[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50768-50783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24887]
[[Page 50767]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 50768]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7074-5]
RIN 2060-AG87
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing friction materials
manufacturing facilities. Some of these facilities, specifically those
that perform solvent mixing, have been identified as major sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) including n-hexane, toluene, and
trichloroethylene. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated
to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lungs, skin,
mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and
kidney.
These proposed standards would implement section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). Implementation of these proposed standards will
reduce HAP emissions by approximately 340 tons per year (tpy).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before December 3, 2001.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by October 24, 2001, a public hearing will be held on
November 5, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-57. U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-57,
U.S. EPA, Room Number M1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA requests that a separate copy of each public comment be sent to
the contact person listed below.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC
beginning at 10 a.m., or at an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-97-57 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground
floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule,
contact Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2364, electronic mail address: [email protected]. For
questions about the public hearing, contact Cassie Posey, Metals Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0069, electronic mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks
in WordPerfect'' version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All comments
and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-
97-57. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted
by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Kevin Cavender, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel
Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a
submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Cassie Posey at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending the public hearing must also contact Ms. Posey
to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The address,
telephone number, and e-mail address for Ms. Posey are listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If a public hearing
is held, it will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket reflects the full administrative record for this
action and includes all the information relied upon by EPA in the
development of this proposed rule. The docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted
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. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
[[Page 50769]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................... 33634, 327999, 333613 Friction materials manufacturing
facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.9485 of the
proposed rule. 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.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for the development of
NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What source category is affected by this proposed rule?
D. What is friction materials manufacturing?
E. What HAP are emitted from friction materials manufacturing
facilities?
F. What are the health effects associated with emissions from
friction materials manufacturing facilities?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What is the affected source?
B. What is the emission limitation?
C. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?
D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
E. What are the compliance deadlines?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we select the pollutants?
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
emission limitation for solvent mixers?
E. How did we select the initial and continuous compliance
requirements?
F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air quality environmental and energy
impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category
of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP is friction
materials manufacturing. Major sources are those that emit or have the
potential to emit at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
The NESHAP for new and existing sources developed under section 112
must reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission
reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental benefits, and
energy requirements. Emission reductions may be accomplished through
promulgation of emission standards under section 112(d). These may
include, but are not limited to:
Reducing the volume of emissions of HAP, or eliminating
the emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or
other modifications;
Enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
Collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
Design, equipment, work practice, operational standards,
or any combination thereof, if it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard (including requirements for operator
training or certification); or
A combination of the above.
Section 112 requires us to establish a minimum baseline or
``floor'' for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source
category or subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than
the standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12
percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or
more sources. For categories and subcategories with fewer than 30
sources, the standards cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing five sources.
Section 112(d) allows us to distinguish among classes, types, and
sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. For example, we can
establish two classes of sources within a category or subcategory based
on size and establish a different emission standard for each class.
For NESHAP developed to date, we have used several different
approaches to determine the MACT floor for individual source categories
depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available data.
These approaches include determining a MACT floor based on: (1)
emissions test data that characterize actual HAP emissions from
presently controlled sources included in the source category; (2)
existing federally-enforceable emission limitations specified in air
regulations and facility air permits applicable to the individual
sources comprising the source category; and (3) application of a
specific type of control technology for air emissions currently being
used by sources in the source category or by sources with similar
pollutant stream characteristics.
To select the MACT standard, we evaluate several alternatives
(which may be different levels of emission control or different levels
of applicability or both) to select the one that best reflects the
appropriate MACT level. The selected alternative may be more stringent
than the MACT floor, but the control level selected must be technically
achievable. In selecting an alternative, we consider the achievable HAP
emission reduction (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other
environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum degree
of emission reduction without
[[Page 50770]]
unreasonable economic or other impacts. The regulatory alternatives
selected for new and existing sources may be different, and separate
regulatory decisions may be made for new and existing sources.
We then translate the selected regulatory alternative into a
proposed rule. The public is invited to comment on the proposal during
the public comment period. Based on an evaluation of these comments, we
reach a final decision and promulgate the standard.
C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list all categories of major
HAP emitting sources and to promulgate regulations for their control.
An initial list of source categories and accompanying schedules for
regulation were published on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941). Friction
materials manufacturing was not among the initially listed source
categories. A subsequent notice published on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197)
added friction products manufacturing to the list of major source
categories scheduled for regulation by November 15, 2000. The listing
was based on information obtained in a 1992 survey of the industry from
which we concluded that some facilities that manufacture friction
products have the potential to be major sources of HAP emissions.
Friction products manufacturing includes facilities that manufacture,
assemble, or rebuild friction products such as brakes or clutches.
Based on additional information obtained during the development of this
proposed rule, we have determined that only facilities that manufacture
friction materials have the potential to emit HAP at major source
levels. As such, this proposed rule will affect only friction materials
manufacturers. The next revision to the source category list under
section 112, which is published in the Federal Register, will remove
the friction products manufacturing source category and add the
friction material manufacturing source category.
D. What Is Friction Materials Manufacturing?
Friction materials manufacturing is a subset of friction products
manufacturing. Broadly speaking, the friction products manufacturing
industry includes any facility that manufactures or re-manufactures
friction products such as brakes and clutches. Friction products are
used in a number of market segments, including automotive, aerospace,
railroad, heavy equipment, industrial, appliance, and lawn and garden.
We know of 147 domestic friction products manufacturing facilities. Of
these, 16 only assemble new products, 78 rebuild or otherwise
recondition products, and 53 manufacture friction materials (e.g.,
brake and clutch linings). Assemblers purchase new friction materials
from other manufacturers and attach it to new backing plates or shoes.
Rebuilders purchase new friction materials from other manufacturers and
attach it to reconditioned brake shoes or clutch plates. None of these
facilities manufacture friction materials and none are major sources of
HAP. Consequently, none of these facilities would be regulated under
today's proposed rule.
Friction materials manufacturers make brake and clutch linings and,
in most cases, assemble finished products. They can be classified into
three classes based on the friction materials manufactured: sintered
material, carbon-based material, and resin-based material.
Two facilities manufacture sintered friction materials. Both use
high temperature processes to fuse non-HAP metal and mineral
ingredients into a consolidated product. Neither facility is believed
to be a major source of HAP, and, therefore, neither would be regulated
under today's proposal.
Four facilities manufacture carbon-based friction products in which
carbon is impregnated into a synthetic mesh to create a friction
material. Hydrogen cyanide is the only HAP known to be emitted in the
process. All four existing facilities have federally enforceable
control requirements that limit hydrogen cyanide emissions to well
below the major source threshold of 10 tpy. In addition, we do not
anticipate that any new carbon-based facilities will be built. As a
result, manufacturers of carbon-based friction products will not be
regulated under today's proposed rule.
Forty-seven facilities manufacture resin-based friction materials.
At these facilities, friction ingredients are mixed with resins which,
when cured, bind the friction ingredients together. In most cases,
mixing can be done without the aid of a solvent. However, for some
friction materials, solvents are needed to enhance mixing and as a
process aid in later stages. Of the 47 facilities that manufacture
resin-based friction materials, only four use solvents to mix friction
materials. All four are believed to be major sources of HAP due to air
releases of the solvents used. The HAP-containing solvents used include
n-hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene.
Based on our review, we believe that solvent mixing is the only
significant HAP emission source associated with friction material
manufacturing.\1\ As such, today's proposed rule establishes emission
limitations for HAP emissions only for solvent mixers at new and
existing sources that manufacture resin-based friction materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two additional resin-based manufacturers are believed to be
major sources. However, both are major due primarily to HAP
emissions from ancillary surface coating and degreasing operations,
which either are or will be regulated under other NESHAP. These two
resin-based manufacturers have no solvent mixers, and as such, are
not included in the MACT floor analysis for solvent mixers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principal operations used in the manufacture of resin-based
friction materials can be classified into four general areas: raw
material preparation, forming, curing, and assembling and finishing.
In the raw material preparation area, raw materials (reinforcement
material, property modifiers, resins, solvents, and other additives)
are blended and made ready for subsequent processing. Process units in
the raw material preparation area include mixers, granulators, and
dryers. Mixing is accomplished in discrete batches. Double-arm mixers
are the most common type of mixer used. A typical batch includes
between 300 to 1000 pounds of friction ingredients and takes between 20
minutes and 1 hour to mix. Batches of mixed friction material may then
be processed further through a granulator which extrudes the material
through a \1/4\ to \1/2\ inch die, and then cuts the extruded material
into \1/2\ to 1 inch lengths. Some facilities also dry the friction
material after mixing, but before the forming step, to remove any
remaining solvent from the material mix. The dryer is typically an
indirect type which dries the material mix by contact and heat transfer
through the dryer wall. Typical drying temperatures are on the order of
150 deg.F.
The blended and prepared friction material is then transferred from
the raw material preparation area to the forming area, where the
material is formed into shapes. Forming equipment includes extruders,
roll machines, and hot presses. Extruders are used to form tapes and
pellets of friction material. Pellets are formed by forcing the moist
friction material through perforations in a metal die and cutting the
continuously formed strands to a predetermined length. Tapes are formed
by forcing the friction material through a metal die with an
appropriately-shaped slot in a heated extruder head. Roll machines are
used to form flat, pliable tapes, similar
[[Page 50771]]
to those produced by an extruder, and are also used to produce wider
sheets of friction material. The moist friction material is metered
between a series of rollers which form a continuous strip of friction
material with a preset width and thickness. Hot presses are used to
form disc brake pucks, integrally-molded disc brake pads, brake
segments, and brake blocks. Hot presses apply heat and pressure over
time to consolidate the friction mix into a solid product. Premeasured
quantities of friction mix are poured into each press cavity. As heat
and pressure are applied, the material is partially cured.
After the friction shapes are formed, they are cured in a curing
oven or post bake oven. Curing times and temperatures vary with product
size and composition. Curing times range from 1 hour to 2 days, but
typically run about 12 hours. Oven temperatures ramp up and then down
over the curing cycle and range from 180 to 500 deg.F. Once the
friction material is formed and cured, it is finished and subsequently
assembled with some type of metal backing. Finishing operations bring
the friction product to final specifications. These operations include
machining, painting, and edge coding. Assembly operations include steel
preparation (i.e, degreasing), adhesive application, oven bonding,
riveting, and attachment of hardware (e.g., mounting brackets, wear
sensors, and noise suppressors).
E. What HAP Are Emitted From Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities?
The nature and quantity of HAP emissions from the manufacturing of
friction materials is driven almost entirely by whether HAP containing
solvents are used in mixing. The primary HAP emitted from the major
source friction materials manufacturing facilities are HAP solvents
from mixing operations. Currently, these include n-hexane, toluene, and
trichloroethylene. The main sources of these HAP emissions are the
solvent mixers themselves. Other potential sources of HAP solvent
emissions include granulators, dryers, extruders, roll machines, hot
presses, and ovens.
Emissions from mixers can occur as solvent is added to the mixer,
during the mixing cycle, and as fugitive emissions when the mixed
material is transferred from the mixer to the next and subsequent
process operations. The type and quantity of organic HAP emissions from
solvent mixers varies depending on the type of solvent used, the amount
of solvent used per batch, the configuration of the mixer, and the
presence or absence of a solvent recovery system. Three of the seven
solvent mixers are equipped with solvent recovery systems designed to
minimize HAP emissions and to reclaim solvent for reuse. For these
mixers, the solvent is removed from the mixed material by vacuum
evaporation and collected in either a condenser or a carbon adsorber.
The reclaimed solvent is recycled and reused in the process or sold as
reclaimed solvent.
Residual solvent that is not recovered or emitted at the solvent
mixer can be emitted in subsequent processes as the friction material
is processed through extruders, roll machines, granulators, dryers, hot
presses, and ovens. The potential for emissions from these downstream
processes is proportional to the quantity of residual solvent retained
in the friction material after mixing.
Small amounts of phenol and formaldehyde (HAP components of
phenolic resins) are emitted from hot presses and curing ovens or
otherwise subject to methods of emission reductions. At the four major
HAP sources, phenol and formaldehyde emissions account for less than 5
percent of the total HAP emitted. None of the existing hot presses or
curing ovens at the four major sources are equipped with HAP emission
controls. Available test data indicate that the phenol and formaldehyde
emissions are on the order of 5 parts per million (ppm) or less, which
is well below the level which can effectively be controlled by add on
controls or any other methods of emissions reductions.
F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities?
The primary HAP that would be addressed by this proposed rule
include n-hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene. Each are associated
with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic health
disorders (e.g., reproductive and developmental effects, and effects on
the central nervous system (CNS)), and acute health disorders (e.g.,
irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes and effects on the
CNS, liver, and kidneys).
Acute inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of hexane causes
mild CNS effects, including dizziness, giddiness, slight nausea, and
headache. Chronic exposure to hexane in air causes numbness in the
extremities, muscular weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue.
One study reported testicular damage in rats exposed to hexane through
inhalation. No information is available on the carcinogenic effects of
hexane in humans or animals. We have classified hexane in Group D, not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to trichloroethylene can
affect the human CNS, producing symptoms such as dizziness, headache,
confusion, euphoria, facial numbness, and weakness. High, short-term
exposures to humans by inhalation have also been associated with
effects on the liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal system, and skin. Human
evidence is not adequate to establish a causal link between
trichloroethylene exposure and cancer, but animal inhalation studies
have reported increases in lung, liver, and testicular tumors. We have
classified trichloroethylene as intermediate between probable and
possible human carcinogen (Group B/C). We are currently reassessing its
potential carcinogenicity.
Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to the CNS,
such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as well as irregular
heartbeat. Adverse CNS effects have been reported in chronic abusers
exposed to high levels of toluene. Symptoms include tremors, decreased
brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing,
and vision. Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of humans to lower
levels of toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory
tract, eye irritation, sore throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and
difficulty with sleep. Studies of children whose mothers were exposed
to toluene by inhalation or mixed solvents during pregnancy have
reported CNS problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and delayed
development. However, these effects may not be attributable to toluene
alone. We have classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to
human carcinogenicity.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Is the Affected Source?
The affected source is each existing and new solvent mixer at a
friction materials manufacturing facility that is, or is part of, a
major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source is one constructed
or reconstructed after October 4, 2001. An existing affected source is
one constructed or reconstructed on or before October 4, 2001.
B. What Is the Emission Limitation?
The proposed rule would require owners and operators of both new
and existing affected solvent mixers to limit emissions of total
organic HAP discharged to the atmosphere to 15
[[Page 50772]]
percent or less of that loaded into an affected solvent mixer, based on
a 7-day block average.
C. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
Initial compliance would be determined by measuring and recording
the weight of solvent added to each affected mixer and the weight of
solvent recovered for each mix batch over the first 7 consecutive days
after the compliance date. Initial compliance is demonstrated if the
average amount of solvent discharged to the atmosphere recorded for
each mix batch over the 7-day period does not exceed 15 percent. The
proposed rule also includes performance specifications for the weight
measurement device as well as procedures for conducting the
measurements and computing the results. To demonstrate continuous
compliance, owners and operators would be required to continue to weigh
and record the percent of solvent emitted for each mix batch and to
maintain each 7-day block average at or below 15 percent.
D. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Table 1 in the proposed rule shows each of the requirements
in the General Provisions (Secs. 63.2 through 63.15) and whether they
apply.
Under today's proposed rule, owners or operators subject to these
standards must submit each of the notifications contained in the
General Provisions that applies to them. These include an initial
notification of applicability, which for existing sources is required
within 120 days of the promulgation date; and a notification of
compliance status, which must be submitted before the close of business
on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial
compliance demonstration.
In addition, owners or operators subject to these standards would
need to prepare and maintain all records required by the General
Provisions to document compliance with each enforceable provision of
the proposed rule. Records needed to show continuous compliance with
the emission limitation in the proposed rule are to be kept for 5
years.
We are also requiring owners and operators of all affected sources
to submit semiannual compliance reports which highlight any deviations
from the emission limitation and other provisions of the proposed rule.
Each report would be due no later than 30 days after the end of the
reporting period. If no deviations occurred, owners and operators are
only required to submit a statement that there were no deviations from
the emission limitation during the reporting period. More detailed
information would be required, as specified in the proposed rule, if a
deviation occurred or there was a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
event. Owners and operators must submit an immediate report if they
undertake actions during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are
inconsistent with the procedures in their approved startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the General
Provisions. Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if the owner or operator demonstrates
to our satisfaction that the affected source was operating in
accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
E. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
Existing sources must comply within 2 years of the date of
publication of the final rule. New or reconstructed sources must comply
at startup, or upon the date of publication of the final rule,
depending on their startup date.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category?
We added the friction products manufacturing source category to the
list of major sources to be regulated under Title III on on June 4,
1996 (61 FR 28197) because we believed that a number of friction
products manufacturers had the potential to emit HAP at major source
levels. Friction products manufacturing includes facilities that
manufacture, assemble, or rebuild friction products such as brakes or
clutches. Based on additional information obtained during the
development of this proposed rule, we have determined that only
facilities that manufacture friction materials have the potential to
emit HAP at major source levels. As such, we have selected friction
materials manufacturing as the source category to regulate.
B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?
Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in
the source category or subcategory to which the emission limitation and
other regulatory requirements apply. The affected source may be the
same collection of equipment and processes as the source category or it
may be a subset of the source category. For each rule, we must decide
which individual pieces of equipment and processes warrant separate
standards in the context of the CAA section 112 requirements and the
industry operating practices.
We considered two approaches for designating the affected source
for friction materials manufacturing--the entire facility or individual
emission sources. We concluded that designating individual solvent
mixers as the affected source is the most appropriate approach. The
solvent mixer is the only significant source of HAP emissions at the
four major sources, and controlling individual solvent mixers is
consistent with the approach to control applied at all four major
sources. The affected source definition we selected is the same for
both new and existing sources. We decided not to identify hot presses
and curing ovens as affected sources because HAP emissions from these
sources are very low, none of the existing hot presses and curing ovens
are equipped with HAP controls, and we do not believe that hot presses
and curing ovens at friction materials manufacturers can effectively be
controlled by add on controls.
C. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
The HAP solvents currently used at the friction materials
manufacturing facilities estimated to be major sources include n-
hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene. Whether these specific solvents
will continue to be used or whether they might in the future be
replaced with other HAP solvents is uncertain. As such, we believe that
establishing separate standards for individual solvents would be
unwise. Consequently, we have selected HAP solvent emissions as a
surrogate for the individual HAP compounds n-hexane, toluene, and
trichloroethylene.
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission
Limitation for Solvent Mixers?
As reported previously, we surveyed the entire friction materials
manufacturing industry and determined that four facilities with solvent
mixers emit HAP in excess of the major source levels. Combined, these
four facilities (referred to here as Plants A, B, C, and D) operate a
total of seven solvent mixers, of which three are equipped with air
pollution controls, and four have no control.
Plant A operates one solvent mixer and uses toluene as the solvent.
[[Page 50773]]
According to information on air releases reported by the plant to the
1998 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), air emissions of toluene are on
the order of 45 tons per year. After mixing, solvent is drawn out of
the mixer under a strong vacuum. Data collected by plant personnel
indicate that typically more than 95 percent of the solvent is removed
from the mixed material, with less than 5 percent remaining in the mix.
The evacuated solvent vapors are then condensed in a non-contact
condenser, which cools the vapors to 32 deg.F. Liquid condensate is
collected and recycled to the process, and uncondensed vapor is
exhausted to the atmosphere through a stack.
Plant A has a State operating permit which requires that the
facility collect at least 85 percent (by weight) of the solvent that is
added to the mixer, averaged over a calender week. The percent solvent
recovery is determined for each individual mix batch by weighing the
amount of solvent loaded into the mixer and weighing the amount of
solvent recovered by the condenser. Plant A began collecting solvent
recovery data for each batch in January 1999. We reviewed the solvent
recovery records from January 1999 through October 1999 and found that
the 85 percent solvent recovery limit has been consistently achieved on
a weekly, or 7-day block average, basis.
Plant B has four solvent mixers that use n-hexane as the solvent.
Again, based on self-reported emissions data to TRI for 1998, Plant B
emits approximately 450 tons of hexane annually. Three of the four
mixers have no air pollution controls. All of the solvent added to
these mixers is emitted to the atmosphere. The fourth mixer has a
solvent recovery system similar to the one described for Plant A.
Solvent is drawn out of the mixed material by vacuum. The solvent
vapors are then collected by a non-contact condenser, which cools the
solvent vapor to 60 deg.F. Once a quarter, Plant B performs a solvent
mass balance for one batch to evaluate the performance of the solvent
recovery system. The amount of solvent added to the mixer is measured
using a calibrated flow meter and the amount of solvent recovered by
the condenser is weighed. The results of these measurements indicate
that approximately 70 percent of the solvent is recovered by the
solvent recovery system on average. A moisture analysis is also
performed on a sample of the mixed material to determine how much
solvent remains in the mix. Using these data and the overall system
efficiency, plant personnel have determined that approximately 90
percent of the solvent is removed from the mix by the solvent recovery
system, and that the condenser removes approximately 80 percent of the
solvent vapors.
Plant C has one solvent mixer that uses trichloroethylene as the
solvent. Based on the self-reported emissions data to TRI for 1998,
Plant C emits approximately 30 tons of trichloroethylene per year. As
with the other two controlled mixers, solvent is removed from the mixer
under vacuum. No data are available on how much of the solvent is
removed from the mixed friction material by the vacuum system. The
solvent vapors are combined with the emissions from a solvent
degreaser, and the comingled vapors are collected in an activated-
carbon adsorber. The adsorbed solvent is recovered daily by steam
stripping the adsorber bed, and the recovered solvent is sold.
Performance data based on a single inlet/outlet emissions test
conducted in 1996 indicate that the subject adsorber is capable of
achieving 94 percent control. It should be noted that control
efficiency does not equate to solvent recovery since it does not
account for the residual solvent content remaining in the mixed
material. If one assumes that the residual solvent content is similar
to that achieved at Plants A and B (i.e., between 5 and 10 percent),
the corresponding percent of solvent recovered would be on the order of
85 and 90 percent.
Plant D operates one solvent mixer that uses toluene as the
solvent. Based on the self-reported emissions data to TRI for 1998,
Plant D emits about 40 tons of toluene annually. Plant D has no air
pollution controls on its mixer, and 100 percent of the solvent used is
emitted to the atmosphere.
Selection of MACT
We have determined that the MACT floor for existing mixers is a
solvent recovery system with a 70 percent solvent recovery efficiency,
and the MACT floor for new mixers is a solvent recovery system with a
85 percent solvent recovery efficiency. We have also determined that it
is both technically and economically feasible for existing mixers to
achieve better than the floor level of control and are, therefore,
establishing MACT for both new and existing solvent mixers at 85
percent solvent recovery efficiency. The following paragraphs describe
how we determined the MACT floors, and our rationale for going beyond
the floor for existing mixers.
Because there are only seven solvent mixers (fewer than 30
sources), the MACT floor for existing solvent mixers is based on the
best performing five sources. The available information does not allow
for a floor calculation based on actual emissions data or State limits.
However, ranking the sources by the estimated performance of the
control technology applied allows for a floor determination based on
the median of the best performing five sources, i.e., the third best
performing source.
Each of the three mixers with control is equipped with a solvent
recovery system comprised of two components: a vacuum system to remove
the solvent from the mixed material, and a control device that recovers
the solvent from the exhaust. The overall performance of these systems
is determined by the performances of the individual components, i.e.,
the efficiency of the vacuum system at removing solvent from the mixed
material, and the efficiency of the control device in removing the
solvent vapors from the vacuum exhaust.
Plants A and B both use a condenser to recover the solvent vapors.
Based on the available data, Plant A's recovery system performs better
than the recovery system used at Plant B. Plant A's vacuum system
removes 95 percent of the toluene from the mixer, and the condenser
removes 90 percent of the solvent vapor, resulting in an overall
solvent recovery efficiency of 85 percent. Plant B's vacuum system is
estimated to remove 90 percent of the hexane from the mixer, and the
condenser removes 80 percent of the hexane vapors from the vacuum
exhaust, resulting in an overall solvent recovery efficiency of 70
percent.
Plant C uses a carbon adsorber to recover the trichloroethylene
solvent vapors contained in the vacuum exhaust coming from the mixer.
The 94 percent control efficiency estimated for the carbon adsorber is
the highest of the three control devices applied. However, as stated
previously, we have no information from which to assess the
effectiveness of the vacuum system at removing the solvent from the
mixed material. Without this information, we cannot determine the
overall solvent recovery efficiency achieved by the vacuum system and
carbon adsorber at Plant C. However, we believe that it is reasonable
to assume that the vacuum system at Plant C is comparable to the
systems at Plants A and B. Therefore, for the purpose of determining
the MACT floor, we have assumed that the vacuum system at Plant C is 90
percent efficient at removing the solvent from the mixed material (the
lesser of the two known efficiencies), and have assigned an 85 percent
solvent recovery efficiency for the overall system (vacuum system and
carbon adsorber). Our assumption
[[Page 50774]]
regarding Plant C's vacuum system efficiency does not impact the MACT
determination for existing sources since the floor, as selected below,
is ultimately based on Plant B, and since we have decided to establish
MACT at a level beyond the floor.
The ranking of the five best sources for purposes of the floor
determination is as follows: 85 percent for Plants A and C, 70 percent
for Plant B, and zero percent recovery for any two of the remaining
mixers. The third best performing source and, thus, the MACT floor for
existing solvent mixers is the mixer at Plant B with 70 percent solvent
recovery. The MACT floor for new mixers is based on the best performing
solvent recovery system. We have determined that Plant A has the best
performing solvent recovery system and have set the MACT floor for new
mixers at an 85 percent solvent recovery efficiency.
Next we evaluated options that would be more stringent than the
floor. Clearly requiring existing mixers to meet an 85 percent solvent
recovery efficiency is an option for existing mixers. We looked at the
volatility of the three different solvents used at the existing solvent
mixers to determine if the volatility of the solvents could limit the
vacuum system efficiency such that for certain solvents an 85 percent
solvent recovery efficiency could not be achieved. Vacuum systems
remove solvent from the mixed material by evaporation at low pressure.
Consequently, the higher the volatility of the solvent, the more easily
it can be removed by a vacuum system. Of the three solvents used,
hexane is the most volatile, while toluene is the least volatile. Based
on the available data, Plant A's vacuum system efficiency of 95 percent
is the best of the existing systems. Since Plant A also uses the least
volatile solvent (i.e., toluene) it is clear that a vacuum system
efficiency of 95 percent can be achieved for all three of the solvents
used at the existing plants.
We then evaluated the condenser used at Plant B, the poorer
performer of the sources with condensers, to determine if improvements
to condenser efficiency are possible. The key parameter that determines
condenser performance for a given solvent is the outlet temperature of
the condenser. The lower the outlet temperature of the condenser, the
more solvent will be condensed, and the higher the condenser efficiency
will be. For Plant B, the condenser outlet temperature is 60 deg.F.
This compares to an outlet temperature of 32 deg.F at Plant A.
Condenser outlet temperatures of 32 deg.F can be obtained with either a
glycol-cooled condenser, or a Freon-cooled condenser. The vapor
pressure of hexane, the solvent used at Plant B, is estimated to be
approximately 100 millimeters of mercury (mm of Hg) at 60 deg.F. At
32 deg.F, the vapor pressure of hexane is estimated to be approximately
50 mm of Hg. This indicates that the penetration (the amount of solvent
that is not condensed) would be halved by lowering the condenser outlet
temperature at Plant B from 60 deg.F degrees to 32 deg.F. Since the
current condenser is estimated to be 80 percent efficient, we would
predict that a condenser with a 32 deg.F outlet temperature would
achieve 90 percent efficiency for this gas stream. If Plant B were to
install both an improved vacuum system and an improved condenser, we
predict the overall solvent recovery would be 85 percent (0.95 x 0.90
x 100 percent = 85 percent). Based on the above analysis, we believe
that it is technically feasible to achieve 85 percent solvent recovery
on each existing solvent mixer used at friction materials manufacturing
facilities.
We also believe it is economically feasible to achieve 85 percent
solvent recovery on each existing solvent mixer. The incremental costs
to install and operate a solvent recovery system that achieves 85
percent over that of a system that would achieve 70 percent are
minimal. Nationwide capital for the above-the-floor alternative
increases by $92,000 over the floor level. However, because more
solvent is recovered under the above-the-floor alternative, the annual
costs decrease by $29,000 per year.
We also evaluated and rejected an option that would prohibit the
use of HAP solvents altogether. The HAP solvent usage has declined
significantly as friction materials manufacturers develop formulations
and processes that either use non-HAP solvents or need no solvents in
the mixing process (i.e., dry mixing). Personnel at Plants B and C are
actively working to identify alternatives to the HAP solvent they
currently use. Plant B uses a dry mixer to mix many of the formulations
it currently makes, but must use hexane to mix those formulations where
the dry mixing process cannot meet the performance characteristics
needed. They have also investigated several non-HAP solvents, but have
not yet identified an acceptable alternative to hexane. Plant C uses
non-HAP solvents to mix many of the friction materials they
manufacture, but still have a number of formulations that require the
use of trichloroethylene to achieve the necessary characteristics.
While it may be possible in the future to eliminate the use of HAP
solvents from all friction materials manufacturing, we believe it is
not feasible currently to eliminate HAP solvent usage from all friction
materials manufacturing.
Selection of the Standards
The CAA requires us to set numerical emission limitations unless
the setting or enforcement of a numerical emission limitation is
infeasible, in which case a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard can be set. Consequently, we have selected a
format for the standards that expresses the goal of 85 percent solvent
recovery as an emission limit based on the amount of solvent loaded
into the mixer and the amount recovered. Specifically, the proposed
standards would limit the HAP solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no
more than 15 percent of that loaded into the solvent mixer.
We also evaluated several averaging times to determine an
appropriate averaging time for the standards. We determined that a long
averaging time (such as a 30-day or annual average) would not be
appropriate because it would allow for long periods of under
performance by the solvent recovery system. In addition, one deviation
from a 30-day or annual average would put the plant at risk of being
determined to be out of compliance for the entire period. We determined
that requiring compliance on a per batch basis (i.e. no averaging)
would also be inappropriate since it would not accommodate normal
variability in the residual solvent requirements for different product
mixes. The use of a 7-day block average provides time to detect and
correct problems (e.g., individual mix batches not achieving the
emission limitation) without the risk of the longer averaging periods.
A 7-day block average is also consistent with the existing State
operating permit requirements for Plant A.
E. How Did We Select the Initial and Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
We selected the initial and continuous compliance requirements
based on a combination of the generic requirements in the General
Provisions (subpart A, 40 CFR part 63) and specific requirements
tailored to the friction materials manufacturing source category.
We are requiring owners or operators of all affected sources to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation for solvent
mixers within 2 years of the date of publication of the final rule. We
feel that 2 years should provide sufficient time for the affected
facilities to purchase and install control
[[Page 50775]]
equipment capable of meeting the standards. We feel that a compliance
date of less than 2 years may not be long enough due to the potential
need for process modifications and product testing to accommodate
solvent recovery.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation for
solvent mixers, owners or operators would be required to demonstrate
that the percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere during the
first 7 days after the compliance date, expressed as a 7-day block
average, does not exceed 15 percent of that loaded into an affected
solvent mixer. In order to demonstrate continuous compliance, owners
and operators would be required to show on an ongoing basis that the
percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for each successive
7-day period does not average more than 15 percent of that loaded into
an affected mixer. We selected a 7-day block averaging period as part
of the standards to accommodate necessary variations in residual
solvent in some product mixes.
Testing requirements include the weighing of solvent loaded into
each affected solvent mixer and the weighing of solvent recovered for
each mix batch. Compliance is then determined against the average
recovery achieved for each mix batch over each 7-day block period.
Requirements of the weight measurement device include a minimum
accuracy and requirements for calibration and inspection.
We selected weighing as the means for determining compliance based
on our strong belief that each affected facility will elect to comply
with the HAP solvent emission limit by installing and operating a
condenser-based solvent recovery system over other control measures
such as carbon adsorption or incineration. Weighing precludes the need
for costly emissions testing and provides continuing compliance
assurance on a weekly basis. If an owner or operator elects to use a
control device other than a condenser-based solvent recovery system,
they would be allowed to petition the Administrator for approval to use
an alternative means of demonstrating initial and continuous compliance
with the emission limitation for solvent mixers.
F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
Generally, we selected the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements consistent with those contained in the subpart A
General Provisions. We deleted, however, notifications, records, and
reports that relate to performance tests, continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous opacity monitoring systems
(COMS), opacity observations or other visible emission (VE)
observations since none of these requirements are relevant to the
proposed rule. The records and reports required by the proposed rule
are the minimum needed to demonstrate continuous compliance.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
Estimates of organic HAP emissions from the use of solvents are
based on a mass balance using solvent usage data collected during the
industry survey, estimates of solvent recovery efficiencies for
existing controls, and the proposed solvent emission limitation of 15
percent or 85 percent recovery. Four currently uncontrolled mixers will
need to be fitted with a solvent recovery system, and the solvent
recovery system on one existing mixer will need to be upgraded. The
remaining two mixers currently meet the proposed standards and as such
should require no additional upgrades. We estimate that the proposed
rule would reduce organic HAP emissions by approximately 340 tpy from a
baseline level of about 670 tpy. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) would also be reduced by 340 tpy because these HAP are
also VOC.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
We obtained process and emissions data from the facilities with the
best-controlled solvent mixers and incorporated these data into the
control cost algorithms for condensers in the ``OAQPS Control Cost
Manual'' (EPA 450/3-90-006). We then applied these costs to those
facilities that we project would be impacted by the proposed standards.
As stated above, we project that five mixers located at two facilities
would be impacted by the proposed rule. Four existing mixers would need
to be equipped with solvent recovery systems, and the existing solvent
recovery system on a fifth mixer would need to be upgraded to meet the
proposed standards. Both facilities would incur capital costs to
install condensers to meet the proposed standards, as well as annual
costs to operate and maintain the condensers. Monitoring is also an
important component of MACT and the cost estimate. We expect that all
four facilities affected by today's proposed rule will incur some
additional yearly costs due to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of this proposed rule.
Implementation of the control and monitoring requirements is
expected to result in a nationwide capital cost of about $253,000, with
a total annualized cost (without recovery credits) of approximately
$206,000 per year. Nationwide total annualized cost, including credits
for recovered solvent, is estimated to be about $43,000 per year.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
Based on the control cost estimates provided above, we believe the
economic impacts associated with this proposed rule will be negligible.
In 1992, there were 53 facilities manufacturing friction materials. Of
these 53 facilities, four are affected by the proposed rule and will
incur control and monitoring costs. The total annualized cost of
$206,000 per year (without recovery credits) is much less than 1
percent of industry revenues. When we consider the solvent recovery
credits along with control technology costs, the total economic impact
of this proposed rule is a cost to the industry of $43,000 per year. As
a result, the impacts of this rule are substantivally less than 1
percent of total revenues and is not significant enough to alter the
market price for friction materials.
D. What Are the Non-Air Quality Environmental and Energy Impacts?
Indirect air impacts of today's proposed rule would result from
increased electricity usage associated with operation of control
devices (i.e., condensers) installed to meet the proposed emission
limitation. Assuming that plants will purchase electricity from a power
plant, we estimate that the proposed rule would increase secondary
emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants by less than 0.5
tpy. These criteria pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The overall energy
demand is expected to increase by about 340 million British thermal
units per year (MMBtu/yr) nationwide under the proposed rule. This
increase in energy demand is based on the electricity required to
operate the vacuum and condenser systems needed to comply with the
proposed rule.
Because impacted facilities are expected to reuse or sell the
solvent recovered by the condensers, we do not anticipate any
significant wastewater or solid waste impacts as a result of today's
proposed rule.
[[Page 50776]]
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from all
interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and
detailed analyses with your comments to allow us to make the best use
of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-97-57 (see ADDRESSES).
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments, and the rule requirements
will not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments own or operate friction material manufacturing
facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the rule. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was
performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide
greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this proposed
rule has been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
[[Page 50777]]
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this
proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $206,000.
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that
this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that
has no more than 500 employees for NAICS codes 327999 and 333613 or no
more than 750 employees for SIC code 33634; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that only one company meets one of the definitions of small
entity--a small business that has no more than 500 employees for NAICS
code 333613. This company owns only one of the four facilities subject
to today's proposed rule. The mixer at this facility is equipped with a
solvent recovery system capable of meeting the requirements of this
proposed rule. As such, the additional burden to this facility as a
result of this proposed rule would be $21,000 per year for
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with demonstrating
continued compliance with the proposed rule. There are several firms
subject to today's proposed rule whose costs will be a greater
percentage of sales than this small business.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. We held a
number of meetings with industry in which the one small business
participated, and we visited the one small business impacted by this
proposed rule. The EPA continues to be interested in the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on
issues related to such impacts.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2025.01), and you may obtain a copy
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by email at [email protected]; or
by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also download a copy off the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are
not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed
to determine compliance.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to be 577 labor hours
per year, at a total annual cost of $26,657. This burden estimate
includes the cost to install and operate the weight measurement device;
one-time submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, with
semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were
not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance inspections;
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs
associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of
the ICR are estimated at $15,913, with operation and maintenance costs
of $261/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to: review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search existing data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection
[[Page 50778]]
techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503; marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after October
4, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it by November 5, 2001. The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves a technical standard. The EPA is proposing
test methods based on the weighing portion of EPA Method 28 (section
7.1) for weighing of recovered solvent. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards that could
be used in addition to this EPA method.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified two
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to this proposed
rule. The EPA determined these two standards identified for measuring
recovered solvent on a scale were impractical alternatives to the EPA
test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, EPA
does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM E319-85 (Reapproved 1997),
``Standard Practice for the Evaluation of Single-Pan Mechanical
Balances,'' is impractical for the purposes of this rulemaking
primarily because this standard is not a complete weighing procedure
since it does not include a pretest procedure.
The voluntary consensus standard ASME Power Test Codes,
``Supplement on Instruments and Apparatus, Part 5, Measurement of
Quantity of Materials, Chapter 1, Weighing Scales,'' is impractical for
the purposes of this rulemaking because it does not specify the number
of initial calibration weights to be used nor a specific pretest weight
procedure.
Section 63.9525 to proposed subpart QQQQQ lists the testing
procedures included in this proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.8 of the
General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use
alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
We welcome comment on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invite the public to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Friction products manufacturing, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 28, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding subpart QQQQQ to
read as follows:
Subpart QQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.9480 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9485 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9490 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9495 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitation
63.9500 What emission limitation must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.9505 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements
63.9510 By what date must I conduct my initial compliance
demonstration?
63.9515 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to me?
63.9520 What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial
compliance?
63.9525 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my weight measurement device?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.9530 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitation that applies to me?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.9535 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9540 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9545 What records must I keep?
63.9550 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.9555 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9560 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9565 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.9570 How do I apply for alternative compliance requirements?
63.9571-63.9579 [Reserved]
Table
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart QQQQQ
Subpart QQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.9480 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for friction materials manufacturing facilities
that use a solvent-based process. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
[[Page 50779]]
compliance with all applicable emission limitations in this subpart.
Sec. 63.9485 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
friction materials manufacturing facility (as defined in Sec. 63.9565)
that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to you. Your
friction materials manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP if
it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07
megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a
rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
(b) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to research and
development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean
Air Act.
Sec. 63.9490 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at your friction materials manufacturing facility.
(b) The affected source covered by this subpart is each new,
reconstructed, or existing solvent mixer (as defined in Sec. 63.9565)
at your friction materials manufacturing facility.
(c) A solvent mixer at your friction materials manufacturing
facility is new if you commence construction of the solvent mixer after
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. An
affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of
``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2, and reconstruction is commenced after
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(d) A solvent mixer at your friction materials manufacturing
facility is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.
Sec. 63.9495 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing solvent mixer, you must comply with
each of the requirements for existing sources no later than 2 years
after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(b) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer and its
initial startup date is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must comply with the requirements
for new and reconstructed sources by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(c) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer and its
initial startup date is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must comply with the requirements for new
and reconstructed sources upon initial startup.
(d) If your friction materials manufacturing facility is an area
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that
it becomes a (or part of a) major source of HAP emissions, then
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
(1) For any portion of the area source that becomes a new or
reconstructed affected source, you must comply with the requirements
for new and reconstructed upon startup or no later than [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is
later.
(2) For any portion of the area source that becomes an existing
affected source, you must comply with the requirements for existing
sources no later than 1 year after the area source becomes a major
source or [DATE 2 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], whichever is later.
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.9535. Several of the notifications must be submitted before the
compliance date for your affected source.
Emission Limitation
Sec. 63.9500 What emission limitation must I meet?
For each new, reconstructed, or existing solvent mixer at your
friction materials manufacturing facility, you must limit HAP solvent
emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 15 percent of that loaded
into an affected solvent mixer, based on a 7-day block average.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9505 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitation in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements
Sec. 63.9510 By what date must I conduct my initial compliance
demonstration?
(a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct your
initial compliance demonstration within 7 calendar days after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.9495.
(b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery
system, you must comply with the provisions in Sec. 63.9570.
Sec. 63.9515 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to me?
(a) You have demonstrated initial compliance for each solvent mixer
subject to the emission limitation in Sec. 63.9500 if the HAP solvent
discharged to the atmosphere during the first 7 days after the
compliance date, determined according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.9520, does not exceed a 7-day block average of 15 percent.
(b) You must submit a notification of compliance status containing
the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to
Sec. 63.9535(d).
Sec. 63.9520 What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial
compliance?
(a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must use the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation in
Sec. 63.9500.
(1) Record the date and time of each mix batch.
(2) Record the identity of each mix batch using a unique batch ID,
as defined in Sec. 63.9565.
(3) Measure and record the weight of HAP solvent loaded into the
solvent mixer for each mix batch.
(4) Measure and record the weight of HAP solvent recovered for each
mix batch.
(5) Determine the percent of HAP solvent discharged to the
atmosphere for each mix batch according to Equation 1 of this section
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC01.008
Where:
%Db = Percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere
for each mix batch, percent;
Srec = Weight of HAP solvent recovered for each mix batch,
lb;
Smix = Weight of HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer
for each mix batch, lb.
(6) Determine the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent
discharged to the atmosphere according to Equation 2 of this section as
follows:
[[Page 50780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC01.009
Where:
%D7 = 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged
to the atmosphere, percent
i = mix batch
n = number of mix batches in 7-day block average
(7) Have valid data for at least 90 percent of the mix batches over
the 7-day averaging period.
(b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery
system, you may apply to EPA for approval to use an alternative method
of demonstrating compliance with the emission limitation for solvent
mixers in Sec. 63.9500, as provided in Sec. 63.9570.
Sec. 63.9525 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my weight measurement device?
(a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must install,
operate, and maintain a weight measurement device to measure the weight
of HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer and the weight of HAP
solvent recovered for each mix batch.
(b) For each weight measurement device required by this section,
you must develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring
plan that addresses the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (6)
of this section:
(1) Installation of the weight measurement device;
(2) The minimum accuracy of the weight measurement device in pounds
and as a percent of the average weight of solvent to be loaded into the
solvent mixer;
(3) Site-specific procedures for how the measurements will be made;
(4) How the measurement data will be recorded, reduced, and stored;
(5) Procedures and acceptance criteria for calibration of the
weight measurement device; and
(6) How the measurement device will be maintained including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(c) The site-specific monitoring plan required in paragraph (b) of
this section must include, at a minimum, the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) The weight measurement device must have a minimum accuracy of
0.05 kilograms (0.1 pounds) or 1
percent of the average weight of solvent to be loaded into the solvent
mixer, whichever is greater.
(2) An initial multi-point calibration of the weight measurement
device must be made using 5 points spanning the expected range of
weight measurements before the weight measurement device can be used.
The manufacturer's calibration results can be used to meet this
requirement.
(3) Once per day, a calibration audit must be made using a single
Class F calibration weight that corresponds to 20 to 80 percent of the
average weight of solvent to be loaded into the solvent mixer. If the
weight measurement device cannot reproduce the value of the calibration
weight within 0.05 kilograms (0.1 pounds) or 1
percent of the average weight of solvent to be loaded into the solvent
mixer, whichever is greater, the scale must be recalibrated before use
with at least five Class F calibration weights spanning the expected
range of weight measurements.
(d) You must operate and maintain the weight measurement device
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(e) You must maintain records of all maintenance activities,
calibrations, and calibration audits.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9530 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitation that applies to me?
(a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission limitation for solvent mixers
in Sec. 63.9500 according to the provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Except for during malfunctions of your weight measurement
device and associated repairs, you must collect and reduce the
information required in Sec. 63.9520(a)(1) through (7) at all times
that the affected source is operating and record all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(2) Maintain the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent
discharged to the atmosphere at or below 15 percent.
(b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery
system, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitation for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500 according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.9570.
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the
emission limitation for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. These instances are
deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.9540.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.
(e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.9535 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.8(f)(4)
and 63.9(b), (c), (d), and (h) that apply to you by the specified
dates.
(b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery
system, you must comply with the provisions in Sec. 63.9570.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must submit your initial notification no later than 120
calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(d) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new
affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit your initial notification no
later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(e) You must submit a notification of compliance status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
Sec. 63.9540 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule, you
must submit each semiannual compliance report according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.9495 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes
first after the
[[Page 50781]]
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.9495.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your
first compliance report is due.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 of this chapter, and if
the permitting authority has established dates for submitting
semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and
subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting
authority has established instead of according to the dates in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(b) Each compliance report must include the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, and if applicable,
paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate, and complete.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from the emission limitation for
solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500, a statement that there were no
deviations from the emission limitation during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a monitoring system was
out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there
were no periods during which a monitoring system was out-of-control
during the reporting period.
(c) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) and (c)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(d) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
semiannual reporting period that was not consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit for an affected
source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 of this chapter, you must
report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report
for an affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, and the compliance report includes
all the required information concerning deviations from any emission
limitation in this subpart, then submission of the compliance report
satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report
deviations from permit requirements to your permitting authority.
Sec. 63.9545 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section that apply to you.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(b) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.9525 to show
proper operation and maintenance of the weight measurement device.
(c) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.9530 to show
continuous compliance with the emission limitation for solvent mixers
in Sec. 63.9500.
Sec. 63.9550 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.9555 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.9560 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local or
tribal agencies are as follows:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitation in
Sec. 63.9500 under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
[[Page 50782]]
Sec. 63.9565 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Batch ID means a unique identifier used to differentiate each
individual mix batch.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit);
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction,
regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Friction ingredients means any of the components used in the
manufacture of friction material, excluding the HAP solvent. Friction
ingredients include, but are not limited to, reinforcement materials,
property modifiers, resins, and other additives.
Friction materials manufacturing facility means a facility that
manufactures friction materials using a solvent-based process. Friction
materials are used in the manufacture of products used to accelerate or
decelerate objects. Products that use friction materials include, but
are not limited to, disc brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings,
brake shoes, brake segments, brake blocks, brake discs, clutch facings,
and clutches.
HAP solvent means a solvent that contains 10 percent or more of any
one HAP, as listed in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, or any
combination of HAP that is added to a solvent mixer. Examples include
hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene.
Initial startup means the first time that equipment is put into
operation. Initial startup does not include operation solely for
testing equipment. Initial startup does not include subsequent startups
(as defined in this section) following malfunction or shutdowns or
following changes in product or between batch operations.
Mix batch means the process of manufacturing each batch of friction
materials in a solvent mixer.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in
Sec. 63.2.
7-day block average means an averaging technique for a weekly
compliance determination where the calculated values for percent HAP
solvent discharged to the atmosphere are averaged together for all mix
batches (for which there are valid data) in a 7-day block period
according to the equation provided in Sec. 63.9520(a)(6).
Solvent mixer means a mixer used in the friction materials
manufacturing process in which HAP solvent is used as one of the
ingredients. Trace amounts of HAP solvents in resins or other friction
ingredients do not qualify mixers as solvent mixers.
Solvent recovery system means equipment used for the purpose of
recovering the HAP solvent from the exhaust stream. An example of a
solvent recovery system is a condenser.
Startup means bringing equipment online and starting the production
process.
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan means a plan developed
according to the provisions of Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Sec. 63.9570 How do I apply for alternative compliance requirements?
(a) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery
system, you may request approval to use an alternative method of
demonstrating compliance with the emission limitation in Sec. 63.9500
according to the procedures in this section.
(b) You can request approval to use an alternative method of
demonstrating compliance in the initial notification for existing
sources, the notification of construction or reconstruction for new
sources, or at any time.
(c) You must submit a description of the proposed testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that will be used and the
proposed basis for demonstrating compliance.
(1) If you have not previously performed testing, you must submit a
proposed test plan. If you are seeking permission to use an alternative
method of compliance based on previously performed testing, you must
submit the results of testing, a description of the procedures followed
in testing, and a description of pertinent conditions during testing.
(2) You must submit a monitoring plan that includes a description
of the control device, test results verifying the performance of the
control device, the appropriate operating parameters that will be
monitored, and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish
continuous compliance with the emission limitation in Sec. 63.9500. You
must also include the proposed performance specifications and quality
assurance procedures for the monitors. The monitoring plan is subject
to the Administrator's approval. You must install, calibrate, operate,
and maintain the monitors in accordance with the monitoring plan
approved by the Administrator.
(d) Use of the alternative method of demonstrating compliance must
not begin until approval is granted by the Administrator.
Secs. 63.9571-63.9579 [Reserved]
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQ
[As required in Sec. 63.9505, you must comply with each applicable General Provisions requirements according to
the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject QQQQQ? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................ Applicability............. Yes.
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions............... Yes.
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Abbreviations... Yes.
Sec. 63.4........................ Prohibited Activities..... Yes.
Sec. 63.5........................ Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)-(c), (e)-(f), (i)- Compliance with Standards Yes.
(j). and Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(d)..................... [Reserved]
[[Page 50783]]
Sec. 63.6(g)..................... Use of an Alternative No................... Subpart QQQQQ contains no
Nonopacity Emission work practice standards.
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)..................... Compliance with Opacity No................... Subpart QQQQQ contains no
and Visible Emission opacity or VE limits.
Standards.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).............. Applicability and No................... Subpart QQQQQ includes
Performance Test Dates. dates for initial
compliance
demonstrations.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)......... Performance Testing No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Requirements. require performance
tests.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Requirements... Yes.
(3), (f)(1)-(5).
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Additional Monitoring No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Requirements for Control require flares.
Devices in 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. Continuous Monitoring No................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
System (CMS) Requirements. requirements for
operation of monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................. Continuous Opacity No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Monitoring System (COMS) require COMS.
Minimum Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).................. Zero and High Level No................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
Calibration Check calibration
Requirements. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8).............. Out-of-Control Periods.... No................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
out-of-control periods
and reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(d)..................... CMS Quality Control....... No................... Subpart QQQQQ requires a
monitoring plan that
specifies CMS quality
control procedures.
Sec. 63.8(e)..................... CMS Performance Evaluation No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
require performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. Relative Accuracy Test No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Audit (RATA) Alternative. require continuous
emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5).............. Data Reduction............ No................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d), (h)-(j)........ Notification Requirements. Yes.................. Except that subpart QQQQQ
does not require
performance tests or
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.9(e)..................... Notification of No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Performance Test. require performance
tests.
Sec. 63.9(f)..................... Notification of VE/Opacity No................... Subpart QQQQQ contains no
Test. opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.9(g)..................... Additional Notifications No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
When Using CMS. require performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(a),(b), (d)(1), (d)(4)- Recordkeeping and Yes.
(5), (e)(3), (f). Reporting Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15)... Additional Records for CMS No................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
record requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............. Records of Excess No................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
Emissions and Paramter record requirements.
Monitoring Exceedances
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................. Reporting Results of No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Performance Tests. require performance
tests.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................. Reporting Opacity or VE No................... Subpart QQQQQ contains no
Observations. opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............. Additional CMS Reports.... No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................. Reporting COMS Data....... No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.11....................... Control Device No................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12-63.15................. Delegation, Addresses, Yes.
Incorporation by
Reference Availability of
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-24887 Filed 10-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P