction for moisture since it is not needed for most analyzers. The
public comments are addressed in the Summary of Comments and Responses
Document that has been added to the docket.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final rule does not add
information collection requirements beyond those currently required
under the applicable regulations. This final rule adds an alternative
test method that may be used at the discretion of the source.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because Method
16C is not a required test method but may be used at the discretion of
the source. Any small entity choosing to use Method 16C would likely do
so because it is less burdensome or more advantageous than the other
methods allowed.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. Any small entity choosing to use
Method 16C would likely do so because it is less burdensome or more
advantageous than the other methods allowed.

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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule adds Method 16C for
use as a new alternative method. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule
provides an additional testing option for measuring pollutants to what
is currently mandated. It does not add any new requirements and does
not affect pollutant emissions or air quality. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This final rule does not relax the control measures on
sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on July 30, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 23, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.

0
2. Amend Appendix A-6 to Part 60 by adding ``Method 16C'' in
alphanumeric order to read as follows:

Appendix A-6 to Part 60--Test Methods 16 Through 18

* * * * *

Method 16C--Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From
Stationary Sources

1.0 Scope and Application

What is Method 16C?

    Method 16C is a procedure for measuring total reduced sulfur
(TRS) in stationary source emissions using a continuous instrumental
analyzer. Quality assurance and quality control requirements are
included to assure that you, the tester, collect data of known
quality. You must document your adherence to these specific
requirements for equipment, supplies, sample collection and
analysis, calculations, and data analysis. This method does not
completely describe all equipment, supplies, and sampling and
analytical procedures you will need but refers to other methods for
some of the details. Therefore, to obtain reliable results, you
should also have a thorough knowledge of these additional test
methods which are found in appendix A to this part:
    (a) Method 6C--Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from
Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)
    (b) Method 7E--Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from
Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)
    (c) Method 16A--Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions
from Stationary Sources (Impinger Technique)
    1.1 Analytes. What does Method 16C determine?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Analyte                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduced sulfur including:                                      N/A
  Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), [(CH3)2S2].....................    62-49-20
  Dimethyl sulfide (DMS), [(CH3)2S].........................     75-18-3
  Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)....................................   7783-06-4
  Methyl mercaptan (MeSH), (CH4S)...........................     74-93-1
Reported as: Sulfur dioxide (SO2)...........................   7449-09-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for determining TRS
emissions from recovery furnaces (boilers), lime kilns, and smelt
dissolving tanks at kraft pulp mills, and from other sources when
specified in an applicable subpart of the regulations.
    1.3 Data Quality Objectives. Adherence to the requirements
described in Method 16C will enhance the quality of the data
obtained.

2.0 Summary of Method

    2.1 An integrated gas sample is extracted from the stack. The
SO2 is removed selectively from the sample using a
citrate buffer solution. The TRS compounds are then thermally
oxidized to SO2 and determined as SO2 by an
instrumental analyzer. This method is a combination of the sampling
procedures of Method 16A and the analytical procedures of Method 6C
(referenced in Method 7E), with minor modifications to facilitate
their use together.

3.0 Definitions

    Analyzer calibration error, Calibration curve, Calibration gas,
Low-level gas, Mid-level gas, High-level gas, Calibration drift,
Calibration span, Data recorder, Direct calibration mode, Gas
analyzer, Interference check, Measurement system, Response time,
Run, System calibration mode, System performance check, and Test are
the same as used in Methods 16A and 6C.

4.0 Interferences

    4.1 Reduced sulfur compounds other than those defined as TRS, if
present, may be measured by this method. Compounds like carbonyl
sulfide, which is partially oxidized to SO2 and may be
present in a lime kiln exit stack, would be a positive interferent.
Interferences may vary among instruments, and instrument-specific
interferences must be evaluated through the interference check.
    4.2 Particulate matter from the lime kiln stack gas (primarily
calcium carbonate) can cause a negative bias if it is allowed to
enter the citrate scrubber; the particulate matter will cause the pH
to rise and H2S to be absorbed before oxidation. Proper
use of the particulate filter, described in Section 6.1.3 of Method
16A, will eliminate this interference.

5.0 Safety

    5.1 Disclaimer. This method may involve hazardous materials,
operations, and equipment. This test method may not address all of
the safety problems associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and
health practices before performing this test method.
    5.2 Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a flammable, poisonous
gas with the odor of rotten eggs. Hydrogen sulfide is extremely
hazardous and can cause collapse, coma, and death within a few
seconds of one or two inhalations at sufficient concentrations. Low
concentrations irritate the mucous membranes and may cause nausea,
dizziness, and headache after exposure. It is the responsibility of
the user of this test method to establish appropriate safety and
health practices.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

What do I need for the measurement system?

    The measurement system is similar to those applicable components
in Methods 16A and 6C. Modifications to the apparatus are accepted
provided the performance criteria in Section 13.0 are met.
    6.1 Probe. Teflon tubing, 6.4-mm (\1/4\ in.) diameter,
sequentially wrapped with heat-resistant fiber strips, a rubberized
heat tape (plug at one end), and heat-resistant adhesive tape. A
flexible thermocouple or other suitable temperature measuring device
must be placed between the Teflon tubing and the fiber strips so
that the temperature can be monitored to prevent softening of the
probe. The probe must be sheathed in stainless steel to provide in-
stack rigidity. A series of bored-out stainless steel fittings
placed at the front of the sheath will prevent moisture and
particulate from entering between the probe and sheath. A 6.4-mm
(\1/4\ in.) Teflon elbow (bored out) must be attached to the inlet
of the probe, and a 2.54 cm (1 in.) piece of Teflon tubing must be
attached at the open end of the elbow to permit the opening of the
probe to be turned away from the particulate stream; this will
reduce the amount of particulate drawn into the sampling train. The
probe is depicted in Figure 16A-2 of Method 16A.
    6.2 Probe Brush. Nylon bristle brush with handle inserted into a
3.2-mm (\1/8\ in.) Teflon tubing. The Teflon tubing should be long
enough to pass the brush through the length of the probe.
    6.3 Particulate Filter. 50-mm Teflon filter holder and a 1- to
2-[mu]m porosity, Teflon filter (may be available through Savillex
Corporation, 5325 Highway 101, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343, or other
suppliers of filters). The filter holder must be maintained in a hot
box at a temperature sufficient to prevent moisture condensation. A
temperature of 121 [deg]C (250 [deg]F) was found to

be sufficient when testing a lime kiln under sub-freezing ambient
conditions.
    6.4 SO2 Scrubber. Three 300-ml Teflon segmented
impingers connected in series with flexible, thick-walled, Teflon
tubing. (Impinger parts and tubing may be available through Savillex
or other suppliers.) The first two impingers contain 100 ml of
citrate buffer, and the third impinger is initially dry. The tip of
the tube inserted into the solution should be constricted to less
than 3 mm (\1/8\ in.) ID and should be immersed to a depth of at
least 5 cm (2 in.).
    6.5 Combustion Tube. Quartz glass tubing with an expanded
combustion chamber 2.54 cm (1 in.) in diameter and at least 30.5 cm
(12 in.) long. The tube ends should have an outside diameter of 0.6
cm (\1/4\ in.) and be at least 15.3 cm (6 in.) long. This length is
necessary to maintain the quartz-glass connector near ambient
temperature and thereby avoid leaks. Alternative combustion tubes
are acceptable provided they are shown to combust TRS at
concentrations encountered during tests.
    6.6 Furnace. A furnace of sufficient size to enclose the
combustion chamber of the combustion tube with a temperature
regulator capable of maintaining the temperature at 800
100 [deg]C (1472  180 [deg]F). The furnace operating
temperature should be checked with a thermocouple to ensure
accuracy.
    6.7 Sampling Pump. A leak-free pump is required to pull the
sample gas through the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize
the response time of the measurement system and must be constructed
of material that is non-reactive to the gas it contacts. For
dilution-type measurement systems, an eductor pump may be used to
create a vacuum that draws the sample through a critical orifice at
a constant rate.
    6.8 Calibration Gas Manifold. The calibration gas manifold must
allow the introduction of calibration gases either directly to the
gas analyzer in direct calibration mode or into the measurement
system, at the probe, in system calibration mode, or both, depending
upon the type of system used. In system calibration mode, the system
must be able to flood the sampling probe and vent excess gas.
Alternatively, calibration gases may be introduced at the
calibration valve following the probe. Maintain a constant pressure
in the gas manifold. For in-stack dilution-type systems, a gas
dilution subsystem is required to transport large volumes of
purified air to the sample probe, and a probe controller is needed
to maintain the proper dilution ratio.
    6.9 Sample Gas Manifold. The sample gas manifold diverts a
portion of the sample to the analyzer, delivering the remainder to
the by-pass discharge vent. The manifold should also be able to
introduce calibration gases directly to the analyzer. The manifold
must be made of material that is non-reactive to SO2 and
be configured to safely discharge the bypass gas.
    6.10 SO2 Analyzer. You must use an instrument that
uses an ultraviolet, non-dispersive infrared, fluorescence, or other
detection principle to continuously measure SO2 in the
gas stream provided it meets the performance specifications in
Section 13.0.
    6.11 Data Recording. A strip chart recorder, computerized data
acquisition system, digital recorder, or data logger for recording
measurement data must be used.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents must conform to
the specifications established by the Committee on Analytical
Reagents of the American Chemical Society. When such specifications
are not available, the best available grade must be used.

    7.1 Water. Deionized distilled water must conform to ASTM
Specification D 1193-77 or 91 Type 3 (incorporated by reference--see
Sec.  60.17). The KMnO4 test for oxidizable organic
matter may be omitted when high concentrations of organic matter are
not expected to be present.
    7.2 Citrate Buffer. Dissolve 300 g of potassium citrate (or 284
g of sodium citrate) and 41 g of anhydrous citric acid in 1 liter of
water (200 ml is needed per test). Adjust the pH to between 5.4 and
5.6 with potassium citrate or citric acid, as required.
    7.3 Calibration Gas. Refer to Section 7.1 of Method 7E (as
applicable) for the calibration gas requirements. Example
calibration gas mixtures are listed below.
    (a) SO2 in nitrogen (N2).
    (b) SO2 in air.
    (c) SO2 and carbon dioxide (CO2) in
N2.
    (d) SO2 and oxygen (O2) in N2.
    (e) SO2/CO2/O2 gas mixture in
N2.
    (f) CO2/NOX gas mixture in N2.
    (g) CO2/SO2/NOX gas mixture in
N2.

For fluorescence-based analyzers, the O2 and
CO2 concentrations of the calibration gases as introduced
to the analyzer must be within 1.0 percent (absolute) O2
and 1.0 percent (absolute) CO2 of the O2 and
CO2 concentrations of the effluent samples as introduced
to the analyzer. Alternatively, for fluorescence-based analyzers,
use calibration blends of SO2 in air and the nomographs
provided by the vendor to determine the quenching correction factor
(the effluent O2 and CO2 concentrations must
be known). This requirement does not apply to ambient-level
fluorescence analyzers that are used in conjunction with sample
dilution systems. Alternatively, H2S in O2 or
air may be used to calibrate the analyzer through the tube furnace.
    7.4 System Performance Check Gas. You must use H2S
(100 ppmv or less) stored in aluminum cylinders with the
concentration certified by the manufacturer. Hydrogen sulfide in
nitrogen is more stable than H2S in air, but air may be
used as the balance gas. Note: Alternatively, H2S
recovery gas generated from a permeation device gravimetrically
calibrated and certified at some convenient operating temperature
may be used. The permeation rate of the device must be such that at
the appropriate dilution gas flow rate, an H2S
concentration can be generated in the range of the stack gas or
within 20 percent of the emission standard.
    7.5 Interference Check. Examples of test gases for the
interference check are listed in Table 7E-3 of Method 7E.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport

    8.1 Pre-sampling Tests. Before measuring emissions, perform the
following procedures:
    (a) Calibration gas verification,
    (b) Calibration error test,
    (c) System performance check,
    (d) Verification that the interference check has been satisfied.
    8.1.1 Calibration Gas Verification. Obtain a certificate from
the gas manufacturer documenting the quality of the gas. Confirm
that the manufacturer certification is complete and current. Ensure
that your calibration gas certifications have not expired. This
documentation should be available on-site for inspection. To the
extent practicable, select a high-level gas concentration that will
result in the measured emissions being between 20 and 100 percent of
the calibration span.
    8.1.2 Analyzer Calibration Error Test. After you have assembled,
prepared, and calibrated your sampling system and analyzer, you must
conduct a 3-point analyzer calibration error test before the first
run and again after any failed system performance check or failed
drift test to ensure the calibration is acceptable. Introduce the
low-, mid-, and high-level calibration gases sequentially to the
analyzer in direct calibration mode. For each calibration gas,
calculate the analyzer calibration error using Equation 16C-1 in
Section 12.2. The calibration error for the low-, mid-, and high-
level gases must not exceed 5.0 percent or 0.5 ppmv. If the
calibration error specification is not met, take corrective action
and repeat the test until an acceptable 3-point calibration is
achieved.
    8.1.3 System Performance Check. A system performance check is
done (1) to validate the sampling train components and procedure
(prior to testing), and (2) to validate a test run (after a run).
You must conduct a performance check in the field prior to testing,
and after each 3-hour run or after three 1-hour runs. A performance
check consists of sampling and analyzing a known concentration of
H2S (system performance check gas) and comparing the
analyzed concentration to the known concentration. To conduct the
system performance check, mix the system performance check gas
(Section 7.4) and ambient air, that has been conditioned to remove
moisture and sulfur-containing gases, in a dilution system such as
that shown in Figure 16A-3 of Method 16A. Alternatively, ultra-high
purity (UHP) grade air may be used. Adjust the gas flow rates to
generate an H2S concentration in the range of the stack
gas or within 20 percent of the applicable standard and an oxygen
concentration greater than 1 percent at a total flow rate of at
least 2.5 liters/min (5.3 ft3/hr). Use Equation 16A-3 from Method
16A to calculate the concentration of system performance check gas
generated. Calibrate the flow rate from both gas sources with a soap
bubble flow meter so that the diluted concentration of
H2S can be accurately calculated. Alternatively, mass
flow controllers with documented calibrations may be used if UHP
grade air is being used. Sample duration should be sufficiently long
to ensure a stable response from the analyzer.

Analyze in the same manner as the emission samples. Collect the
sample through the probe of the sampling train using a manifold or
other suitable device that will ensure extraction of a
representative sample. The TRS sample concentration measured between
system performance checks is corrected by the average of the pre-
and post-system performance checks.
    8.1.4 Interference Check. Same as in Method 7E, Section 8.2.7.
    8.2 Measurement System Preparation.
    8.2.1 For the SO2 scrubber, measure 100 ml of citrate
buffer into the first and second impingers; leave the third impinger
empty. Immerse the impingers in an ice bath, and locate them as
close as possible to the filter heat box. The connecting tubing
should be free of loops. Maintain the probe and filter temperatures
sufficiently high to prevent moisture condensation, and monitor with
a suitable temperature sensor. Prepare the oxidation furnace and
maintain at 800  100[deg]C (1472
180[deg]F).
    8.2.2 Citrate Scrubber Conditioning Procedure. Condition the
citrate buffer scrubbing solution by pulling stack gas through the
Teflon impingers as described in Section 8.4.1.
    8.3 Pretest Procedures. After the complete measurement system
has been set up at the site and deemed to be operational, the
following procedures must be completed before sampling is initiated.
    8.3.1 Leak-Check. Appropriate leak-check procedures must be
employed to verify the integrity of all components, sample lines,
and connections. For components upstream of the sample pump, attach
the probe end of the sample line to a manometer or vacuum gauge,
start the pump and pull a vacuum greater than 50 mm (2 in.) Hg,
close off the pump outlet, and then stop the pump and ascertain that
there is no leak for 1 minute. For components after the pump, apply
a slight positive pressure and check for leaks by applying a liquid
(detergent in water, for example) at each joint. Bubbling indicates
the presence of a leak.
    8.3.2 Initial System Performance Check. A system performance
check using the test gas (Section 7.4) is performed prior to testing
to validate the sampling train components and procedure.
    8.4 Sample Collection and Analysis.
    8.4.1 After performing the required pretest procedures described
in Section 8.1, insert the sampling probe into the test port
ensuring that no dilution air enters the stack through the port.
Condition the sampling system and citrate buffer solution for a
minimum of 15 minutes before beginning analysis. Begin sampling and
analysis. A source test consists of three test runs. A test run
shall consist of a single sample collected over a 3-hour period or
three separate 1-hour samples collected over a period not to exceed
six hours.
    8.5 Post-Run Evaluations.
    8.5.1 System Performance Check. Perform a post-run system
performance check before replacing the citrate buffer solution and
particulate filter and before the probe is cleaned. The check
results must not exceed the 100  20 percent limit set
forth in Section 13.2. If this limit is exceeded, the intervening
run is considered invalid. However, if the recovery efficiency is
not in the 100  20 percent range, but the results do not
affect the compliance or noncompliance status of the affected
facility, the Administrator may decide to accept the results of the
compliance test.
    8.5.2 Calibration Drift. After a run or series of runs, not to
exceed a 24-hour period after initial calibration, perform a
calibration drift test using a calibration gas (preferably the level
that best approximates the sample concentration) in direct
calibration mode. This drift must not differ from the initial
calibration error percent by more than 3.0 percent or 0.5 ppm. If
the drift exceeds this limit, the intervening run or runs are
considered valid, but a new analyzer calibration error test must be
performed and passed before continuing sampling.

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Quality control
            Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1.2.........................  Analyzer             Establishes initial
                                 calibration error    calibration
                                 test.                accuracy within
                                                      5.0%.
8.1.3, 8.5.1..................  System performance   Ensures accuracy of
                                 check.               sampling/
                                                      analytical
                                                      procedure to 100
                                                       20%.
8.5.2.........................  Calibration drift    Ensures calibration
                                 test.                drift is within
                                                      3.0%.
8.1.4.........................  Interference check.  Checks for
                                                      analytical
                                                      interferences.
8.3...........................  Sampling equipment   Ensures accurate
                                 leak-check.          measurement of
                                                      sample gas flow
                                                      rate, sample
                                                      volume.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.0 Calibration

    10.1 Calibrate the system using the gases described in Section
7.3. Perform the initial 3-point calibration error test as described
in Section 8.1.2 before you start the test. The specification in
Section 13 must be met. Conduct an initial system performance test
described in Section 8.1.3 as well before the test to validate the
sampling components and procedures before sampling. After the test
commences, a system performance check is required after each run.
You must include a copy of the manufacturer's certification of the
calibration gases used in the testing as part of the test report.
This certification must include the 13 documentation requirements in
the EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards, September 1997, as amended August 25, 1999.

11.0 Analytical Procedure

    Because sample collection and analysis are performed together
(see Section 8.0), additional discussion of the analytical procedure
is not necessary.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

    12.1 Nomenclature.

ACE = Analyzer calibration error, percent of calibration span.
CD = Calibration drift, percent.
CDir = Measured concentration of a calibration gas (low,
mid, or high) when introduced in direct calibration mode, ppmv.
CH2S = Concentration of the system performance check gas,
ppmv H2S.
CM = Average of initial and final system calibration bias
check responses for the upscale calibration gas, ppmv.
CMA = Actual concentration of the upscale calibration
gas, ppmv.
CO = Average of the initial and final system calibration
bias check responses from the low-level (or zero) calibration gas,
ppmv.
COA = Actual concentration of the low-level calibration
gas, ppmv.
CS = Measured concentration of the system performance gas
when introduced in system calibration mode, ppmv H2S.
CV = Manufacturer certified concentration of a
calibration gas (low, mid, or high), ppmv SO2.
CSO2 = Unadjusted sample SO2 concentration,
ppmv.
CTRS = Total reduced sulfur concentration corrected for
system performance, ppmv.
DF = Dilution system (if used) dilution factor, dimensionless.
SP = System performance, percent.

    12.2 Analyzer Calibration Error. Use Equation 16C-1 to calculate
the analyzer calibration error for the low-, mid-, and high-level
calibration gases.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY12.175

    12.3 System Performance Check. Use Equation 16C-2 to calculate the
system performance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY12.176

    12.4 Calibration Drift. Use Equation 16C-3 to calculate the
calibration drift at a single concentration level after a run or series
of runs (not to exceed a 24-hr period) from initial calibration.
Compare the single-level calibration gas error (ACEn) to the
original error obtained for that gas in the initial analyzer
calibration error test (ACEi).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY12.177

    12.5 TRS Concentration as SO2. For each sample or test
run, calculate the arithmetic average of SO2 concentration
values (e.g., 1-minute averages). Then calculate the sample TRS
concentration by adjusting the average value of CSO2 for
system performance using Equation 16C-4a if you use a non-zero gas as
your low-level calibration gas, or Equation 16C-4b if you use a zero
gas as your low-level calibration gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY12.178

13.0 Method Performance

    13.1 Analyzer Calibration Error. At each calibration gas level
(low, mid, and high), the calibration error must either not exceed 5.0
percent of the calibration gas concentration or
[verbarlm]CDir-Cv[verbarlm] must be <=0.5 ppmv.
    13.2 System Performance. Each system performance check must not
deviate from the system performance gas concentration by more than 20
percent. Alternatively, the results are acceptable if
[verbarlm]Cs-CH2S[verbarlm] is <=0.5 ppmv.
    13.3 Calibration Drift. The calibration drift at the end of any run
or series of runs within a 24-hour period must not differ by more than
3.0 percent from the original ACE at the test concentration level or
[verbarlm]ACEi-ACEn[verbarlm] must not exceed 0.5 ppmv.
    13.4 Interference Check. For the analyzer, the total interference
response (i.e., the sum of the interference responses of all tested
gaseous components) must not be greater than 2.5 percent of the
calibration span. Any interference is also acceptable if the sum of the
responses does not exceed 0.5 ppmv for a calibration span of 5 to 10
ppmv, or 0.2 ppmv for a calibration span <5 ppmv.

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 References

1. The references are the same as in Section 16.0 of Method 16,
Section 17.0 of Method 16A, and Section 17.0 of Method 6C.
2. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc,. A Study of TRS Measurement Methods. Technical
Bulletin No. 434. New York, NY. May 1984. 12p.
3. Margeson, J.H., J.E. Knoll, and M.R. Midgett. A Manual Method for
TRS Determination. Draft available from the authors. Source Branch,
Quality Assurance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data [Reserved]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-18513 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56750-56753]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0117; Notice 1]

Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., and Sumitomo Rubber North
America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. and Sumitomo Rubber North
America, Inc. (collectively, ``Sumitomo'') have determined that certain
Sumitomo and Falken truck tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than

4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. Sumitomo filed a
noncompliance report dated November 12, 2020. Sumitomo subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on December 4, 2020, and later amended its petition on
April 8, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces the receipt of Sumitomo's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that the comments you have submitted by mail
were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 1947778).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Sumitomo has determined that certain Sumitomo and Falken truck
tires do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph S6.1.2(a)
of FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of
More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR
571.119). Sumitomo filed a noncompliance report dated November 12,
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Sumitomo subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
December 4, 2020, and later amended its petition on April 8, 2021, for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Sumitomo's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 8,275 of the following Sumitomo and Falken truck and
bus radial tires, manufactured between January 26, 2020, and June 2,
2020, are potentially involved:

 Sumitomo ST900 11R24.5 16PR
 Sumitomo ST528 11R24.5 16PR
 Sumitomo ST528 11R22.5 16PR
 Sumitomo ST710SE 11R22.5 144/142L
 Sumitomo ST710SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST710SE 11R24.5 146/143L
 Sumitomo ST788+SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST709SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST709SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST778+SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST788SE 285/75R24.5 147/144L
 Sumitomo ST948SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST908N 11R22.5 146/144L
 Sumitomo ST788SE 11R22.5 146/143L
 Sumitomo ST788SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST719SE 11R22.5 146/142L
 Sumitomo ST719SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST719SE 285/75R24.5 147/144L
 Sumitomo ST948SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST938 11R24.5 149/146L
 Falken RI130EC 11R22.5 146/143L
 Falken RI130EC 11R24.5 149/146L
 Falken GI388 11R24.5 149/146K
 Falken RI150EC 11R22.5 146/143L
 Falken RI130EC285/75R24.5 147/144L
 Falken RI151S 315/80R22.5 156/150L

III. Noncompliance

    Sumitomo explains that the noncompliance is that the subject tires
may show visual evidence of bead separation near the edge of the rim
flange when tested in accordance with paragraph S7.2 of FMVSS No. 119,
and therefore, do not fully meet the requirements specified in
paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically, the bead separation
is due to the heat-induced expansion caused by the misplacement of the
joint tape and a change in the tape's composition.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. When tested in accordance with the
procedures of S7.2, a tire shall exhibit no visual evidence of tread,
sidewall, ply, cord, innerliner, or bead separation, chunking, broken
cords, cracking, or open splices.

V. Summary of Sumitomo's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Sumitomo's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided
by Sumitomo. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not
reflect the views of the Agency. Sumitomo described the subject
noncompliance and contended that the noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Sumitomo submitted the following
reasoning:

1. The Deformation in the Subject Tires Does Not Affect Structural
Integrity

    a. As described in its noncompliance report, Sumitomo discovered
that a population of truck and bus radial tires may be susceptible to
developing a visible deformation in a single, small area of the bead
near the upper edge of a rim flange. In an email to NHTSA on March 3,
2021, Sumitomo clarified that they used the term ``deformation'' to
refer to the visual evidence. After cutting into the tires to inspect
the issue, Sumitomo could see that the deformation was the result of a
``breakdown in the bond between components in the bead,'' so that it
fell within the definition of bead separation in FMVSS No. 109 New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. Sumitomo states that FMVSS
No. 119 does not define ``bead separation,'' but it states that ``[a]ll
terms defined in the Act and the rules and standards issued under its
authority are used as defined therein.'' Therefore, we looked to that
term as it is defined in FMVSS No. 109. Further, Sumitomo claims, that
after review the rulemaking history of FMVSS No. 119 and the definition
of bead separation, Sumitomo concluded that the heat-induced expansion
caused by the misplaced joint tape may technically fall within the
definition of bead separation, even though it does not involve a
structural weakness in the tire. Sumitomo states that its test data
demonstrates that the deformation is not likely to expose an occupant
of a vehicle equipped with such tires to a significantly greater risk
than an occupant of a vehicle equipped with a fully compliant tire.
    b. With respect to the structure of the tire, the deformation
results from two factors related to the tire's joint tape: Misplacement
of the joint tape and a change in the tape's composition that altered
the rubber's adhesiveness. Because joint tape is not a structural
component of the tire, the resulting deformation is not an indication
of a structural weakness in these tires. Moreover, the deformation
induced by the joint tape does not affect the integrity of the adjacent
components.
    c. In manufacturing tires, Sumitomo produces long strips of
material that make up the innerliner. The innerliner is the inner-most
component of the tire. During the tire-building process, the innerliner
ends are joined together with an adhesive material (i.e., joint tape).
Other components are then added on top of the inner liner. After all
components are added, the built tire undergoes vulcanization (applying
heat and pressure for a set period) to fully adhere the components and
complete the tire-forming process. The joint tape's purpose is simply
to keep the ends of the innerliner together during the tire-building
process until the assemblage is vulcanized.
    d. Due to misplacement of the joint tape and a change in the tape's
composition, the subject tires may develop a visible deformation in the
bead area near the edge of the rim flange.
    e. The tire's bead core (made of several layers of steel cord
bundled closely together) is enveloped by a separate layer of steel
cords. The deformation is the separation between the joint strip rubber
and the rubber chafer (which serves as the outer layer of the tire).
The deformation occurs outside the structural components of the tire
(i.e., it forms to the right of the filler cord).
    f. The deformation forms due to a lack of adhesion between the
joint tape and components in the bead area, which can increase the
percentage of butyl rubber content in this area. The increased butyl
rubber content makes the material more susceptible to heat expansion
and, combined with the lack of adhesion in the joint tape, the small
area becomes susceptible to separations. Because the joint tape
terminates in the bead area, the deformation will only occur there. The
steel filler cords next to this area contain the deformation and
prevent it from propagating beyond the specified area. Sumitomo's
testing demonstrates that this deformation does not indicate, and will
not subsequently cause, a structural weakness that could lead to a tire
failure or rapid air loss.
    g. Sumitomo conducted a series of three tests to confirm the
structural integrity of the subject tires. In one test (Test 1),
SUMITOMO tested a tire returned by a Japanese customer due to the
appearance of a deformation near the bead. The returned tire was a
Dunlop 275/80R22.5 SP680 that the customer used for an unknown number
of miles. For this test, Sumitomo inflated the tire to 100% of the
JATMA-recommended inflation pressure for its maximum load (900 kPa or
approximately 130 psi) and loaded the tire to 100% of its maximum load-
carrying capacity (3,450 kg). Sumitomo ran the tire on a test drum at
80 km/h for 1,250 hours (approximately 100,000 km or just over 62,000
miles). The deformation near the bead did not expand (it measured 40 mm
before the test and 40 mm after the test) or cause air loss, and the
tire did not otherwise fail during the testing.
    For the second test (Test 2), Sumitomo manufactured a test tire
using intentionally misplaced joint tape composed of the same material
as the tires listed in the noncompliance report. Test 2 seeks to take
the tire to failure while it is underinflated (at 67% of the
recommended inflation pressure) and overloaded (at 120% of the tire's
maximum load-carrying capacity). As of the filing of this petition, the
tire has completed three of the four test phases. In Phase One,
Sumitomo ran the tire on the test drum at 50 km/h for 520 hours. In
Phase Two, Sumitomo increased the speed to 60 km/h and ran the tire for
285 hours. In Phase Three, Sumitomo increased the speed to 65 km/h and
ran the tire for 190 hours. The tire developed a deformation as
expected. Despite being underinflated and overloaded, the tire
deformation did not cause air loss or otherwise cause the tire to fail.
Since submitting the initial petition, Sumitomo has completed
additional testing: Phases Four and Five of Test 2, which were run at
70 km/h and 80 km/h respectively. Sumitomo stated that the results of
Phases 4 and 5 were consistent with the previous phases of testing:
``No air leak or structural damage''. The full results of Test Two,
Sumitomo's complete petition and all supporting documents, are
available by logging onto the FDMS website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search instructions to
locate the docket number as listed in the title of this notice.
Sumitomo contends that the test results provide further support for its
position that the deformation and ``bead separation'' caused by the
misplaced joint tape is not indicative of a structural weakness, and,
therefore, that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    In a third test (Test 3), Sumitomo manufactured two tires (Dunlop
295/80R22.5 SP128A) with intentionally misplaced joint tape to test the
tires in three severely overloaded conditions. During the testing, the
tires developed deformations, as expected, near the bead in the area
where the misplaced joint tape was applied. In the most extreme
condition (loaded to 300% of the tire's maximum load-carrying
capacity), the tires also developed a surface crack in the area of the
misplaced joint tape. But even in these unrealistically severe
conditions, the tire did not develop air leaks or otherwise
structurally fail.
    h. In addition to these three tests, Sumitomo also manufactured
four test

tires (two for each) with misplaced joint tape to conduct the endurance
tests in FMVSS No. 119 and UNECE R54. In both tests, the tires
developed deformations, but otherwise met the substantive performance
requirements.

2. Conclusion

    a. Sumitomo claims that its testing demonstrates that the
deformations that may form due to the misplaced joint tape are not
indicative of a structural weakness and will not cause air loss.
    b. Sumitomo says that the tires maintain their structural integrity
and air pressure and otherwise meet all of the labeling and performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
    c. Moreover, Sumitomo is not aware of any tire failures, air loss,
crashes, or injuries related to this issue.
    Sumitomo concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Sumitomo no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Sumitomo notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-22080 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24799-24800]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0147; FRL-9978-66--Region 5]

Adequacy Status of the Indiana Portion of the Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI Area for the Submitted 2008 Ozone Standard Fifteen Percent
Rate of Progress Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of finding of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the EPA is notifying the public that we find
the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the 15%
Rate of Progress Plan for the Indiana portion of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI 2008 ozone standard nonattainment area (Lake and
Porter Counties) adequate for use in transportation conformity
determinations. On February 28, 2017, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a 2008 ozone standard 15%
Rate of Progress Plan for Lake and Porter Counties, which included the
MVEBs for 2017. IDEM provided further clarification to the Plan on
January 9, 2018. As a result of our finding, this area must use these
MVEBs from the submitted 15% Rate of Progress Plan for future
transportation conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is applicable June 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), Air
Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Background

    On February 28, 2017, IDEM submitted to EPA a 15% Rate of Progress
Plan for the Indiana portion of the 2008 8-hour ozone Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area, and provided further
clarification to the Plan on January 9, 2018. This plan included MVEBs
for VOC and NOX for the year 2017. On March 8, 2018, EPA
sent a letter to IDEM stating that the MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. Receipt of these MVEBs was
announced on EPA's transportation conformity website: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity. The finding and other
relevant information are also available on EPA's transportation
conformity website.
    The 2017 MVEBs for Lake and Porter Counties are 16.68 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX and 6.85 tpd of VOCs.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay

timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from
EPA's completeness review, and is also a separate action from EPA's
evaluation of and decision whether to approve a proposed SIP revision.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.

    Dated: May 16, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-11585 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P